|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 5, 2009 3:21:33 GMT -5
(From the Vault of Alex again, yeah, he was on a roll)
Too many times we see the mechanics that are supposed to help the story gain structure get in the way of details that easily would have been more cinematic or pleasing to the game session, that turn to fodder for humor at a failed check or a side-lining rules check-up once the GM made a "bad call".
Not only that, but why do we metagame our way to ridiculous Min/Max characters that really make other party members useless standbys or even just milk the rules for something dull like damage output at the possible expense of an interesting character trait?
Dump stats? Dual-weilded monkey-grip greatswords? Vow of Poverty Monks? Magic Item Wal-Marts? Or the occasional Roid packed (too many feats in one category) Fighter/Archer who carries 800 arrows of all crazy varieties just in case??
Role Playing was never about winning or losing, so why is it played like Monopoly instead of like Star Wars?
Is the key to perfection really imperfection? Or is that just a myth put out by people with low self esteem? lol
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 5, 2009 6:28:50 GMT -5
Min/Maxing is akin to a feral dog biting at anything that comes close to their food dish when they're eating. A theory of mine is that the majority of min/maxers have had bad experiences with Tyrant GMs in the past and expect the worst from anything a GM throws at them. How is a 16 in Charisma important when you are hanging from a cliff by your pinky surrounded by flying hell-slugs?
Its a bad habit that is hard to kick...but, and this is a fairly gargantuan but (Sir Mixalot comes to mind), Min/Maxing and Roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. So what if you are a muder-death-kill God Machine on the battlefield? If you can add the "th"s at the end of your "do"s during an extended dialogue scene and can get in character with the best of them, then I see no problem with you being able to slaughter 1000 kobolds mercilessly with the mighty swing of your +10 Instadeth Chain Sword.
It might blow to have your dragon be taken down by a PC who would make Ares cry, but it blows harder when a player has to reroll a character after putting too many points in Charisma and got that feat that lets him tip-toe through the tulips with the greatest of ease for the sake of Roleplay, and not enough points or feats in the areas that will help him survive the greatest dangers of being an Adventurer/Supernatural Being/Shadowrunner/What-Have-You.
If we can cure the problem of Antagonistic GMs, then we can slowly rid the world of the seeming necessity of Min/Maxing.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 5, 2009 6:48:32 GMT -5
On another note. Roleplaying /should/ (Operative word) never be about winning and losing, but the last I checked the untimely death of a character for something stupid sure feels like losing.
The big thing that I think is often lost in translation is that what we do on Saturdays and Sunday nights is not Roleplaying...what we are doing is playing a Roleplaying Game. Notice the added word "Game." When that word is involved there is occasionally found to be feelings of achievement and defeat, otherwise known as winning and losing. These feelings are not to be cast into the wind or called a weakness, they are helpful to aiding in the retention of interest. Without the word "Game", one merely plays a glorified version of house (not to be confused with the Fox TV show), which can only garner so much interest from roleplaying game enthusiasts such as myself.
On the other hand if one leans too far on the Game side of things, roleplaying games degenerate into number crunching exercises with a dollop of imagination thrown on top. This, again, can only garner so much interest from roleplaying game enthusiasts such as myself.
In conclusion, one should not deride number crunchers while playing a Roleplaying Game as long as they contribute to the roleplaying side of things even in the smallest of ways. As well as to the actors, do not deride them as long as they do not distract from the enjoyment of the Game side of things. There are as many ways to enjoy a Roleplaying Game as there are ways to eat a Reese's, and it is unjust to mock someone if they happen to like eating the middle last.
|
|
|
Post by labael on Dec 5, 2009 7:02:35 GMT -5
In all serious there is failure of GM's to make games that are Social, Skillful, and Combative.
Min/maxing is a matter of knowing what the character will be up against and how best to deal with it. If a GM has all aspects of game play than a min/maxer will find him/herself unable to do it all, allowing other characters to take the spot light.
As can will be seen in my werewolf game. The first episode gauged everyone's character's RP style and strengths of their characters. Each episode should play to that style and strength. For example Rob's character is a skill based character. So there were options for tracking, investigation, (possibility for stealth), and such.
Now I want to remind everyone there is a natural tendency for people to want their character to be the best they can be. Note there are numerous literary, mythic, and athletic figures that wanted to be the best. The Raistlin Majere's, Michael Jordan's, Hercules, and etc. Elminster, Goku, Samuari Jack, Nolan Ryan.
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 5, 2009 7:07:42 GMT -5
I really do get the idea that some have been wronged, and that taking an RP feat doesn't help the cliffhanger. But building Ares doesn't appeal to me either.
I have gotten the feel in several parties that just because I place a higher value on the rp than the action that I simply shouldn't play dut to either me being bored most of the time, or boring others by wasting their time.
I prefer 9/10 times to work my way around combat, simply because it eats up time where story is not being told, and that bores me a lot. Combat always did and always will...even the funny parts, are still a side-sleight. I do like a healthy mix, so that all players have a fair ratio of what drives the game and their attention spans.
I also usually see Ares/God-like characters in the party as my cue as a player to play the bard with STR as the dump to balance things. I mean, with a toon like him leading the charge every battle, he has little need for being distracted to save my behind just because I can't build a character half as well. And thats if I managed to stay interested enough to even sheet one anyways.
There are also several players I've seen over years, whether I have played with them or not, where it honestly doesn't seem to matter at all what the story is, just winning...that just bugs me.
All in all, I like powerful characters, they are interesting. Where would Frodo be without Gandalf afterall? It just so happens I'd rather be Pippen, where most would usually prefer to be Aragorn or better. So, not really a peasant, with no skills at all, but still at a fairly high disadvantage in comparison to see if I can hack it.
|
|
Fenix
Journeyman
Who in the hell do you think I am?
Posts: 162
|
Post by Fenix on Dec 5, 2009 11:43:22 GMT -5
Min Max, sure its one thing when you go into the game knowing that no matter what you do the DM will one up you so you do your best to get you licks in before going down. The problem lies in when its what defines your character and not what he does. When you talk about your character it should be his exploits, not his feats the define him.
If you play it into the game then sure you have role played a roll orientated item, but don't come to the table with the idea that you are the end all be all cause you have great cleave feat, so rp is not needed ( I have seen that happen a few times)
The group I started with and still play with has always told me "There is no winning the game, or losing the game." and B, Rock, and Bale you have all told me this at one point or another when i was on a min/maxing trip.
|
|
Lady Masquerade
Journeyman
Look into my eyes. Do you see who I see?
Posts: 174
|
Post by Lady Masquerade on Dec 5, 2009 16:47:37 GMT -5
I like what I've seen so far. Especially the part about the Reese's. Mmm, peanut butter.
But the other stuff too!! I know I don't want to try and "charm" away the flying hell-slugs with my dashing good lucks while dangling by my pinky. "I'm too beautiful to die!"
I don't know that I've ever min/maxed a character, certainly not intentionally. Min/maxing can sort of create a need for the party though, and allow one person to take up where another lacks. This something best done through group party-building, something which sort of got dropped, mostly by no one's fault by mine, because I love to hear a good story so much, that I didn't want to hear about yours until we got to the table and I could hear it from the character him/herself. But that makes a for a hard time of trying to keep a party that knows nothing about each other together.
But anyway, roll play vs. role play. I have always favored the Roleplay, viewing the rolling as, already mentioned, keeping the game from becoming Cops and Robbers. If you can justify what you do through role play, by all means go for it. If you have absolutely no skill in tumbling, have probably never even done a somersault in your life, can barely jump two feet off the ground because of your full plate, and for the same reason couldn't sneak up on a dead mule, but your character's wish in the next round is to try and sneak up on the camp of goblins, want to try and leap up onto the passing warwagon, or cartwheel down the hill for joy, there's no reason the GM should say "No, you can't do that." If he decides to put a checklist of a dozen different things to do in order to succeed, that's his choice, but you as the player have the right to try with full knowledge that you'll probably end up flat on your face. But what if your rolls back up your role? You could save the day, beat the BBEG, or do whatever and let that be your character's shining moment.
Mentioned before also was the feeling of untimely death due to something stupid feeling like "losing." No one likes to see their characters die, unless you're just that sadistic and hate your character, which in that case, why did you make him/her? But min/maxers also can't be afraid of the crowning moment in a roleplayer's repetoire. The epic un/timely death. The time when you and your party have battled long and hard against an almost informidable opponent, losing hit points and spells prepared along the way. Perhaps you're sitting up there feeling high and mighty with your dual-wielded monkey-grip Megadeath Greatswords of +1 bajillion Doom, comfortably resting on the fact that you've taken a few hits (they'll make excellent story scars later) but still have well more than half your HP, and the healer in the group hasn't even needed to touch you yet. But then the dice of fate drops with a resounding thud on the table behind the DM's screen. And then again, and then again, and the DM looks at you with either shock and horror or a look of malevolent glee (depending on your DM). Your character has just been reduced to a steaming pile of bantha poodoo by some force you can't even identify because you no longer can make perception checks without any senses. But in response, the party of "nobodies" that has been backin your min/maxed godly a$$ up charge together as one and slay the BBEG in the name of your honor and glory. Goodbye to one lonely little min/maxer who sat at the top and thought he had it all, but gave an entire party a chance to be heroes. Now in that instance, did the roll play really detract all that much from the role play?
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 5, 2009 23:26:33 GMT -5
The crowning moment of a roleplayer's repertoire isn't, in my opinion, the epic untimely death as the result of triple 20s. Yes you shouldn't be afraid of character death, if it fits the story at hand. Its my opinion that a character shouldn't die to sheer bad luck, bad choices yes, but purely the unlucky drop of a die no...there are much better consequences to be placed on a character in a story that can result from the throw of a bad die.
This should be a mantra for every GM: do not stop the flow of the game, add complications and move on. The Death of a character stops the flow of the Game for at least one player, or adds the tedious complication of searching out a method of resurrection for the now deceased character. It hampers the flow of the story for something as inane as a trip 20 or a single failed death save.
Now, if our min/maxer had entered the fight with the dragon knowing that it was going to be a hard fought battle, and decides to act as the martyr while the rest of the group retreats. Then, we have a great example of Roleplay and the death of a min/maxer. If the GM can only defeat someone only with a trip 20 then they're doing something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by labael on Dec 9, 2009 10:12:33 GMT -5
Its my opinion that a character shouldn't die to sheer bad luck, bad choices yes, but purely the unlucky drop of a die no...there are much better consequences to be placed on a character in a story that can result from the throw of a bad die. This should be a mantra for every GM: do not stop the flow of the game, add complications and move on. The Death of a character stops the flow of the Game for at least one player, or adds the tedious complication of searching out a method of resurrection for the now deceased character. It hampers the flow of the story for something as inane as a trip 20 or a single failed death save. I believe that bad luck is important. Bad choices may be more important, but the loss of the the chance to epic fail or epic succeed is something I feel is important. It makes that army of goblins v.s. lvl 20 fighter a slight fear due to the rule of probability . It provides interesting stories. Nicoli killing all those gang bangers. Sniping them. Having a shoot out in his apartment. And finally dying by a lone grenade thrown by one. (Nicoli rolled a 1 and fell on the grenade). Or the reason we never ask a muppet for a knife.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 9, 2009 11:26:59 GMT -5
Bad luck is important, yes, but not 5% chance bad luck. Every time an expert does something dangerous, such as climb a rock face or toss a grenade, the chances of him catastrophically failing is much less than 5%. Statistically speaking according to the Critical failure rule, for every twenty times a 15 year veteran of the Navy Seals takes a shot he will blow either his own or his friend's face off at least once. This is a little too ridiculous.
To me, death by bad luck should only come if it suits the situation.
Death by good luck on the enemy's part is another situation entirely. The enemies aren't there to kill off the character's through sheer luck alone. You don't (at least I don't) want the measly kobold minion in Room 1 to annihilate the party's muscle in the first round of combat because I rolled triple 20. Now if the enemy is lucky in the fact that it hits often and it hits hard, then I have no real problem with that. Luck truly was not on the party's side. A statistical fluke may be a funny story to tell, but it doesn't really provide much substance besides comedy for everyone else but the casualty.
This is especially true when playing in a setting that resurrection is impossible. Your character's story ends abruptly and cannot be continued, all because a statistical fluke was not in your favor.
I've decided to never use the triple 20 rule again for either side of the DM's screen, but if I were to use it, it wouldn't be instant death, it would be instant unconsciousness.
To me the whole insta-death thing just turns me off. It would be like taking a d100 and at the beginning of every scene rolling it and determining whether or not each character had a stroke or brain aneurysm. Its out of the player's control, there are no contingencies, there is no defense, its abrupt, there is nothing anyone else can do about it, and its abrupt and meaningless.
Oh, and like I said before, there are alternatives to death by bad luck. Just add complications and keep the story rolling for everyone involved.
Just my $0.02
|
|
Fenix
Journeyman
Who in the hell do you think I am?
Posts: 162
|
Post by Fenix on Dec 9, 2009 12:17:13 GMT -5
Not to disagree or agree with the fact the bad luck deaths. Lord know I lost one character numerous times cause of bad luck. But even in really life, sometimes bad things just happen.
Some times things just go wrong, the other guy got lucky, or some force out side the players control happened along. For those that believe in Murphy's law that know things can and will go wrong at every chance. This is not say the character should be scared to walk out doors, but most characters know they are taking a risk when they walk out the door. So it comes down to Dm style.
On the flip side the Dm is able to say it never happened, sure the lvl 1 goblin shouldn't take out the tank, but it could happen. So as a Dm you decide whether to tether to rules or intervene and save the character be altering how it should have happened. Rock mention that a triple 20 is not instant death but just getting knocked out, that is one way of handling it.
Again it all comes down to if you play by the rules no questions or you bend them a little for story flow. Its a dual edged sword, it can be great or it could be frustrating. But how its handled in the end might determine the overall results
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 10, 2009 4:18:35 GMT -5
Bad luck is important, yes, but not 5% chance bad luck. Statistically speaking according to the Critical failure rule, for every twenty times a 15 year veteran of the Navy Seals takes a shot he will blow either his own or his friend's face off at least once. This is a little too ridiculous. Whether its the fault of the rookie, or the experience, or even the Intel, $h*t happens. I do not necessarily agree that 5% is the right application for either critical awesome or critical catastrophe. Nor do I agree that every situation demands such "luck". While the dice provide the mechanic for ruling ones situation in each and every endeavor that the books manage to cover, if it happens in real life, and only has a "infinity vs. one" chance of failure in fact, just skip the roll and tell the story. Now, put me in as a full-sized tank, drudging over a wasteland, and a shopping cart is in my path. DO NOT roll any dice to determine if the cart is crushed...I mean, come on. Keep it simple, stuff that always works, always works. And I know that the cart didn't DO anything, and that it isn't necessary to run it over, and that it DOESN'T even belong in a wasteland, but it was there, and I crushed it, end of story. There is absolutely NO chance that that cart is solid enough to tip the tank up and roll over onto itself on a "1" dropped on the table. Its just ridiculous. If you touch dice when I'm in a tank vs. a shopping cart, I am warning in advance, I'm out of the game, unless that cart is some kind of mystical or horrific illusion meant to lure me to it for the fun of crushing ANYTHING in a wasteland. I mean, if I was a GM, I would probably do something like that just to strike up action, but I'd first question, "why the crap are you in a tank in the wasteland n my game anyway? I mean, aren't you just begging me to smite your supposed arrogance/awesomeness in such an instance?" Think before you roll, and please for the love of the game, insert more behind the curtain rolls. I spend all that time writing up a sheet for the GM to use so he can, um, USE it. Perception checks are a perfect example. Why should I be rolling dice to find a secret door unless I told the GM specifically that I'm looking for one? In EVERY single room of the dungeon. If the book says its a built in ability, help the flow along and roll it before we even go near that door. Show me what I see, tell me what I hear, and let me play. If I'm suspicious, then I could ask, and you may allow me to roll at that point. Like say, if my perception was good enough to feel the draft coming from the door because I'm leaning against it. Now I'm rolling dice. Its an adventure, not Yahtzee. Perception is only one example; GMs have plenty of opportunities for good story telling secret rolls and such. Measure of success is something else I'd like to see more of. Success is not usually just success. If it was, we'd all either be able to make a sandwich, or we wouldn't. But this is more in tune. And I can make a stellar sandwich if I take my time, which shows a greater measure of success. Taking a "10" and taking a "20" or "one success" and "four successes" is different for a reason. And every measure of success in between is fun too. Sometimes success is measured on more than one roll, like the way D&D or Warhammer squares it. Once to hit, once for place, once for damage and so on. Then there's WoD, where one drop determines success and damage, so it should be told that way shouldn't it? If I hack an enemy with a machete, and roll 2 successes and then 4, it does 6 damage against no defense. So therefore, if I hack a computer network with only 2 successes, I not only get access to the mainframe, but also discover the ability to power up the generators in case we're on the island longer and will need the reserve. However a roll of 4 successes could find me exactly what I am looking for when I start poking around, only an exceptional (5 or more) success would point me to an otherwise hidden file that would show me who is responsible for the horrific experiments on the island, which may also contain a flaw the party can exploit. Now that's success, even though we were just trying to turn the lights back on so we can see to get away from the raptors at the door.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 10, 2009 6:24:40 GMT -5
Not to disagree or agree with the fact the bad luck deaths. Lord know I lost one character numerous times cause of bad luck. But even in really life, sometimes bad things just happen. Some times things just go wrong, the other guy got lucky, or some force out side the players control happened along. For those that believe in Murphy's law that know things can and will go wrong at every chance. This is not say the character should be scared to walk out doors, but most characters know they are taking a risk when they walk out the door. So it comes down to Dm style. On the flip side the Dm is able to say it never happened, sure the lvl 1 goblin shouldn't take out the tank, but it could happen. So as a Dm you decide whether to tether to rules or intervene and save the character be altering how it should have happened. Rock mention that a triple 20 is not instant death but just getting knocked out, that is one way of handling it. Again it all comes down to if you play by the rules no questions or you bend them a little for story flow. Its a dual edged sword, it can be great or it could be frustrating. But how its handled in the end might determine the overall results Just to clarify, the whole triple twenty thing, I believe, is a house rule that is commonly used, not a Rule as Written. And again, I'm not against bad things happening due to bad luck. I'm just not a fan of a story ending due to the 1.25 in 10,000 chance that you will instantly die resulting from a to hit roll or the 1 in 20 chance that you'll roll a 1. The argument of the trip twenty and the natural 1 is irrelevant for me anyways, since it only pertains to D&D 3.5 and earlier and I don't really plan on playing those games much if any. I'm only really arguing from the point of gaming theory and philosophy. For instance, in the Storyteller System insta-death can only occur in the most dire of situations. First, circumstances must be so against you that the cumulative penalties force you to only have a chance die to roll. Second, you must roll a one on that single die. And third, the situation has to be such that death can be a likely result (and no death is not always a likely result). As far as I can recall, there isn't any Dramatic Failure entry that results in death. Now all this is barring a single hit killing you from an enemy through superior tactics, situations, or sheer power (if you recall, I'm not against this even in D&D).
|
|
Fenix
Journeyman
Who in the hell do you think I am?
Posts: 162
|
Post by Fenix on Dec 11, 2009 1:52:05 GMT -5
As for driving in a tank and getting flipped by a shopping cart, well I could see if happening if the cart was the cover of a land mine or something. Sure then the "cart" is the reason you would flip, but honestly you will flatten the damn thing anyway.
Werther you use rules as a mean to a end, make things up as you go mix it up once and awhile, as long as you and the players are having fun what does it matter. But if you are just making them roll on say heating up soup in the off chance that it blows up cause you rolled a one, well chances are not many people will stick with the game to long unless they enjoy that kind of game. (just using a extreme example here)
Sure once in awhile use the "bad luck" ruling and have fun with it, but like all thing, moderation is the key.
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 11, 2009 2:56:44 GMT -5
As this thread twists into a never ending vortex about chance, rather than roll-playing vs. role-playing, I will now make an attempt to bring the original topic back into light.
We do need a balance of these qualities on players for a successful game, yes? At least the feeling I get so far here is exactly that. The mechanically inclined player knows that the work he placed into skills and attributes are there because he hoped to see them get used. An acting role-play driven type truly longs for the same thing.
So here's my new challenge for GMs. Along with the things mentioned in prior posts, please consider this:
After players makes their sheets, (recording all that makes them capable, handicap-able, strong, or weak) do them a favor, and make it count. Look those sheets over a bit, and USE what is on it in the story. If my greatest vice is lust, then tempt me! If my greatest strength is stealth, please test it, or at least allow me to use it from time to time, otherwise the focus of the character is lost.
My personal assets/faults are tested in everyday life. My lack of organization and discipline cause me setbacks. Finance, ignorance, and laziness then work against me all the time. Oppositely however, my network of friends, and determination to see through important goals are the very things that steadily overcome my greatest obstacles. They are rarely if ever easy, and have truly warranted some great stories to tell about an otherwise average and unexceptional life so far.
Not to try to get too philosophical, I am just pointing out that these differences, like any others should bring us together just as much as set us apart. This used to be the very make-up of a great balance in a gaming group.
Some of us never know what to say, some never know what to do. Others always know and simply can't express it. Some think on their feet, others study single situations to exhaustion.
I certainly prefer the side of the game that lets me leave dice in the bag or out of sight and mind entirely. But I also know that damage dealing, and measurements of success which I discussed earlier are not always easy to gage without these dice.
I mean, talking your way out of every situation in life simply can't help you against (and I hate using against) a GM who is a lot less social themselves is nearly entirely a waste of time. Allowing you to make your full, clear argument of course, but then having you drop that low number of chance anyway, completely washing your sound statements away easily and without a bat of an eye.
Then there are GMs (probably like myself) who frustrate players who greedily grab at dice to roll chance for an act they haven't even declared yet, just to be told it is a plain success or failure simply because it moves story forward and probably doesn't matter that much to us. I am guilty of this, and I must try to break my habit.
We all have strengths and weaknesses when we split hairs on this topic. I have plenty in my ignorance of rules. Trying to replace it with cinematic intrigue just doesn't work for everyone. Boring me with the numbers doesn't work for me either. I will try to improve whether or not you will. Because I want everyone who plays a game to have fun. And I am tired of quitting, even when it feels right and justified.
|
|