Should we need brains to play rpgs?

RPGPundit · August 20, 2007, 12:01:13 PM

Or, alternately, every party needs only one min-maxer to ruin a good campaign. Because suddenly, regular joe orc-killer is being utterly eclipsed by the fucktard who made a halfling warrior/rogue/bard/orcslayer combo, took the special "orc slaying" feat-combo and maxed out his knowledge:cooking skill to take advantage of Obscure Synergy Bonus #3897 that effectively ends up giving him a +39 to Orc Slaying.

So suddenly, the guy who trusted that having a trusty fighter was pretty much the definition of the guy who was going to be killing orcs in the party is faced with an assmunch who's playing a halfling whatever-the-fuck-class-it-is master-chef that's making Joe look useless, and Joes' player's fun is ruined.

RPGPundit

Warthur · August 20, 2007, 02:57:11 PM

Quote from: RPGPunditSo suddenly, the guy who trusted that having a trusty fighter was pretty much the definition of the guy who was going to be killing orcs in the party is faced with an assmunch who's playing a halfling whatever-the-fuck-class-it-is master-chef that's making Joe look useless, and Joes' player's fun is ruined.

I think this must be the thinking behind the stated goal in 4E to improve the focus on each character's niche in the party. Apparently several people at Wizards were really surprised when they saw some of the min-maxed character builds that started coming out after 3.0 was released because they never considered that people would play out-of-niche: they assumed that people who wanted to hit things would play fighters, people who wanted to heal, preach and provide mild support in combat would play clerics and so on. They never considered what would happen if, say, someone took the cleric class and then turned it into an unstoppable combat tank.

Bradford C. Walker · August 20, 2007, 03:08:08 PM

That's why the Character Optimization forum at WOTC's site is the single best forum for D&D, and why the very best there ought to've been brought across the fold; no one is better at stress-testing than the min-maxers, and they like documenting their successful game-breakings.

Drew · August 20, 2007, 03:34:09 PM

Yeah, the millions of hours of stress-testing that comes post publication simply can't be replicated during the playtest phases.

Blackleaf · August 20, 2007, 04:13:10 PM

QuoteMy wife loves Wizardry and Heroes of Might and Magic. She has played D&D and finds it sort of enjoyable, but I could never get her to actually play in a regular game. Why? Because she is introverted and finds the act of talking in character and expressing her ideas in front of a group of people uncomfortable.

I think talking in 1st person as your character is over-rated, and too highly stressed in a lot of groups. I think 3rd person is often a better approach, both for the player and the other people at the table.

jrients · August 20, 2007, 04:14:36 PM

Quote from: StuartI think talking in 1st person as your character is over-rated, and too highly stressed in a lot of groups. I think 3rd person is often a better approach, both for the player and the other people at the table.

I totally agree. Both approaches have their uses.

chuckles · August 20, 2007, 04:30:21 PM

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThat's why the Character Optimization forum at WOTC's site is the single best forum for D&D, and why the very best there ought to've been brought across the fold; no one is better at stress-testing than the min-maxers, and they like documenting their successful game-breakings.

Except they acknowledge that most of the stuff they come up with isn't going to be allowed at a table top game.

Bradford C. Walker · August 20, 2007, 05:38:53 PM

Quote from: chucklesExcept they acknowledge that most of the stuff they come up with isn't going to be allowed at a table top game.

Not necessarily a contradiction. More GMs should spend time in forums like the CharOp forum specifically to find these things, especially the ones that aren't the ridiculous corner-cases but instead are the more subtle ones that can creep up on a GM, and be prepared accordingly.

chuckles · August 20, 2007, 05:45:50 PM

What's there that is going to creep up on you?

Dirk Remmecke · August 21, 2007, 06:59:53 AM

Quote from: WarthurI think this must be the thinking behind the stated goal in 4E to improve the focus on each character's niche in the party. Apparently several people at Wizards were really surprised when they saw some of the min-maxed character builds that started coming out after 3.0 was released because they never considered that people would play out-of-niche ...

Like they were surprised about those instant death combos in MTG. They never considered that a Magic player actually could have all the cards - all 295 of them! - multiple times!

FASERIP · August 22, 2007, 05:28:44 AM

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerNot necessarily a contradiction. More GMs should spend time in forums like the CharOp forum specifically to find these things, especially the ones that aren't the ridiculous corner-cases but instead are the more subtle ones that can creep up on a GM, and be prepared accordingly.

Reading fora regularly to munchkin-proof my game doesn't sound like fun to me. YMMVWTFBBQ.

I agree with chuckles' assumption: just say no. It's also easier to avoid certain players than to try to circumvent their powergaming tastes.