A great post I saw on another site. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=467832#post10759773) This pretty much sums up my own experiences.
Quote from: David J ProkopetzTo hear certain segments of the "role-playing, not roll-playing!" crowd define it:
Min-maxer: A player who understands how the game's rules operate.
Munchkin: A player who favours the style of play that the game's rules encourage and facilitate, as opposed to the style of play that the game's self-promotional text claims the rules encourage and facilitate.
Power-gamer: A player who wishes for his or her character to be competent.
The Evolution of Munchkin (http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html).
By Monte Cook.
By that token, drug cheats in sport are just min/maxers. Since I believe performance-enhancing chemicals should be open slather in professional sport, I don't know if that's a criticism of the OP or not.
Prokopetz must be a munchkin. All three are the same thing.
With the way XP is awarded for mainly killing monsters, it's not too surprising that min-maxing/munchkin-ism/powergaming is inevitable. With very little to no XP awarded for role playing, figuring out stuff, diplomacy, etc ... it's not too surprising the approach many players take is killing all the monsters and taking all the loot. Whether D&D was intentionally designed this way from the very beginning, nobody will know. The two original designers are both dead, and we can't personally ask them anymore.
I've noticed that DMs who constantly complain about stuff like powergamers/munchkins/min-max, typically don't understand that the problem is in the rules system itself intrinsically. Either that, or they prefer to turn a blind eye to it. It's like an alcoholic blaming all their health problems on everything and everybody else, but not on their own actions and the booze itself.
If a game was designed with XP awarded mainly for role playing, diplomacy, figuring out stuff, etc ... and very little to no XP for killing monsters, that would completely change the nature of the game. A railroad-like version of this type of game, would probably resemble a murder mystery type game.
Exactly, if you want players that do X but the rules encourage Y, then its a bit silly to complain about the players doing Y, just make the rules encourage X instead. It works a lot easier than telling players that they should role play more.
In a well designed game the people who understand/care about the mechanics a lot are going to act in about the same way as the people who don't care about/understand the mechanics.
Not really. In GURPS and Ars Magica you get no xp for killing things, but you still get shitloads of munchkins.
Munchkinism is a personality flaw corrected by GM bias and in-game pwning, it has nothing to do with game mechanics.
Quote from: ggroy;320520With the way XP is awarded for mainly killing monsters, it's not too surprising that min-maxing/munchkin-ism/powergaming is inevitable. With very little to no XP awarded for role playing, figuring out stuff, diplomacy, etc ... it's not too surprising the approach many players take is killing all the monsters and taking all the loot. Whether D&D was intentionally designed this way from the very beginning, nobody will know. The two original designers are both dead, and we can't personally ask them anymore.
I've noticed that DMs who constantly complain about stuff like powergamers/munchkins/min-max, typically don't understand that the problem is in the rules system itself intrinsically. Either that, or they prefer to turn a blind eye to it. It's like an alcoholic blaming all their health problems on everything and everybody else, but not on their own actions and the booze itself.
If a game was designed with XP awarded mainly for role playing, diplomacy, figuring out stuff, etc ... and very little to no XP for killing monsters, that would completely change the nature of the game. A railroad-like version of this type of game, would probably resemble a murder mystery type game.
Bullshit.
The rules for gaining XP in noncombat situations were covered in 3.x D&D as far back as the first printing of the D&D 3.0 Player's Handbook. They are in the section in the back of the book.
Y'all know you don't REALLY have to use those little xp charts, right? I mean, they're the only part of a rulebook I'll probably never use. And I'm with Kyle here, BTW. (Dude, if I contradict him he might punch me. Have you seen that avatar? Geez. Hasta la vista, Kyle)
Quote from: David J Prokopetz Min-maxer: A player who understands how the game's rules operate.
No, this is a term about how a player goes about building his characters. Not a bad thing in itself. Not every competent player min-maxes.
Quote from: David J Prokopetz Munchkin: A player who favours the style of play that the game's rules encourage and facilitate, as opposed to the style of play that the game's self-promotional text claims the rules encourage and facilitate.
Complete bullshit! A munchkin is a player that ruins a game by behaving badly. So the cheaters and tards that slink off to another room when they don't get their way are munchkins too.
Quote from: David J Prokopetz Power-gamer: A player who wishes for his or her character to be competent.
Close. A player who wishes for his or her character to be as effective as possible would be a less insulting way of putting it.
All three fit the same definition: a useless little bitch who won't be missed.
BTW, OD&D and AD&D 1e XP is primarily focussed on acquisition of gold and magic items. Monsters are a poor method of XP gain compared to loot.
Palladium's XP system is heavy on roleplay / decision rewards with combat rewards being secondary.
As I understand it, a min-maxer is simply a powergamer in one particular mode, or a powergamer who is not aware that other modes (of powergaming) exist. The perspective, right or wrong, is that the game in question favours specialisation over generalisation, and, being powergamers, they obviously want to play a character whose statistics are favoured by the system.
Powergamers? Of course, they want to have the most powerful characters possible. They also might, if necessary, sacrifice other things to make that so. Or possibly just take those other things down a few notches of priority.
Munchkins should just find a different kind of game (i.e., not a roleplaying game.) Cards, minis, pixels, whatever. Yes, they might still be annoying little shits in those games too, but the effect will be less extreme, and sometimes not even noticeable (hopefully.)
Quote from: jeff37923;320537The rules for gaining XP in noncombat situations were covered in 3.x D&D as far back as the first printing of the D&D 3.0 Player's Handbook. They are in the section in the back of the book.
The problem I found with using a noncombat XP table (such as challenge ratings in 3E/3.5E adapted to noncombat stuff), or in general deciding how much XP to award for clever role playing, diplomacy, figuring stuff out, etc ... was determining how much XP should be awarded in the first place. In my games where role playing was the emphasis and combat was deemphasized, these noncombat CR-like XP tables were not particularly effective. Elegant or clever solutions should be awarded more XP imho, but how much exactly.
In a few games, I dealt with the problem by eliminating XP altogether and where leveling up was done by DM fiat. Typically it was around 8 to 10 encounters, I would have the players level up. Though if players were able to use role playing, diplomacy, figuring things out, etc ... they would level up significantly faster. If the players did everything by hack and slash and taking all the loot, it would take significantly longer to level up. I told the group up front from the beginning that's how I was going to be DM'ing the game. In these particular games, the munchkins/powergamers/minmaxers were frequently killed off by the other players themselves. (I allowed the players to fight and kill one another).
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;320533Not really. In GURPS and Ars Magica you get no xp for killing things, but you still get shitloads of munchkins.
Munchkinism is a personality flaw corrected by GM bias and in-game pwning, it has nothing to do with game mechanics.
Penalties to XP for killing things not meant to be killed, would also change the game dynamics significantly. This would be subtracting large XPs for doing such things.
I remember in one game where I did things in such a manner, where the munchkin type player frequently had a negative total XP and was wondering why he wasn't leveling up like the other players. He was not subtracting the XP penalties from his XP total, thinking they were XP awards. I keep track of all the player's XP. (I told all the players upfront that XP penalties were possible for doing things like killing things not meant to be killed, and doing things that would be disruptive to the party).
Quote from: jeff37923;320537The rules for gaining XP in noncombat situations were covered in 3.x D&D as far back as the first printing of the D&D 3.0 Player's Handbook. They are in the section in the back of the book.
Exactly which pages in the 3E PHB are you referring to?
Skimming through my 3E/3.5E books, they mentioned noncombat XP stuff on pages 168-169 in the 3E DMG and pages 40-41 in the 3.5E DMG. In these particular sections, they describe the challenge ratings CR and XP awards as being more ad hoc to determine.
Quote from: ggroy;320520With the way XP is awarded for mainly killing monsters, it's not too surprising that min-maxing/munchkin-ism/powergaming is inevitable.
I disagree. In just about every D20 game I've played or GMed in (3.0, 3.5, D20 Modern) my group levels up at the GMs discretion. Every few sessions or so, at the end, everyone in the group is awarded a level.
We still get min-max players and munchkins so it isn't related to XP in any way. For my group, some people just want to be the best at what they do and enjoy spending time hunting through rulebooks looking for the optimal combination of feats, skills and class abilities to make them do the most damage or be the best all-around fighter or whatever their niche is (this almost always revolves around combat for these players).
I build characters based more on what I think best fits the concept, and these almost always end up being not quite as effective as the rulebook hunting combat monsters. I make up for it by stealing the spotlight when it comes to certain role playing encounters and it all works out in the end. Each player seems to have a part of the game where they fit in best. I let them have their fun putting up massive numbers in combat, they let me do my dirty tricks and bluffing.
Quote from: GoOrange;320590I disagree. In just about every D20 game I've played or GMed in (3.0, 3.5, D20 Modern) my group levels up at the GMs discretion. Every few sessions or so, at the end, everyone in the group is awarded a level.
That's what I've done in several games. As mentioned in previous posts, the players coming up with clever or ingenious ways of solving problems via role playing, diplomacy, and other non-combat ways, will significantly speed up their leveling up. In these particular games, I was emphasizing critical thinking and strategies in reaching particular goals of a mission.
This type of gaming style is quite an adjustment for many munchkins/powergamers/minmax types. For a few munchkins who played in some of my games conducted in this manner involving a lot of critical thinking, it turned out they actually liked this style of gaming. It wasn't something they experienced previously.
Yes, I've seen min/maxers, powergamers, and munchkins in just about every game, including games with no XP system or where leveling up was at the GMs' discretion, even in games where the primary focus was not on combat!
So the whole thing is about the personality, not about the game being played.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;320639Yes, I've seen min/maxers, powergamers, and munchkins in just about every game, including games with no XP system or where leveling up was at the GMs' discretion, even in games where the primary focus was not on combat!
So the whole thing is about the personality, not about the game being played.
RPGPundit
Quoth for truth...
I, too, have seen that munchkinism is endemic to certain personality types.
I will add, however, that those personality types tend to be attracted to certain games more than others.
I also agree that munchkins will abuse any game. They're after imaginary power, and nothing will stop them from getting it but divine (GM) intervention, and in some cases not even that without severe and game-collapsing drama.
We actually used to use one of these guys for playtesting some of the projects I worked on some years back, because he could literally find the loophole in pretty much any game in just one readthrough and wind up with an unstoppable machine. He actually had a pretty cynical view of the quality of the average RPG, because in his view these loopholes were painfully obvious and should've been spotted in playtest ages ago, but once there, he had no qualms about taking advantage of it.
Made it a handy playtest tool, but I seldom enjoyed actually playing with the guy.
There are two types of gamers: the dickheads and everybody else. Don't game with the dickheads.
Quote from: noisms;320882There are two types of gamers: the dickheads and everybody else. Don't game with the dickheads.
QFT.
Ah, if only it were that simple!
Sometimes people are dickheads as players, but not as GMs, or vice versa. Sometimes you have to play with them for several sessions before you realise they're a dickhead. Sometimes they're only a dickhead when this other player who encourages or annoys them is around. And so on.
It'd be much easier if dickheads were always dickheads, and had some sign by which they could be easily identified. Like a copy of Cyborg Commando or something.
Myself, I love playing very powerful characters. I see people dismiss it as juvenile power fantasies (and perhaps it is, but so what). But I just have more fun when my character is way above a "foot soldier" in capacity, and can quickly become a real mover and shaker in the setting.
However, I still manage to have fairly complex "story stuff" when I play.
That stuff about the Champions players in Monte Cook's essay is very familiar to me.
Quote from: Jeffrey Straszheim;321091But I just have more fun when my character is way above a "foot soldier" in capacity, and can quickly become a real mover and shaker in the setting.
In my mind, at least, such power must be earned.
If your character starts out as way above "foot soldier" capacity, that gives the fact that you are that superior that much less meaning.
If you fought tooth and nail for that status, though, it is much more significant. It has meaning. There's nothing wrong with acquiring a ridiculous level of power, but you should go through the motions of the acquisition. If it's just handed to you, or even gotten relatively easily, it just isn't as significant, IMO.
Quote from: Jeffrey Straszheim;321091I just have more fun when my character is way above a "foot soldier" in capacity, and can quickly become a real mover and shaker in the setting.
Extraordinary people do extraordinary things. This is not remarkable. Superman stands up to and knocks over an armed robber. So what?
Ordinary people do extraordinary things. This
is remarkable. Jane Shmoe stands up to and knocks over an armed robber. Awesome!
That's why in comics supers have to end up just fighting each-other all the time. Uber-tough dudes in spandex pound each-other with no permanent injury. Oh! the suspense! the tension! whatever will happen next?!
Overpowered characters can get boring after awhile.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;321144Extraordinary people do extraordinary things. This is not remarkable. Superman stands up to and knocks over an armed robber. So what?
Ordinary people do extraordinary things. This is remarkable. Jane Shmoe stands up to and knocks over an armed robber. Awesome!
Well, here is the thing. If I'm playing the later sort of character, and the character is
in fact wimpy in the system, chances are I'll just get killed by the armed robber. So sure, that 1 out of 10 times I succeed will be really cool.
And, of course, Superman isn't a good example because his power level is so over the top -- I like being at the high end of the spectrum, but I'm not suggesting my character should be at Superman's level.
Also, I'm not suggesting my adversaries should all be pushovers. I just prefer that my adversaries be the "big bads" of the setting.
QuoteThat's why in comics supers have to end up just fighting each-other all the time. Uber-tough dudes in spandex pound each-other with no permanent injury. Oh! the suspense! the tension! whatever will happen next?!
Again, I like high power levels, but not necessarily "invulnerable super hero" levels. And I'm not into spandex :)
Quote from: GnomeWorks;321141In my mind, at least, such power must be earned.
If your character starts out as way above "foot soldier" capacity, that gives the fact that you are that superior that much less meaning.
Well, I'm trying to read this charitably, and I'll assume you are
not saying that my gaming is somehow less meaningful. Perhaps you are saying that the power itself has less meaning if I didn't work for it.
I can agree with that.
However, even at high power levels cool things happen, and a character can grow quite a bit over time, just not so much in the "power level" axis. My characters acquire history, relationships, alliances, and all that "soft" stuff. Plus, even at high power levels a good GM will provide significant challenges, some simply by having powerful enemies, but also from situations that are tough to solve through power alone. Sometimes the real issue is not whether you can solve a problem, but how you solve it.
Here is a real simple example: some guy is after my character and wants to kill him. The bad guy has an obsessive personality, and works for a powerful "troubleshooting" company that has access to mercenary bands and stuff like that.
I can easily overpower and kill him, but I don't want to piss off his company. Even though it would be hard for them to just kill me outright, they have significant political contacts, and who knows, they might get to me when I'm wounded or weakened somehow. (Plus, they can fuck up my plans, and my plans matter to me.)
So here is what I did. I called
his boss and explained the problem. I gave them a choice, either they rein the guy in or I kill him. I made it clear that I respect their power, and don't want to go to war with them.
So, they gave me permission to kill the guy, and offered me a job, which I took (and suspect I'll regret later).
It seemed like pretty "meaningful" play to me, but YMMV.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;321070Ah, if only it were that simple!
Sometimes people are dickheads as players, but not as GMs, or vice versa. Sometimes you have to play with them for several sessions before you realise they're a dickhead. Sometimes they're only a dickhead when this other player who encourages or annoys them is around. And so on.
I see what you mean, and I may have been lucky, but it hasn't been the case in my experience but for maybe one or two players I met ages ago. I usually can identify pretty quickly who I will get along with. I'm pretty good with that.
Note that I'm not advocating some sort of game table Inquisition here. Virtually everybody is a dick, sooner or later. We all have our moments. That shouldn't be a concern on the long term.
But really, when you break it down, it really comes down to: don't play with dickheads.
Quote from: ggroy;321145Overpowered characters can get boring after awhile.
Characters are only over powered if the game hasn't kept up with them. Imagine a game about martial arts fighters. First they win the city contest, then the state, then nationals, and finally the world. Then they travel into other worlds or fight aliens, get powers, and do dragon ball stuff.
If characters that are powerful enough to fight aliens are still fucking with locals, of course it will be boring.
I think a lot of GMs just aren't adaptable enough to deal with the changing nature of a game.
Quote from: Jeffrey Straszheim;321161Perhaps you are saying that the power itself has less meaning if I didn't work for it.
Yes, sorry, that's how I meant it.
QuoteIt seemed like pretty "meaningful" play to me, but YMMV.
Yeah, that seemed like a pretty good example.
The problem, IME, is that if you have ridiculously powerful characters, players have no issue slinging that power around without any thought as to the repercussions.
It's more a matter of approach, too. If you start off as a badass right out of the gate, 4e-style, then the fact that you're a badass loses a lot of meaning - you take it for granted that you're awesome. Which is more the problem I have with it. I don't have an issue with having badass characters, but that should come as the result of a lot of experience in-character, through character growth and experience in the world, rather than automagically gifted to you due to the system you're using.
It's one thing to grow a character from 1st to 30th. It's another thing entirely to start at 30th.
Quote from: Cranewings;321210I think a lot of GMs just aren't adaptable enough to deal with the changing nature of a game.
Either that, or - to use your example - if I'm looking for a low-power martial arts game, I don't necessarily want it to go all
Dragon Ball. I might want to keep it relatively low-power.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;321212It's more a matter of approach, too. If you start off as a badass right out of the gate, 4e-style, then the fact that you're a badass loses a lot of meaning - you take it for granted that you're awesome. Which is more the problem I have with it. I don't have an issue with having badass characters, but that should come as the result of a lot of experience in-character, through character growth and experience in the world, rather than automagically gifted to you due to the system you're using.
It's one thing to grow a character from 1st to 30th. It's another thing entirely to start at 30th.
Not sure I agree with that one. Plenty of games start you off powerful. the idea that in an RPG you start of small and have to work your way up isn't written in stone. When I GM'd WoD, or Amber or x many other games I often give the players a high power level to start with. I mean if I am watching Dirty Harry , I want Harry to be a kick arse I don't want to have to sit through the 3 prequels when he goes to cadet school arrests flytippers and eventually gets his big break. The GM secret is to make the challenges interesting and make the players think. In a Supers Game if the players are too tough then twist it a little make it more of an investigation. You can't remove all situations where the players have the upper hand, its a bit shit if you have built a warrior and the game turns out to be a courtroom drama and all those points/lucky rolls you spent/made are worthless, but you can mix it up.
If I get a powergamer (the other types apply just as well) in a game there are a couple of options. If they are good and roleplay as well as crunching the numbers then I will indulge them let them shine but hit them with stuff that they can't match head on (you know magic resistant bad guys, or Shadow creatures that hit you with spells but can't be harmed physically, or creatures that spew acid when hit that erodes weapons or causes burns or whatever). If they are dicks as well as being Powergamers I tend to 'rule' them out. Basically use the very rules they rely on to boss the game to beat them. No reason why the bad guys can't use grapples and trips and snares and no reason why enemy wizards can't use varieties of bigby's hand spells to undo bel buckles, tie laces together, an evil scientist can easily create a nano-cloud that disolves soft tissue.
The only unsolveable quandry is when you join a group and the powergamer is the best mate of the GM and the entire plot seems to be a way for the powergamer to acquire as much loot/Xp/prestige/stuff as possible in as short a time as possible. If that happens then well the only thing you can do is walk away.
Here are my random, disjointed thoughts about the matter:
- The problem with wankers* is not that they want to play very powerful characters, because they don't. If they did, they'd just happily play some superheroes game or Nobilis. What they want, instead, is to be more powerful than than the setting itself is. If it's a WFRP game, they want to operate on the power levels of late-edition D&D. If it's D&D, they want to have supers. If it's a supers game, they want Nobilis characters.
It's not the high power that gives them their hard-on, it's sticking out.** They're just a subset of Special Fucking Snowflakes, nothing more, nothing less.
- Someone above mentioned the DM's responsibility to "adapt" and keep up with player advancement. Well, if someone wants to do that and transform their Kung-fu game into a DragonballZ game, good for them, but that doesn't address the issue that some people don't want to turn theirs into that.
Here, I think, at least partial blame lies on the linear advancement nature of certain game systems such as D&D. If you have two times as many levels, you have two times as many HP, twice as high an attack bonus, twice as many spells, whatever. If it's fifteen times as many levels, than fifteen times as much of all that. The problem with this is that character power rapidly spirals out of the range where the setting can handle it. Once the party is 15th level, you'll need 15th level enemies to challenge them, and then you face the uncomfortable question of where these 15th level villains had been hiding until just now, and how come they haven't already taken over the world.
One example that has some built-in safeguards against this - not the best example, but probably the best known - is early editions of D&D. The gain of direct power follows the law of diminishing returns, so it's hard to get very far ahead of the rest of the universe on the power curve. Yay, your fighter is 20th level against my 15th, you have 10 more hit points! Instead, characters get new options: strongholds, followers, all sorts of alliances and contacts they gather during their - and consequently, now they can be put up against problems that simply cannot be solved by munchkinny brawn, but only by recourse to these new types of resources.
*The word being, for the purposes of this post, a collective noun for the 'bad' kind of munchkins, minmaxers and powergames.
** Ha-ha, "hard-on" "sticking out". Someone give me a rimshot.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;321213Either that, or - to use your example - if I'm looking for a low-power martial arts game, I don't necessarily want it to go all Dragon Ball. I might want to keep it relatively low-power.
Please, everyone wants to play Dragon Ball.
Premier, I always wanted to mod Dungeons and Dragons so that Armor Class and Hit points both improved with level, but only slightly. The problem with that is that all the spells and monsters will be jacked up and disproportionate.
This identifies my dislike for recent TRPG trends in a form I can work with.
Quote from: Premier;321403** Ha-ha, "hard-on" "sticking out". Someone give me a rimshot.
:emot-rimshot:
You're welcome.
Quote from: Cranewings;321507Premier, I always wanted to mod Dungeons and Dragons so that Armor Class and Hit points both improved with level, but only slightly. The problem with that is that all the spells and monsters will be jacked up and disproportionate.
Well, spell progression will need to be tweaked, true. But monsters shouldn't be a problem, you'll just use fewer of them and the party'll have to be smart and solve some situations without combat. There's no law that says a giant
must be something your X-level party can take on in groups of 3-4; it's perfectly fine to have a giant which your X-level party needs to run away from even when it's solitary.
Quote from: jibbajibba;321384Plenty of games start you off powerful. the idea that in an RPG you start of small and have to work your way up isn't written in stone.
You're right, it's not. But it is my preferred style.
Quote from: PremierThe gain of direct power follows the law of diminishing returns, so it's hard to get very far ahead of the rest of the universe on the power curve. ... Instead, characters get new options: strongholds, followers, all sorts of alliances and contacts they gather during their - and consequently, now they can be put up against problems that simply cannot be solved by munchkinny brawn, but only by recourse to these new types of resources.
An interesting question, I think, would be: why has this kind of power increase fallen by the wayside in favor of direct numerical improvement?
Quote from: CranewingsPlease, everyone wants to play Dragon Ball.
Not really...
Quote from: GnomeWorksAn interesting question, I think, would be: why has this kind of power increase fallen by the wayside in favor of direct numerical improvement?
Linear numerical progression does have diminishing returns built right in doesn't it? Let's say you're playing 3.x. Going from level 1 to level 2 doubles your hit points (or multiplies it by 1.5 if you go for that max first die crap). Going from level 15 to 16 multiplies your hit points by 1 and 1/15.
And didn't later iterations of D&D rely even more heavily on entirely new abilities as you gained levels?
The thing that's fallen by the wayside (or, more accurately, is more a function of setting and adventures than rules anyway) is stuff you earn directly through play. The one thing in this category people tend to keep track of is cash. Otherwise, most games have few if any rules for things like contacts, influence, and reputation.
Quote from: beejazz;321688The thing that's fallen by the wayside (or, more accurately, is more a function of setting and adventures than rules anyway) is stuff you earn directly through play. The one thing in this category people tend to keep track of is cash. Otherwise, most games have few if any rules for things like contacts, influence, and reputation.
Wouldn't having rules for contacts and such just make it into another "number" that everyone tries to keep improving?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;321863Wouldn't having rules for contacts and such just make it into another "number" that everyone tries to keep improving?
Quite a few games have rules for this sort of stuff. The old WoD rules have all their rules for fame, wealth, contacts etc etc Amber has devotees and contacts and other stuff. FGU games used to have a range of subculture skills that woudl let you gain information from your contacts in different areas (law enforcement, entertainment, criminal, political etc).
Quote from: GnomeWorks;321863Wouldn't having rules for contacts and such just make it into another "number" that everyone tries to keep improving?
I'd expect it would... which is part of why I don't see any need for specific rules regarding those aspects of the game. I'd rather that stuff happen organically... relationships formed between the PCs and NPCs rather than 'you did X many tasks for Y therefore your Y-rep stat has increased to Z.'
Quote from: GnomeWorks;321863Wouldn't having rules for contacts and such just make it into another "number" that everyone tries to keep improving?
I suppose it would depend on how it was handled. In the last game I was in, one of the players was very interested in recruiting NPCs as crew for his ship, and I wouldn't say it was a "just a numbers" thing. But then there was no direct system for all of this. Likewise, my character ended up running a brothel that had a similar tendency for acquiring employees and clients.
But it does strike me as odd that the only win/loss conditions in the rules nowadays are level or die. Some old school games expanded loss conditions with things like level loss, sanity rules, and limb loss (the latter two in BRP games, but I think it was a good idea). I think a few might've gone for expanded win conditions (I'm sure in Traveller at least your wealth was significant and distinct from character power, right? otherwise I'm maybe not the best person to comment on this) but even if they didn't, I think it would be a good idea for similar reasons. Or if it's not in the rules how a person might "win" outside of leveling, it should at least be included in the GMs advice.
The last time I tried to play D&D 3.x a few years ago, the DM of the group told me to make up a 5th level PC at home using a complex build point system. I made up a cleric of Odin who was an explorer and seeker of ancient knowledge. I chose all of his stats, skills, and feats with that concept in mind. Then I chose some magic items that sounded cool.
Turns out my PC was way underpowered from what these guys expected. He was a liability in their combat-heavy game, who didn't have the juice they expected from a cleric in their group. I ended up not playing again.
Now, these guys were mini-maxing powergamers. But they weren't asshats. It simply hadn't occurred to them to play 3.x as anything other than an analytical system-mastery game. And they were all happy playing that way together. I was the oddball.
I think there are a lot of better games out there if you want to exercise only the number-crunching analytical part of your mind. But if you want to play D&D to scratch that itch, all the power to you.
Quote from: Simlasa;321888I'd expect it would... which is part of why I don't see any need for specific rules regarding those aspects of the game. I'd rather that stuff happen organically... relationships formed between the PCs and NPCs rather than 'you did X many tasks for Y therefore your Y-rep stat has increased to Z.'
Simlasa, I play Vampire LARP every once in a while. It has a point buy contact system. You have to RP a little to justify your purchases, but spending experiance boosting contacts is a great way to build a character. Some people build powerful characters, and other people build helpful characters that have powerful friends.
I think having a stat for contacts in some way helps the game because it gives you a concrete understanding of what you can expect to be able to accomplish. There isn't a constant what if feeling with GM fiat totally determining what your friends can do. It is a part of the rules.
Not to mention, for some reason, it makes the game feel deeper. It shouldn't, because it is an extra stat, but it really helps.
Quote from: jibbajibba;321864The old WoD rules have all their rules for fame, wealth, contacts etc
That's not limited to the oWoD, either. In the current Storytelling System, "Contacts" and "Fame" and "Resources" are all Social Merits, purchased dot by dot with XP.
Quote from: Cranewings;322122I think having a stat for contacts in some way helps the game because it gives you a concrete understanding of what you can expect to be able to accomplish. There isn't a constant what if feeling with GM fiat totally determining what your friends can do. It is a part of the rules.
Sounds like it works for you but it's not my taste... I like the 'what if' feeling... I like being left to wonder just how friendly an NPC really is toward me... rather than looking at some stat and KNOWING that he likes me.
Quote from: Simlasa;322226Sounds like it works for you but it's not my taste... I like the 'what if' feeling... I like being left to wonder just how friendly an NPC really is toward me... rather than looking at some stat and KNOWING that he likes me.
Well, the main reason someone wouldn't be friendly to you is because there is a competing interest. If I have police 3, I might expect not to get arrested... but if someone else with police 3 has it out for me, my contacts might be pressured not to be sympathetic, "sorry, I can't help you this time."
You cant' know if someone is using contacts against you, unless that is what you are using your contacts for!
I'm not sure what your getting at there Crane... are you saying that even with numerical ratings there is still uncertainty? I'm sure that's possible... just don't see any great advantage to quantifying that stuff when it can so easily (and interestingly) roleplayed out.
I've got no issues with GM fiat as long as the GM isn't a complete ass... and if he is a complete ass... well, I'm not playing in that game anyway.
Quote from: Simlasa;322238I'm not sure what your getting at there Crane...
Just because you have a stat regarding your contact doesn't mean you know how it will play out, sense you have enemies and rivals with similar attributes. Its like saying you know you will win a wrestling match because you have a strength score... the other guy has one too.