Quote from: VellorianI don't consider that min/maxing, and here's why:

Then we're ultimately on the same page.  I don't consider specializing to be min/maxing.  However, some do tend to believe that way.  (Mechnomancer may be stating that belief a few posts earlier.)

I think its funny you complain about the warrior wanting the Singing skill.  That's exactly what the type of anti-min/maxing GMs I'm talking about would want the player to do, spend lots of time and effort on skills which ultimately aren't used in game.

Personally, if I had the warrior wanting the Singing skill, I'd ask myself if this was just the player being off the wall or if it really would add depth to his character.  Then, I'd worry a little bit.  Obviously, if the warrior is not wanting to focus on his specialty of combat, I'm not making the battles challenging enough for him.

One of the funniest examples I have of this type of GM was in D&D.  The GM made it clear we were going to fight skeletons.  Since all of us knew that skeletons took more damage from blunt weapons, we in the party decided to carry an additional weapon of that type to help deal with the undead.  Another player worried we might meet some zombies and stocked up on oil so we could burn them (I think he just wanted to burn things).  The GM threw a fit about how we were little munchkins intentionally abusing the game system.  Bringing the right weapon for the job was apparrently too much for this GM.

Quote from: GabrielI think its funny you complain about the warrior wanting the Singing skill.  That's exactly what the type of anti-min/maxing GMs I'm talking about would want the player to do, spend lots of time and effort on skills which ultimately aren't used in game.

I didn't mean for it to come across as a complaint about the warrior wanting it.  My intent was to express being annoyed at systems that gave skills that characters would never use as a means of arbitrarily fleshing out the character/class/level ... when the player should be doing that.

I think it's kinda cool that a player might want to say, "My Xyborg Ftang Warrior will sing, at the top of his lungs, the Skrekt'sk Funeral Dirges while charging into combat."  In fact, as a GM, I might begin to award him with some bonus points toward creating fear in his opponents...  

QuoteThe GM threw a fit about how we were little munchkins intentionally abusing the game system.  Bringing the right weapon for the job was apparrently too much for this GM.

I ran a game once where the players stalked into the lair of the vampire as the sun was setting with nothing more than pistols.  Partway in, with the vampire and his minions watching from crevices and hidden locations for the PCs to get into the center of the lair to pounce upon them, the party split up.  I shook my head.  How classic "bad horror movie" methodology can you get?

Sadly, because of the social dynamic of the group, slaughtering them all as an object lesson was out of my available options.  (Though, upon retrospect, I wish that I had because it established a bad precedent and the group dynamic was destroyed a few weeks later when one character died in another situation.)

Okay, back on topic: Point-purchase systems.   I prefer them.  I wish that more games involved advancing only the skills that were used (or giving an easier time of advancement).

I created a homebrew once where every time you used a skill, you got a checkmark.  Each checkmark was one experience point less for advancement.  It became an accounting nightmare, but I liked the concept.  It's a concept that will work really well when I release my MMORPG (pipedream).

Quote from: Dominus NoxMin maxing is a problem with the player, not the system.

I'm into one game that uses random character generation rather than points, it's called Battlelords of the 23rd century. I'm into one game that uses classes and levels, spacemaster by iron crown.

Ahh, battlelords, where the original designer was actively out to kill PCs.
"Double-aught. I'm dead, aren't I?"
Interestingly enough, I only ever had one death over about a year of play.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAFAIC, a classless, levelless points system is the best way to go.

While the minmax is definitely a case of a PLAYER abusing a system, you have to admit that the point-buys are easier to abuse. Is the bully going to muscle his lunch money from the swim team captain or the math club president? (And for those of you who will relate anecdotes about black-belt, six-foot-eight, special-forces killers who happened to be in the math club, this is a joking hyperbole)

Another point is that while class systems suffer in flexibility, it's much easier to eyeball approximate power levels than it is in a freeform classless, levelless system where you have to dive into the nitty gritty and compare relative durability, strength, combat ability, neat powers, etc.

However, I think that's a small price to pay for increased flexibility in a system.

Quote from: VellorianI do agree, however, that "point purchase" systems tend toward min/maxing.  I have also seen it go the other way, with players who decide they want to play a specific character with specific flaws and use their points to generate a "damaged" character.

And of course, there are a number of RPGs which, instead of awarding additional points for disadvantages during chargen, grant various benefits during actual play whenever the chosen flaws cause genuine problems for the character. In that case, the disadvantages that never hamper the PCs are worth precisely nothing.

I am not fond of "unstructured point buy" systems of the sort that GURPS represents. I do like HERO (much less GURPS, though), but one of my least favorite changes to the current edition was the gutting of package deals, the main method of making the game more structured.

I could have a rollicking time with HERO and love the way that it lets you craft nearly anything with the power system. But as with GURPS, I think it requires an above average level of responsibility and/or GM micromanagement to prevent bizarre, distorted builds.

I prefer systems (like class systems, but there are other methods; e.g., FATE, ) that limit how much of your character design resouces you can allocate to certain areas. The end result invariably seems more palatable and less prone to abuse to me.

I don't find freedom of choice to be the ultimate criteria for game. Ultimate freedom of choice is freedom to create characters that don't fit, don't make sense, and are difficult to manage. Further, it seems that unstructured point build systems require an additional investment in design time compared to games using structured chargen of similar detail.

Quote from: RubioWhile the minmax is definitely a case of a PLAYER abusing a system, you have to admit that the point-buys are easier to abuse.

I think it is more a case of when done poorly point-buy systems tend to go wrong more dramatically.  They tend to require more effort and perhaps skill and play testing to properly balance to start with because there are far more potential combinations. So if someone constructing the system isn't inclined or able to do their job well the results tend to be more spectacularly bad.

Same thing with judging power levels. If the system is well built then it isn't much of an issue.

I prefer point-buy in RPG`s for the control aspect.  I understand RPGPundit`s points about random stat generation as a way to create a character out of a player's usual comfort zone or preconceptions.  But I prefer point-buy to allow me to tailor my character to mental image.  

   I've gotten interested in FATE because the Aspect system sidesteps the Advantage/Disadvantage system.  The Aspects can be both depending on context at a given moment of the game, and you get the same amount of skills per phase in Fate 2.0 whatever you pick.  The intention is to force a player to pick the traits for a specific character and not try to choose stuff for what it can give him for trait points.

Quote from: SamarkandI've gotten interested in FATE because the Aspect system sidesteps the Advantage/Disadvantage system.  The Aspects can be both depending on context at a given moment of the game, and you get the same amount of skills per phase in Fate 2.0 whatever you pick.  The intention is to force a player to pick the traits for a specific character and not try to choose stuff for what it can give him for trait points.

As you may see in my discussion above, I don't consider FATE a traditional point-buy system, but a structured system. I think that structure makes it more palatable as a game.

Quote from: Dominus NoxMin maxing is a problem with the player, not the system.

But some systems sure make it easier for those problem players than others.

There's a guy around here, we'll just call him Igor, who is a master at min-maxing. He could min-max the crap out of anything. And of course, in GURPS or Shadowrun he can min-max far better and more freely than in D&D. Can he still Min-max in D&D? Sure he can, and he will.
But in GURPS if you don't let him end up getting five broken toes for 3 points each so that he can raise his gun skill to 18 or whatever, it will be YOU as the GM who is being "restrictive", not the game itself.

And we all know an Igor.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. If the only problem was the hopeless recalcitrant min-maxers out there, that'd be one thing. But its actually quite another altogether when you consider that everyone will try to do at least a little  minmaxing if they can, when they can. That's just human nature. And a game that uses a point-build open system with no classes or levels makes it soo easy to min-max that its almost inevitable.
Then the responsibility falls again on YOU as the GM to decide what kind of choices, what disadvantages or powers or whatever, are acceptable or sensible and what kind would not be acceptible. And you have to moderate if someone thinks its unfair, or if they argue with you that they should be able to do it according to the rules, or that their character really IS a quadraplegic shaolin monk with superstrength and that its not stupid, its how they envisioned their character and really honestly has nothing at all to do with the 90 extra points they get for being quadraplegic.

In other words, it makes the GM's job that much harder. Far too hard for my tastes.

But that's not all! Let's say that the min-maxing isn't even an intentional issue. Let's take, say, Shadowrun, and my good buddy Jong Wong-Kim.

Now, Jong could make a Shadowrun character in 30 minutes, probably less, flat.
I could make a shadowrun character in about an hour.
Why? Because Jong is FAR more familiar with the system. And the system, being point-buy, takes a lot more familiarity to be able to easily use than a system that isn't.

Let's say we both try to make the same kind of character, a Street Samurai.   Now, I GUARANTEE you that Jong's Street Samurai, made with the same amount of points and no intentional forethought of malice, is going to be able to kick the living shit out of my Street Samurai.

Why? Because Jong knows Shadowrun, and I don't. He'll know exactly what to take, and exactly what isn't needed, to make his Street Samurai the best possible Street Samurai.  Its min-maxing, without any conscious intent to minmax.

Its not that he's trying to be an asshole, or anything like that, its just that by knowing the game better the proportionate amount of kick-ass that he'll be able to inflict magnifies exponentially.  
Would a more experienced player be able to make a better character using D&D than a newbie? For sure, but not so utterly and absolutely better as they would in Shadowrun, or in GURPS, or in HERO. Because there, the guidelines are set up, in the forms of the class-based system, and levels, to help the newbie figure out what he wants to play and build something that isn't utterly gimped, and to keep the ultra-advanced player from building something that will utterly wipe everyone else out of the water.

That's why I would never play Shadowrun with Jong. At least not if I didn't go insane and start obsessively reading Shadowrun for about 8 months without rest.  Because Jong is that much "Better" at shadowrun than me, and that would make any experience of playing Shadowrun with him an utterly boring one for me, since I'd be outclassed in everything.

That is the problem of the point-buy system: any game that uses it had better be played with a group that all have the same relative level of ignorance or knowledge of the game, otherwise you will end up having grief.  Newbies can't play with experienced players, unless they get those experienced characters to basically write up their character FOR them, and that sucks ass.

That's why all the games mentioned, GURPS, Shadowrun, HERO, are famous for having small groups of utterly dedicated fanatics who absolutely adore the system, and a relatively cool reception everywhere else. Its because the "everyone else" can't actually play the game with the fanatics and have a good time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dominus NoxMin maxing is a problem with the player, not the system.

Min-maxing is a behavior of perfecly normal players who may be perfectly acceptable to game with.

Min-maxing as a behavior is not a problem unless it leads to character generation that impacts the fun of others.

To that end, I think it is best to keep in mind that the game is there to entertain the players. If a game's rules limits min-maxing efforts to those conducive to enjoyment of the game, then everyone at the table is better served.

I can replace games easier than I can replace players. AFAIAC "Min maxing is a problem with the player" is never a good excuse to tolerate bad design.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI am not fond of "unstructured point buy" systems of the sort that GURPS represents. I do like HERO (much less GURPS, though), but one of my least favorite changes to the current edition was the gutting of package deals, the main method of making the game more structured.

i wasn't aware of this change, not having had any interest whatsoever in the new HERO system, but I would take that as a sure sign that they have in fact utterly given up the fight for trying to get new players of any kind...

RPGPundit

Quote from: Caesar SlaadMin-maxing is a behavior of perfecly normal players who may be perfectly acceptable to game with.

Min-maxing as a behavior is not a problem unless it leads to character generation that impacts the fun of others.

To that end, I think it is best to keep in mind that the game is there to entertain the players. If a game's rules limits min-maxing efforts to those conducive to enjoyment of the game, then everyone at the table is better served.

I can replace games easier than I can replace players. AFAIAC "Min maxing is a problem with the player" is never a good excuse to tolerate bad design.

Absolutely.

RPGPundit

Classes and levels are a perfectly reasonable approach for roleplaying games that rely on a certain set of character archetypes.  Like D&D's classic fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric quartet, Vampire's clans, etc.  The problem is that if you want to drift from the archetypes towards something not envisioned in the system, you have to either allow for multi-classing or keep writing up new classes/clans/auspices/what have you.  IMO, you're trading structure for flexibility.  

      Does "structured buy" work better?  I'm thinking of the Storyteller system's divying up of points according to the primacy given to Mental/Social/Physical or Talents/Knowledges/Skills as a player builds the character.  It forces to player to make choices yet still allows for choice to design the character.  You could limit the min-maxing by strictly limiting merit/flaw adoption, using a Fate-style Aspect system to represent character quirks, or providing only a few "freebie points" at the end of the chargen cycle.

I must say that I like them in many cases. A lot of the genres I enjoy (such ashorror and dimension-hopping genrebending fantasy) don't lend themselves as well to every character fitting into a big, well-defined archetype.

It's good to just be able to give any character any ability or skill they need without having to worry about doing any "shoehorning" into a class or classes before, during or after.

Are point buy systems more vulnerable to min-maxing than class/level or structured buy?
Absolutely.  This puts an additional burden on the system, to ensure that things are accurately priced, and on the GM, to ensure that those prices reflect the emphasis he's putting on those elements of the game world (if singing and combat cost the same then we better be living in a world where ones singing come in handy pretty often).  It's also, as others have said, a matter of degree - any system that allows choice allows some degree of min maxing - and my question is whether permitting something close to maximum choice justifies risking maximum potential for abuse.

The right answer is probably "sometimes".  I think pundit is right to say that point buy system work better when you've got maximum system buy-in from your players, and that for pickup games you may want a simplified, more restrictive system.  Which is why most point buy games include some kind of pregenerated archetypes that newbies can pick up and play, which answers the "it takes me too long to make a character" objection.

The second problem is differential power - the idea that experienced players given free choice will come up with characters that dominate the pre generated archetypes or the guys newbies come up with.  There's some truth to that (which is why this is about a tradeoff, and why pundit needs to say something about whether free player choice is a good thing in and of itself) but I'd say:

1.  The better the system, the less of a problem this will be.  A quadraplegic super strong ninja is not, in fact, a game breaker, because he's, y'know, quadraplegic.  Disadvantages tend not to be a huge source of free points in mature systems.

2. The better the players, the less of a problem this will be.  Sure, guys are going to find a way to build the troll with strength 24.  Once.  But ultimately, unless you turn your campaign into a hack fest, they'll get bored with the toy exploitation characters and start making interesting ones.

3.  The better the GM, the less of a problem this will be.  Not only do most point buy systems give the GM an explicit veto on abusive designs (champions devotes a full page to this kind of stuff), but most munchkined designs are better than the pregenerated archetypes, they're just more specialised.  Decent systems don't permit free character improving tricks (outside of buying the right gear, which is a problem in virtually any system), they just allow you to build a character who's very, very good at one or two things.  If the game's being run properly, that strikes me as fine.  Let Jong's Samurai act first every turn and get the bulk of the kills-  yours will be able to actually drive a bike and fix his gun when it breaks.  That's a cool in party dynamic provided the GM doesn't ignore Jong's inability to ride or fix things.