TheRPGSite

I'm a fan of the GURPS style point-buy character creation systems, at least as the core of how a character is generated - I don't mind a little randomness here and there, or if points map to some intermediate resource, like money that can be spent on toys, rather than to final character effectiveness (cf Shadowrun companion chargen)

Generally, I'm of the view that most attributes should be balanced so that there's no overwhelming incentive for a player to pick or not pick a certain item/ability in order to maximise their character's effectiveness - if something is being bought by almsot every player then it's probably either generic and should be automatic (native language) or unblanaced and it should cost more.

I'm also in favour of point-buy character development systems, where characters can advance in the areas they chose, rather than a level based system where a variety of abilities automatically improve.  In order to work properly this kind of system needs to have steeply diminishing marginal returns - improvements need to get smaller per "rank" or become more expensive or both.

Who agrees/who hates the point buy system?

Point-buy non-class non-level systems are my least favourite system of RPG.  I prefer something structured like D20, or something almost entirely random like WFRP2e, then a point-buy system.

In my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

RPGPundit

I know you've expressed that view before - and I don't necessarily think you're wrong about the temptation to min-max (which is why point buy systems ask a lot more of the designer in terms of ensuring game balance).  

I do, however, think there's a real cost in reducing min-maxing by bundling certain attributes together, either at character creation or during advancement.  Sure, you can make sure your monks have knowledge of theology and know how to meditate by making those skills part of the "monk" class package, and you'll solve the problem of combat monsters putting their meditiation points in chop-socky, but you also ensure that you'll never have a monk who skipped theology class, or who finds the meditation bits of his profession profoundly boring.  Or one who allows the more spiritual aspects of the class to slip away as he focuses more on adventure.  

That's a real loss of flexibility, and much better dealt with, IMO, by making the non-combat (or otherwise hard to sell) skills competitively priced, rather than bundling them with the "good stuff".  A player who choses an apparently useless skill is going to make much better and more creative use of it than one who go handed it automatically as part of the definition of their chosen class.

I generally prefer a mix.  Some elements should be random, some should be "resource allocation," and some should be "point purchase."

I have always considered the level-based systems to be annoying, unrealistic and completely arbitrary.  I thought Reboot had a great commentary on it during one episode when the young boy suddenly became one level better and, in an instant, grew a little and fleshed out a little.  It doesn't make sense.  I don't go to college for four years and suddenly become "college educated," it involves many small, elemental steps of slowly acquiring and practicing skills to reach the "college educated" point.  It doesn't happen all at once.

I 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.

Ultimately, I think the important thing is that the players and the GM have fun at whatever they're doing.  Thankfully, the marketplace is rife with different mechanics and settings to suit people's preferences and there isn't one, overarching mechanic that limits creativity.

Any RPG system will lead to min-maxing.  I remember funny (to me) articles in Dragon Magazine about "munchkins" who would only use Halberds and Two-Handed Swords because of their high damages, and discussions on how to force these players into using other weapons instead of "min-maxing."

D20 D&D was created with "mastery" in mind.  It acknowledged that people liked to min-max and it was a major part of RPGs.  Point based systems like Hero have simply had this innate trait of rewarding mastery of the rules for a longer period of time.

If you can't guess, I really like point based systems.  I think they're fantastic for when you have a firm, detailed character idea in mind and want to construct it from the ground up.  When you don't really have a preconception in mind, classes or pre-constructed templates are easier.

But, all point based systems are not the same.  There are some which are extremely ill balanced and the point totals end up meaning nothing.  I call these "Mathterbation Systems."  They're satisfying when playing with yourself, but the result is worthless.  Speaking for myself, I put BESM and BESM2 in this category.  The games are ridiculously easy to "munch" and instead of in game safeguards there's the typical weak advice for the GM to not let the players poke at the broken rules.

I'll throw in another issue - in systems with point buy based advancement-  where you pick what to improve rather than improving a pre-selected bundle of abilities - some games assume that point buy should continue to apply to advantages and disadvatages external to the character.  That is, if you kill of your enemy that you still need to pay points to buy off that enemy disadvantage, or that you can lay down point and buy a contact, or a piece of equipment betwene sessions the same way you would at chargen.

While your milage may vary depending on genre (supers games need to be much, much more careful about policing equipment to stay in-genre for instance) I'm opposed to this kind of thing.  If you gain a social advantage or disadvantage in-game then it stay with you without any expenditure or return of points - once you've paid for a buddy at chargen they're vulnearable ot the story, and you don't get any kind of automatic compensation just because someone kills them.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

I think that if there is one thing that can be taken away from 30 years of RPGs it is that gaming is an invitation to "min-max". :)

I certainly don't see a lack of min-maxing in D20. WFRP2e I'm not so sure about since I only played one full session, dropping out after I realized I was going to need to go on a Zoloft protocol to keep from hanging myself. ;)

Also given that the negatives of min-maxing are largely subjective the solution lies largely in addressing it on the player motivation side rather than simply removing flexibility, the later I believe is what you really are talking about.

Personally, I like the systems that only let you advance the skills and abilities that you used.  Thus, if you want to be a kickass Ninja who can throw stars and kill someone at 150m, then you need to be doing a lot of star-throwing in the game instead of using the katanas all the time.

If you want your wizard to be really good at summoning spirits, then lay off the manabolt and perform more summoning in the game.

The idea that you suddenly, having never practiced or used the skills in question, advance in your ability to use them is fairly ludicrous on the face of it.

I like games that allow advancing your "abilities" over time, too.  GURPS doesn't have a very smoothe ability to gain Ads/Disads after chargen (at least in the 3rd Ed, I haven't read 4th yet).  Savage Worlds, on the other hand, expects you to advance your character's abilities (and the mechanic is completely focused in that direction).

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

I think that if there is one thing that can be taken away from 30 years of RPGs it is that gaming is an invitation to "min-max". :)

I certainly don't see a lack of min-maxing in D20 in practice. WFRP2e I'm not so sure about since I only played one full session, dropping out after I realized I was going to need to go on a Zoloft protocol to keep from hanging myself. ;)

Also given that the negatives of min-maxing are largely subjective the solution lies largely in addressing it on the player motivation side rather than simply removing flexibility from character creation, the later I believe is what you really are talking about.

Quote from: VellorianPersonally, I like the systems that only let you advance the skills and abilities that you used.  

Oddly, I'd say quite a few GMs consider that "min/maxing."

If you think about it a bit, you realize that players are quickly going to focus on increasing skills which influence the game.  It's just the nature of things.  If it doesn't matter, you don't waste points on it.  Spend points on what you use most frequently.

If the GM role plays all encounters and ignores any social mechanics, then no one is going to invest in those skills.  If everything is about combat, then people are going to focus on improving their combat skills.  And, let's face it, many games are action/adventure extravaganzas, so there's a lot of incentive to pump those combat abilities as high as possible.

Then, even in a game where the GM is balanced in how he does things, specialists are going to evolve.  One player will become the combat monster.  One player will max out on the intelligence skills.  Another might become the character that always does the parleying because of his awesome diplomacy skill and charisma stat.

Min/ maxing is the failure of a gm to his or her job in any system.  I play and run HERO a lot.  I like how it leaves the options (mandatory flaws, point caps, build points, etc.) totally up to the gm so he or she can craft the adventure and setting to his or her likes.

QuoteThen, even in a game where the GM is balanced in how he does things, specialists are going to evolve. One player will become the combat monster. One player will max out on the intelligence skills. Another might become the character that always does the parleying because of his awesome diplomacy skill and charisma stat.

Not neccessarrily.  A balanced gm is going to put each character into a variety of situations, in which the specialist will only flounder.  The characters are not joined at the hip.  They will not be together all the time and not able to rely on the specialist.

Quote from: RPGPunditPoint-buy non-class non-level systems are my least favourite system of RPG.  I prefer something structured like D20, or something almost entirely random like WFRP2e, then a point-buy system.

In my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

RPGPundit

Min 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.

AFAIC, a classless, levelless points system is the best way to go.

Point buy character creation systems: I also find them kind of annoying. I'd much rather do the random rolls and let that 'suggest' a character kind of. But thats a purely personal preference. I don't see any superior advanatge to my way over a pure points-driven type system, I just like it better.

Point buy and min-maxing: I think there are two different issues here.

1) There's the purely points driven min-max (say, from a really experienced Champions or Gurps guy, who just knows where to put points). In general, the complete character is almost completely developed before play begins and only changes pointwise, somewhat from game to game. You put a few more points into Research or RKA or whatever. The bonus of this is you get the exact kind of character you want to play if you design it well.

2) The D&D type min-max guy (any level-based system, really) doesn't really use points to min-max, even if he has used points to generate stats. Instead, he makes strategic choices about classes, feats, extras, prestige classes and (especially) gear. This type of character changes in significant ways everytime he gets a level or adds gear. The bonus of this is that developing your character becomes a bit of a minigame in itself that you get to do after every level or so.

Two different styles. I think theyre are both cool, but I'm more of the second type.

This thread reminds me of an article over at RevolutionSF:

If This Be My Destiny... Then Roll a 14 or Better to Hit  (http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=1077)

QuoteSee, in V&V, character creation is simple. You stack up the powers you want (or roll, or whatever you're doing to assign powers), the GM looks the sheet over, and that's that. You want a character with ungodly strength? No problem. But know this: the GM will create a villain with ungodly strength +1, or in some other way make the villains you go up against tougher than you.

In Champions, everyone has the same number of points when they start out. Each power costs so many points when you're setting up your character. Sometimes, though, when you want a little extra power, you can take disads or negative modifiers on your existing powers. For example, you can shoot a lot of electricity, but you can buy the modifier "only when conscious" and get more points, and thus, manipulate the system. That's the trouble, right there. Gamers memorize the Champions system the way that accountants know tax loopholes, and they twist the system around to create these perfectly legal, yet insanely powerful, hundred point characters that were just absurd. What's wrong with that, you may ask? Well, if your GM is one of those players, that means his villains will always bring twice as much power to the table as your hero. And if that guy is a player, then the GM is constantly on the defensive. "But it's fair," they all say, waving their sheets around. "Look? See? It adds up perfectly."

Quote from: GabrielOddly, I'd say quite a few GMs consider that "min/maxing."

If you think about it a bit, you realize that players are quickly going to focus on increasing skills which influence the game.  It's just the nature of things.  If it doesn't matter, you don't waste points on it.  Spend points on what you use most frequently.

If the GM role plays all encounters and ignores any social mechanics, then no one is going to invest in those skills.  If everything is about combat, then people are going to focus on improving their combat skills.  And, let's face it, many games are action/adventure extravaganzas, so there's a lot of incentive to pump those combat abilities as high as possible.

Then, even in a game where the GM is balanced in how he does things, specialists are going to evolve.  One player will become the combat monster.  One player will max out on the intelligence skills.  Another might become the character that always does the parleying because of his awesome diplomacy skill and charisma stat.

I don't consider that min/maxing, and here's why:

If the player chooses to play a combat monster, then I would expect him to focus all his skills on developing his weapon skills, caring for his weapons, developing combat techniques and channeling all his energy into being an effective fighter.  This is to be expected.  when he levels up, why does his "Singing" skill suddenly get increased?  Has the player stated, "I'm going to sing the holy funeral dirges of the Denago people as I charge into battle!"?  Maybe.  Probably not.  

Skills should be harder and harder to increase as they get higher and higher.  It should be exponential, in fact.  Thus, if the Fighter wants to take a session or two and focus on his Stealth or Read Runes or Oratory skills, then let him do it, in play, and receive experience awards for those skills.

I don't consider it min/maxing to watch a fighter become a proficient warrior, or a mage to become a masterful wizard or a thief to become an accomplished footpad.  That's the normal course of specializing character talent.  No min/maxing there.

In addition, a wise GM will throw the "too-focused" warrior into situations where fighting will accomplish nothing.  Or the masterful wizard into a realm where magic doesn't exist (I always get the image of a frustrated mage-looking guy, in an ill-fitting McDonald's uniform standing at the register when the boy-scout bus unloads, creating mass chaos in the restaurant and him screaming, "Do you want fries with that?!").

I work in a project management environment at work where we do a lot of work with teams of specialists: DBAs, Software Engineers, Quality Assurance, Relationship Liaisons, Marketing Analysts, etc.  We're all working toward the common goal: develop software for the client.  But we all have separate and very specialized skills.  Keeping it all together is the job of the Project Manager.

In a real life situation, it is imperative that the DBA and Software Engineer attend regular classes on the latest developments in their fields.  The Marketing people are costantly studying new marketing techniques.  The relationship liaisons are honing up their golf games and generally goofing off. (Not really.)

My point is that it would be ludicrous to expect the Marketing gurus to suddenly start explaining how to conduct a specialized search routine of the database upon promotinog to Senior Analyst.  It would not, however, be a stretch for him to take a class in databases and begin to tailor his marketing approach to include specific search methodologies ("data mining").  

So, here we have a Marketing guru ("Fighter"), that has chosen to invest a few of his experience points ("taking a class") in a non-traditional area for him, Database Analysis ("Arcane Signs").  Next thing you know, he's able to perform some low level database manipulation ("Magic Missile").  

On the other hand, the DBA ("Mage"), has chosen to hone his abilities by studying Advanced SQL Server Management ("Hellblast 10"), though it will take him a full week of class and several months of practice to fully master it.  While he's doing that, he gets called into the super-secret management meetings ("social skill tests") to help resolve a high-profile customer issue.  He has to work closely with the marketing and liaison folks to negotiate the delicate ground, relying upon their skills to make the pitch ("get past the guards") so that he can define his search algorithm ("mage lock") to secure the account ("rescue the captured maiden").

Teamwork.  Specialization.  Point-buy skills.  It's all a veneer to show how things work in the real world, but with a "fantasy filter."

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.

Quote from: RPGPunditPoint-buy non-class non-level systems are my least favourite system of RPG.  I prefer something structured like D20, or something almost entirely random like WFRP2e, then a point-buy system.

In my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

RPGPundit

Huh, I've played a lot of point buy games (Shadowrun included) and never encountered more than a passing instance of min-maxing. In fact, I've found that point buys often lead further in the direction of very balanced characters.

On the other hand, nearly every D20 player I've talked to or even listened to constantly talks about their "character build" - what Prestige Classes they want, the Feats they want, when they can get them, the number of devastating attacks they get, and so on. In other words, min-maxing.

Quote from: PhishStyxHuh, I've played a lot of point buy games (Shadowrun included) and never encountered more than a passing instance of min-maxing.

I don't have the latest edition, but from my experience with earlier edition, making new shadowrun templates is structured.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't have the latest edition, but from my experience with earlier edition, making new shadowrun templates is structured.

Nah, not in any real sense.  The basic system has been a choice of allocating priorities across skills, stats, money and magic, with point spending within each of those categories, with an optional system for pure point buy.  It's certainly much closer to gurps than it is to say D&D.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't have the latest edition, but from my experience with earlier edition, making new shadowrun templates is structured.

It's also a system that PUndit cites as an exemplar of an inherently undesirable game based due to his point-buy = min-maxing supposition.

The new edition of Shadowrun got rid of the whole "Priorities" system, and has no character archetypes, making the whole thing entirely point-buy. One of the biggest mistakes they made in a new edition that was otherwise an improvement, given that in theory they were trying to make a system that was more friendly for new players, and considering that without any structure to the character creation process it makes it much harder for newbies to create a good character, and the whole process takes longer too.

RPGPundit

I'd agree that there's no excuse for not having a few ready to go pregenerated characters in any game that has a time-consuming generation system.  That said, it's presumably the work of 5 minutes for a GM to throw together a basic character in shadowrun, as it's really not all that complicated.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe new edition of Shadowrun got rid of the whole "Priorities" system, and has no character archetypes, making the whole thing entirely point-buy.

They didn't do either of those things. There are priorities. The difference is that the priorites aren't laid out so explicitly in a table like in previous editions; they directly tied priorities into the character creation.

Also, there are exactly the same number of archtypes in 4th (16 of them & they start on page 89), not fewer and certainly not none! I just now counted.

QuoteOne of the biggest mistakes they made in a new edition that was otherwise an improvement, given that in theory they were trying to make a system that was more friendly for new players, and considering that without any structure to the character creation process it makes it much harder for newbies to create a good character, and the whole process takes longer too.

RPGPundit

I bolded the only thing I could really pick out from your non-sentence there, and even there, you're wrong. If anything, character creation is more structured in Shadowrun, not less. What 4th edition does have is more structured mechanical options for players with the Positive and Negative Qualities.

Quote from: lacemakerNah, not in any real sense.  The basic system has been a choice of allocating priorities across skills, stats, money and magic, with point spending within each of those categories, with an optional system for pure point buy.  It's certainly much closer to gurps than it is to say D&D.

Much closer how? I may not be a huge step, but it's an important one. AFAIAC, it makes it different from GURPS in a way I consider most telling. Forcing you to stage your points instead of allowing you to allocate them all freely is structured design, which is an improvement compared to "free buy" AFAIAC.

While I certainly can live with point buy, it's not my favorite method. My dislike is not about the min/maxing, which is simply what happens in a game. Most of the point buy chargens I've seen are huge, with sometimes dozens of options to sort through and consider. I'm learning that I like my chargens to be more lean, mean and fast, and if they're going to be bigger, than they better be punchy and not full of pointless one CP modifiers having to do with small pets, scars, or shoe size.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe new edition of Shadowrun got rid of the whole "Priorities" system, and has no character archetypes, making the whole thing entirely point-buy. One of the biggest mistakes they made in a new edition that was otherwise an improvement, given that in theory they were trying to make a system that was more friendly for new players, and considering that without any structure to the character creation process it makes it much harder for newbies to create a good character, and the whole process takes longer too.

I'm curious, have you played it?  In practice it is less encouraging of min-max than SR3. Priorities or the optional SR3 BP rules. I laud the death of Priorities because of the royal pain in the butt they were to move around, and their relative lack of extendibility. I had just stopped using them at all. See me dance on Priority's grave! :D  I had considered using the fan created BeCKs, but never had games where the desire for that much customization came up. I'm not sure that a BeCKs for SR4 would work as well in this edition since they have done a pretty good job of tuning the system as-is, and a lot of what BeCKs was about was compensating for some of the more brutal min-max problems in the SR3 character creation.

In SR4 the Flaws, aka Negative Qualities, also got a much needed clean-up. There are still some in there that are fairly high maintenance. The very worst of the worst is out, and they all are actually are pretty well balanced on cost. If they are enacted in the game. But that's the rub, and that's why they have to be watched carefully. Because everyone at the table has to be okay with their implications and the direction they will take things.

P.S.  In truth if you build a 5th or 6th level D&D character and you build a SR4 character you have roughly the same level of min-maxing capability. A far more comparible situation since D&D 1st level characters are pretty feeble in relative terms, min-maxing or not.

I'm a big fan of point-buy systems ... but I like structure as well. In most of my actual games the kinds of characters that'll be legal are usually specified at least somewhat before the game begins.

I don't mind package-deals or priority systems: I think that, like a "pure capitalist economy" a pure-point-buy do-whatever-you-want game is often sub-optimal.

But I like it as an underlying engine since it does give me some power as a GM to specify what will be legitimate rather than needing to modify a tightly coupled complex system.

-Marco

Quote from: PhishStyxThey didn't do either of those things. There are priorities. The difference is that the priorites aren't laid out so explicitly in a table like in previous editions; they directly tied priorities into the character creation.

Really? Could have fooled me. If they did that, they've done a really top notch job of hiding it. Because what I saw was fuck all for priorities. Unless you call a mere points-expenditure-cap a "priorities" system, which I guess it is if everyone has the same priority.

QuoteAlso, there are exactly the same number of archtypes in 4th (16 of them & they start on page 89), not fewer and certainly not none! I just now counted.

No, there are 16 SAMPLE CHARACTERS in the book, in lovely full colour, that are just about fucking useless for anyone who doesn't want to play that exact character exactly as written, or with the tiniest most cosmetic of changes.

An "archetype" is more like what you see in Feng Shui, where you have a guy ("Kung Fu Cop") and in every step you are told "choose A or B", for skills, or "You get kung fu A, but can substitute it with GUNS A and Kung Fu B", etc etc.

In other words, something that gives you a structured build for a character skeleton that can then be filled in. Not a fucking pre-made character that you pretty much have to play as is, because the alternative (of trying to recalculate everything to make changes) would take longer than making the fucking character from scratch.


RPGPundit

Don't get me wrong, on the whole I think SR4 is a vast improvement over SR3.  Its just that this happens to be one of the few areas where I think they royally fucked up, especially considering their purported goals of making it more user-friendly and accesible to newbies.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MarcoBut I like it as an underlying engine since it does give me some power as a GM to specify what will be legitimate rather than needing to modify a tightly coupled complex system.

What do you think about a system like Spycraft 2.0, wherein the structure applies mainly to players, and the GM pretty much gets carte blanche?

(Speaking for myself, I find it a bit curious, but I don't exactly have to police myself as GM, and I can still use existing classes as "templates" for NPCs.)

QuoteIts just that this happens to be one of the few areas where I think they royally fucked up, especially considering their purported goals of making it more user-friendly and accesible to newbies.

Maybe that's the essential conflict here: Newbie-friendly versus veteran-friendly? Either you bewilder the newcomers who aren't quite sure what they want with the sheer number of options or you frustrate the vets with the strict framework that they have to struggle to fit their already crystal-clear and probably esoteric character concepts into.

Quote from: RPGPunditSR4 is a vast improvement over SR3

Hmmm.... I've had a long love/hate relatiosnhip with Shadowrun.  I like to see game systems evolve.  I like to see settings grow and develop.  I appreciate it when I see a game system move from one development house to another upon the implosion of the first...

...what I really despise is the complete re-invisioning that takes place when a second-rate game developer completely ... revamps ... (I had another phrase in mind, but I'm not sure if I know you all well enough to use something as strong as my original thought) a mechanic and setting to such a degree that it is hard to call it Shadowrun anymore.

I have every Shadowrun book produced by FASA.  I had made it my mission in life to own every Shadowrun book produced.  And then Fanpro came along and I rethought my mission in life and reprioritized it such that I've not purchased a single Shadowrun book since prior to the release of SR4 (and I only purchased SR4 on the hopes that they had done something better instead of completely ... revamping ... the world.

I am not a fan of SR4, as a Shadowrun product.  As a completely different "cyberpunk-esque" game in a different universe that bears some marginal resemblance to Shadowrun, okay.  It's decent.  It ranks just above that cybrog game that bears Gygax' name but has none of his writing in it (which, itself, ranks higher than D&D and D20).

"...vast improvement..."  Eh...  I don't see it. YMMV.  You have a right to your opinion.  As a longtime player of Shadowrun, who loved it, hated it, loved it, it's just ... not.

Quote from: VellorianI am not a fan of SR4, as a Shadowrun product.  As a completely different "cyberpunk-esque" game in a different universe that bears some marginal resemblance to Shadowrun, okay.  It's decent.  It ranks just above that cybrog game that bears Gygax' name but has none of his writing in it (which, itself, ranks higher than D&D and D20).

I think we really need a different thread to point out how very wrong you are. ;)  Or at least how my experience of year reading the rules and about 8 months of playing an actual weekly campaign plus some other other games on the side has shown me that this is very much the Shadowrun world I'd played for years. But without the eye-gouging cluster-bang of rules that drove me to mothball SR3 from playing (but curiously not give up on casually following the setting metaplot), inspite of my like of the setting (goofiness included), about 2 years before SR4 was released.

P.S.  We definately need another full thread to cover off all of SR4's flaws. But the deep sixing of that festering pile of crap known as "Priorities" character creation certainly wasn't/isn't one of those.

Quote from: blakkieI think we really need a different thread to point out how very wrong you are. ;)  

Oooh!  That'd be cool!  "The Thread In Which We Prove How Very Wrong Vellorian Is."  I like it!  :)  

In all seriousness, I don't want to come across as some know-it-all whose soul desire is to dictate to everyone else how they are to have fun and declare everything else crap.  

(We already have one of those on this forum.  ;) :D )

I would be very happy to read your thoughts on the various iterations of Shadowrun, so long as you don't mind me poo-pooing the Fanpro fools that totally destroyed my love of the world.

Quote from: VellorianI would be very happy to read your thoughts on the various iterations of Shadowrun, so long as you don't mind me poo-pooing the Fanpro fools that totally destroyed my love of the world.

Do you read/post over at Dumpshock at all under a different name?  Probably not if you don't recognize my handle.  If you don't I am curious, in another thread I guess, what exactly you find missing? Because often I find some serious misconceptions floating around. But also just out of curiousity.

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? Could have fooled me. If they did that, they've done a really top notch job of hiding it. Because what I saw was fuck all for priorities. Unless you call a mere points-expenditure-cap a "priorities" system, which I guess it is if everyone has the same priority.

The priorities are more directly applied to the character. What's your problem with a starting character point cap, other than you simply want to be as insulting as possible about a game you don't want to like.

QuoteNo, there are 16 SAMPLE CHARACTERS in the book, in lovely full colour, that are just about fucking useless for anyone who doesn't want to play that exact character exactly as written, or with the tiniest most cosmetic of changes.

Yes, archtypes. Just like every other game that uses archtypes.
God for-fucking-bid that a game allow you to customize characters like you want.  You do realize that you can write in whatever cyberware/magic or skills or attributes you like, right.

'Cause NOT knowing that is dumbass.

You aren't a dumbass, right?

QuoteAn "archetype" is more like what you see in Feng Shui, where you have a guy ("Kung Fu Cop") and in every step you are told "choose A or B", for skills, or "You get kung fu A, but can substitute it with GUNS A and Kung Fu B", etc etc.

Jesus fucking christ, you must be the hardest person on earth to roleplay with.

QuoteIn other words, something that gives you a structured build for a character skeleton that can then be filled in. Not a fucking pre-made character that you pretty much have to play as is, because the alternative (of trying to recalculate everything to make changes) would take longer than making the fucking character from scratch.


RPGPundit

:axe:

Quote from: blakkieDo you read/post over at Dumpshock at all under a different name?  Probably not if you don't recognize my handle.  If you don't I am curious, in another thread I guess, what exactly you find missing? Because often I find some serious misconceptions floating around. But also just out of curiousity.

A long time ago, in a realm far, far away, I visited Dumpshock.  I totally forgot it existed, to be honest, until you just mentioned it.  I don't even recall what handle I used when I was there.  (Back in the heady days of space piracy, when I was shy about using my real name.) ;)

I'd be happy to talk about it with you sometime.  I'm sure I'd have to dig out the books and skim through them again to be able to discuss with anything akin to cogent thought.  I used to eat, drink and breathe Shadowrun.  It's probably been a year since I cracked a book and much longer than that since I've played.  

To be perfectly honest, I probably do have some misconceptions.  It may be an eye-opening discussion.  I just hope I can keep my emotions in check so that our discussion doesn't degenerate into a morass of broken dreams and hurt feelings.  :(

(Not from or about you, but from and about what Shadowrun devolved into...)

Quote from: SamarkandII'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.

Doesn't work. The munchkins just choose only "good" Aspects, like Strong, Agile, Ninja Master, or whatever. FATE is even more munchkinable than (say) GURPS, because at least in GURPS, the bad stuff is explicitly described as such, so that when the GM says, "aha, but this happens because..." they're backed by the RAW (rules-as-written). In FATE, each and every time the GM invokes the Aspect as a negative thing, the munchkin will argue with them.

Remember that munchkins rarely argue with rules, only with GM rulings. And FATE calls on the GM to be constantly making rulings. So as a way to deal with munchkins, FATE sucks, all it adds is more arguments from them.

Yes, I am speaking from bitter experience. How could you tell? :o

Munchkins can rip up any systems. Munchkins were the kids playing Cops & Robbers saying, "no! no! I'm not dead, I'm only wounded!" The only protection from them is completely random character generation, which makes them cry like little girls. Pre-generated characters are another good tool, but lead to much weeping and wailing and cries of GM oppression.

Quote from: JimBobOzMunchkins can rip up any systems. Munchkins were the kids playing Cops & Robbers saying, "no! no! I'm not dead, I'm only wounded!" The only protection from them is completely random character generation, which makes them cry like little girls. Pre-generated characters are another good tool, but lead to much weeping and wailing and cries of GM oppression.

Which is to say the only good protection from munchkins is a locked and bolted door, and the only true cure is the process of maturation. :)

Quote from: blakkie...and the only true cure is the process of maturation. :)

Yes, but what do you do if they're 40 years old and show no signs of maturation (and not just in the gaming environment)?

It was fun to live life from paycheck to paycheck, to stay up till all hours and stagger into our jobs with little to no sleep on a continual basis.  It was a blast to roleplay and homebrew to the exclusion of all else.  Even when we got married ... started having kids ... got "real" jobs ... we held on and held on to our familiar delights.

Gradually, we all "grew up" and "faced reality" (instead of jumping into our roleplaying realms to hide from it).  We relegated gaming to its appropriate niche in our lives, whatever that niche might be (once a week, twice a week, every other weekend, whatever).

But what do you do if you look around at your friends and realize that several of them (most notably those who are munchkinesque) are 40+ and still living life as though they are 19?

Quote from: VellorianBut what do you do if you look around at your friends and realize that several of them (most notably those who are munchkinesque) are 40+ and still living life as though they are 19?

At 19 I was the lead singer/guitarist in a rock band and livin' la vita insanita. If I lived life as though I was 19, I would have died before I hit 25. Maybe these guys are undead? Do you ever see them in daylight? :D

-mice

Quote from: VellorianYes, but what do you do if they're 40 years old and show no signs of maturation (and not just in the gaming environment)?

That's where the locked and bolted door comes in. :cool:

QuoteBut what do you do if you look around at your friends and realize that several of them (most notably those who are munchkinesque) are 40+ and still living life as though they are 19?

Get new friends? ;) Or at least new people to game with. Or just crank back the oxygen to your brain, join their wallowing in the mud, and find your "adult" side fun somewhere else.

Quote from: blakkieThat's where the locked and bolted door comes in. :cool:

Get new friends? ;)

I've been avoiding facing that conclusion.  (Don't flatter yourself that I'm going to make such a life-changing decision based on a comment from some guy on an internet forum, regardless of how much I'm starting to appreciate his thinking processes.) ;)

It's good to have a little "external validation" on my thinking, though.  :)  Thanks, Blakkie. :)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhat do you think about a system like Spycraft 2.0, wherein the structure applies mainly to players, and the GM pretty much gets carte blanche?

(Speaking for myself, I find it a bit curious, but I don't exactly have to police myself as GM, and I can still use existing classes as "templates" for NPCs.)

I don't know Spycraft--but for the most part, I'm okay with templates for PCs and not for the GM if the game works that way. I mean, I was always annoyed at "NPC classes" for AD&D in the Dragon magazine--I wanted those added (in a balanced fashion) to the PC roster!

But if Spycraft works (and by accounts it rocks) then I'm alright as a player with having the GM have fewer restrictions than I do.

And really, the structure is more, IMO/IME to help than to "restrict." I know, in AD&D, that if I play a Fighter, a Magic User, a Cleric, or a Thief that I have a role in the party (maybe not so the Illusionist ... but heck). That's nice to know--it's cool when a game works out that way.

For GURPS games, we would make those "roles" part of the campaign design (if, for example, someone on a dungeoneering party wanted to be an "Engineer" who could structurally assess buldings and stuff the GM would have to figure out if that had a place in the adventure and let the guy know).

-Marco

Quote from: JimBobOzDoesn't work. The munchkins just choose only "good" Aspects, like Strong, Agile, Ninja Master, or whatever. FATE is even more munchkinable than (say) GURPS, because at least in GURPS, the bad stuff is explicitly described as such, so that when the GM says, "aha, but this happens because..." they're backed by the RAW (rules-as-written). In FATE, each and every time the GM invokes the Aspect as a negative thing, the munchkin will argue with them.

   I never argued that the Fate Aspects were a defense against attempts at munchkining/power-gaming.  As you said, a dedicated munchkin will find a way to hack any system to his or her benefit.  What I do like about the Aspects is that they represent an interesting alternative to the benefits-cost/penalties-provide model used in many point-buy systems.  It's a structural method of seeing traits as "cool defining characteristics" rather than sources of points for getting the kewl stuff you really want.

Quote from: RPGPunditPoint-buy non-class non-level systems are my least favourite system of RPG.  I prefer something structured like D20, or something almost entirely random like WFRP2e, then a point-buy system.

In my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

RPGPundit

Any system can really do this but its not always the case with point buy system.

For example: The Mecha RPG I am working on is point based for character creation.

There is a set amount of points to buy both skills and stats.   With the revision I have made stats a very important part of the character creation system and made them work with the skills (Therefor a Mech Pilot with a low dexterity will not be a very good Mech Pilot).

I have made it where characters who try to load up in one area (stats for instance) will be hurt in the skill section because they will have less points for improving skills AND their stats factor into the skill so its a double whammy.   Not to mention I am going back and adding basic skill levels and stats that the character has to have in order for them to perform their job.

What I am getting at is that its really the system (and the Game Master who allows it) that is the problem.

Besides, in my Mech game its fast and deadly.  A character with an excellent strength but low Mecha Pilot skill (because they want to be a muscle bound bad ass) will get killed very quickly.