Have we failed to discourage min-maxing?

RCanine said:

This is completely out of left field, and it super weird, since # of XP points and # of milestones are the same thing on different scales, like fahrenheit and celcius.

Click to expand...

Agreed -- leveling up solely based on XP from defeated enemies is already pretty 'video-gamey' as it is, especially when you can describe the quest-givers in any given module as having an exclamation point floating over their heads and everyone at the table knows what you mean.

I wlll say, though, that Faenor's point speaks directly to my main point in this discussion -- if players basically see AL modules at 'kill the monsters to get loot and go up in level', then they'll build characters to kill monsters, not to participate in a shared storytelling experience. I'm willing to accept that there will be some portion of the player-base who will look to make their characters more effective at completing adventures, regardless of the route taken, so in that sense, adding more non-combat challenge isn't automatically going to discourage min-maxing; it'll simply shift the min-maxing from combat to things like getting a 20+ Passive Perception at 1st level.

The point is that players who otherwise might not participate in min-maxing see that the current structure of AL modules rewards that behavior, and so are incentivized to participate, increasing the frequency of a behavior that is known to be harmful to the health of an organized play campaign (see LFR, etc.) In that sense, I'm encouraged by the success of the first Suits session I ran with my modified scenarios, as the 'MVP' of the session succeeded despite rolling against his dump stat as opposed to anything he was actively trying to exploit, which clearly sends the message that, even if you're not optimized, you can not only succeed in the adventure but be vitally important to that success.

I think that direction, the 'you can be awesome even if you're not a munchkin' direction, is the best one for AL to pursue. I'll agree that it's not always easy to accomplish, but the benefits to the campaign are worth the effort.

--
Pauper

When leveling up is milestone driven, then players have no choice but to follow the rail. Oh, wow, a scarey house that's clearly a trap. Let's move right along, thank you very much. Oh, kids, come with us and we'll drop you off at the sherriff or church and let someone know who gives a rodent's backside about your problems.

Faenor said:

When leveling up is milestone driven, then players have no choice but to follow the rail.

Click to expand...

Well, then it's a good thing that Death House is the only AL scenario where milestone XP is an option, and even then it's an option and not required. If anything, based on the advice I've seen here and on Facebook, it's not even encouraged to use milestone XP in Death House.

The odds that AL will shift to a global milestone XP system is pretty much nil, so that part of the argument seems moot.

--
Pauper

I was just reviewing the various options for fixing the problem. Pointing out the flaws with each. I do prefer monster slaying as exp, but recognize it's got it's issue. Namely that it's opposite IRL, where people will always try to avoid combats because there's always danger no matter how experienced the veteran.

So IRL, the other pillars are the natural solution, but it's only combat that improves combat skill.

Going to disagree with that -- there are literally thousands of people in the world who can be considered experts at a martial art or combat style who have never killed anyone with that combat style, and mostly have never even fought anyone else with that combat style outside of ritualized sparring.

Conversely, people who get into a lot of fights aren't necessarily better at fighting than people who train and study martial arts, so there's no real reason to think that fighting and killing things makes you better at fighting and killing things, except that all our combat-based RPGs and video games reinforce that idea. (Note that a distinction should be made between being in a lot of fights making you better at fights versus being in a lot of fights making you more comfortable about being in a fight; the latter makes it easier for you to start a fight and keeps you from being reluctant enough to do what you need to do to win a fight, but doesn't necessarily provide any skill component to fighting.)

This is getting pretty close to off-topic, though, so I'll leave it at that.

--
Pauper

I'm going to have to question the premise in the thread title, I think.

There isn't anywhere that I can think of that 'discouraging min-maxxing' was presented as a goal for AL. While not requiring min-max munchkin builds to participate in the combat seems like a fair goal to have, that's an extremely long step to actively discouraging.

Which I'm pretty sure never, ever happened.

So have we 'failed'? Only in so much as we never tried.

Ainulindalion said:

I'm going to have to question the premise in the thread title, I think.

Click to expand...

Let's not get too hung up on how closely the thread title matches the premise of my essay -- if I could have summarized the point succinctly enough to make it crystal-clear in the title, there would be little point in writing the essay, after all.

I suppose I could have said, "Have We Failed To Discourage Rampant Min-Maxing". Read it like that if it helps.

--
Pauper

Okay, I'm going to argue that it's not rampant. Is it there? Sure. Rampant, probably not.

A few points that seem on topic:

1) The game design promotes combat effectiveness. Pretty much every ability is designed in terms of combat power, except for, as described in Unearthed Arcana articles (and maybe the DMG), the things known as 'ribbons'. Ribbons are called out as being ignored when it comes to balancing class power.

2) Combat is actually predictable. Roleplaying is not. This is of major importance when writing an adventure you want to have a set length (such as a 4 hour convention slot).

3) Fuzzy logic goals are just that - fuzzy. Combat goals are simple. That means that RP XP is much more difficult to award consistently, even if you assign goals for it, particularly the more complex you make it. Combat XP just scales with difficulty.

4) Is min-maxxed combat necessarily a bad thing? If combats are shorter, doesn't that allow for more RPing time, in theory?
4b)How well does that theory hold up? Does shorter combat equal more RP time or longer lunch break?

5) Why is everyone playing the game? Not everyone plays to tell in-depth, personalized stories. Some people are, in fact, playing because being a murder-hobo IRL results in Suicide by Cop.

Pauper said:

Going to disagree with that -- there are literally thousands of people in the world who can be considered experts at a martial art or combat style who have never killed anyone with that combat style, and mostly have never even fought anyone else with that combat style outside of ritualized sparring.

Conversely, people who get into a lot of fights aren't necessarily better at fighting than people who train and study martial arts, so there's no real reason to think that fighting and killing things makes you better at fighting and killing things, except that all our combat-based RPGs and video games reinforce that idea. (Note that a distinction should be made between being in a lot of fights making you better at fights versus being in a lot of fights making you more comfortable about being in a fight; the latter makes it easier for you to start a fight and keeps you from being reluctant enough to do what you need to do to win a fight, but doesn't necessarily provide any skill component to fighting.)

This is getting pretty close to off-topic, though, so I'll leave it at that.

--
Pauper

Click to expand...

Mastery of a martial art makes you a level 1 monk. My proof point: UFC.

Also, you'll find it easy to distinguish the one that's better at fighting when it's a fight to the death.