The Min-Max Problem: Solved - Page 7
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 63 of 63
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Colombus, OH
    Posts
    12,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Starfox View Post
    This now seems to be a discussion of the merits of sandbox versus storytelling, more than a discussion of min-maxing.
    I hope it doesn't go there, because I don't have a dog in that fight. I don't believe that there is just one way to be a good DM, and I move back and forth - sometimes in the same campaign - between more linear and more open ended scenarios. And I think that a player can enjoy campaigns equally with more character driven goals and with more DM driven plots. I do not think, "Well, I just run open ended sandboxes exclusively." is the answer to the question of what to do about narrow gates in the story/play. It is an answer, and it may work for you very well, but it is not the definitive answer.

    And as long as we are talking about how the thread is potentially forking, it is a thread unto itself to deal with the complexities of handling the combination of player skill and character skill. Generally speaking, power gaming or Min/Maxing is assumed to be maximizing character skill, and not player skill. Cracking down on abuse of player skill and whether and when you should do that is a whole thread itself.
    Laugh Starfox laughed with this post

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Linköping
    Posts
    3,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrim View Post
    Cracking down on abuse of player skill and whether and when you should do that is a whole thread itself.
    Quoted for truth.

  3. #63
    'Fail-Forward' was an idea that was originally addressing plot railroads
    This is not true. "Fail forward" (sometimes also called "no whiffing", although the latter can have other meanings too) is an idea to reconcile making checks (ie the traditional mechanical aspect of a RPG) with gameplay that would dynamically produce a recognisable narrative, rather than tend towards puzzle-solving and/or wargaming.

    The basic idea of "fail forward" - as first articulated by Ron Edwards, Luke Crane and others - is that a failed check (i) results in the player and his/her PC not getting what they wanted out of the check, but nevertheless (ii) results in a change in the ingame situation.

    It tends to go together with "conflict resolution" or "no retries", and with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - the former meaning that if you fail, you have to deal with the new (in some way adverse) situation and can't go back; the latter meaning that if there is nothing at stake, or if there is nothing in the logic of the current ingame situation that would permit dynamic narration of failure, then no check is called for and the ingame situation just changes in the way that the player wants it to.

    Succeed with a cost is a very weaksauce version of "fail forward", and is mostly promoted in games that depend upon railroading and hence will be derailed if anyone actually fails a check. The "three clue rule" is an alternative to "succeed with a cost" for railroad games - its purpose it to make sure that nothing about the trajectory of play will change just because a check is failed.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. How has 5e solved the Wand of CLW problem?
    By Sitara in forum *D&D 5th Edition
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: Sunday, 29th March, 2015, 01:46 AM
  2. The Problem of DDI...Solved! (Well, not really)
    By Mercurius in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: Thursday, 28th April, 2011, 10:27 AM
  3. 4E Monk Problem Solved
    By inkpenavenger in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Sunday, 25th January, 2009, 06:30 AM
  4. Problem Solved!
    By Mark Chance in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Thursday, 27th March, 2003, 01:11 PM
  5. Problem solved, please ignore...
    By Nathanael in forum *Varied Geek Talk & Media Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Thursday, 15th August, 2002, 10:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •