strumbleduck
First Post
Double post. See below.
Last edited:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How to design a game where players don't seek to min-max
- Thread starter System Ufera
- Start date
Balesir
Adventurer
There are various ways to approach the issue in the OP, to wit, the avoidance of "min/maxing" as opposed to general optimising. You say you want a "slice of life" type of game, in which case I commend to you HârnMaster and the associated world of Hârn, which features a working economic and social system such as is necessary to support such a game. To avoid overspecialisation, it encourages a "pre-game" form of character generation that builds character abilities organically from the opportunities and challenges that meet them in their life prior to becoming an "adventurer" (should they, gods forbid, become so short of options as to pursue so desperate a path in life - which, of course, all of them eventually will...).
As an alternative to this, however, I also suggest considering a brief analysis of what the players may want. In my (admittedly partial - the world is a big place) experience, many players "optimise" because they want to play a character that is able to do something "cool". They want, in short, to "show off" in front of their friends. In a pastime designed to be played for fun in convivial company, that seems to me to be a very appropriate and reasonable goal.
Now, consider a game that gives the characters "cool" piecemeal. In 3.x D&D, for example, spending a skill point on Acrobatics does not make your character a miraculous tumbler - it just makes them barely competent at a few simple tricks. To get to be "cool", concentrated investment of character resources is required - and each little investment makes your PC just a smidgeon more "cool". Little wonder that players concentrate on one area and go for maximum "cool" in that area. Such wide-ranging resource apportionment can be fun in its own special way, but if you yearn to "go for the cool" then it naturally impels you toward min/maxing.
Consider, on the other hand, a game that packages "cool" in discrete, individual packages, each complete unto itself. This, for me, is part of the genius of 4E D&D's powers; take a power and it allows you to do one cool thing - NOW. You don't need to "save up" or pursue the investment over several levels, the ability to "declare cool" is there immediately - in that one, specific way. Sure, in 4E you can build on it with feats and items (which is where you see the great majority of min/maxing happening in 4E), but I'm just talking about the powers system, for now. You can't "build on the cool" or multiply it by taking more powers - at best you can get to do approximately the same thing more times; hardly a thrilling enticement. So, in my experience, players pick reasonably unrelated powers. Utilities and Skill Powers add to this, giving each character a range of useful tricks they can perform.
Now, I'm not saying that the execution was perfect in 4E - far from it - but, if you wish to encourage players who want characters that do cool things to diversify their PC design, it seems to me that parcelling up character abilities into "gobbets of cool" is a good way to go, design-wise. Have each "character ability" element allow them to do something cool - no ifs, buts or additional stuff required - that is complete in itself and not "improved" by the addition of some other ability (which is, itself, not really that cool without the ability that it is added to). It sounds as if, unfortunately, such an approach would require a considerable redesign for your system, but, on the other hand, you might find that it gives you what you seek.
As an alternative to this, however, I also suggest considering a brief analysis of what the players may want. In my (admittedly partial - the world is a big place) experience, many players "optimise" because they want to play a character that is able to do something "cool". They want, in short, to "show off" in front of their friends. In a pastime designed to be played for fun in convivial company, that seems to me to be a very appropriate and reasonable goal.
Now, consider a game that gives the characters "cool" piecemeal. In 3.x D&D, for example, spending a skill point on Acrobatics does not make your character a miraculous tumbler - it just makes them barely competent at a few simple tricks. To get to be "cool", concentrated investment of character resources is required - and each little investment makes your PC just a smidgeon more "cool". Little wonder that players concentrate on one area and go for maximum "cool" in that area. Such wide-ranging resource apportionment can be fun in its own special way, but if you yearn to "go for the cool" then it naturally impels you toward min/maxing.
Consider, on the other hand, a game that packages "cool" in discrete, individual packages, each complete unto itself. This, for me, is part of the genius of 4E D&D's powers; take a power and it allows you to do one cool thing - NOW. You don't need to "save up" or pursue the investment over several levels, the ability to "declare cool" is there immediately - in that one, specific way. Sure, in 4E you can build on it with feats and items (which is where you see the great majority of min/maxing happening in 4E), but I'm just talking about the powers system, for now. You can't "build on the cool" or multiply it by taking more powers - at best you can get to do approximately the same thing more times; hardly a thrilling enticement. So, in my experience, players pick reasonably unrelated powers. Utilities and Skill Powers add to this, giving each character a range of useful tricks they can perform.
Now, I'm not saying that the execution was perfect in 4E - far from it - but, if you wish to encourage players who want characters that do cool things to diversify their PC design, it seems to me that parcelling up character abilities into "gobbets of cool" is a good way to go, design-wise. Have each "character ability" element allow them to do something cool - no ifs, buts or additional stuff required - that is complete in itself and not "improved" by the addition of some other ability (which is, itself, not really that cool without the ability that it is added to). It sounds as if, unfortunately, such an approach would require a considerable redesign for your system, but, on the other hand, you might find that it gives you what you seek.
Last edited:
Darth Quiris
First Post
If you don't mind me making this suggestion but you should write down your game and organize it. Write down the steps to making a character, and when you have the document's rough draft finished than show it to your players and let them go at it. Most likely they will still do the same thing, but by writing it all down it could help you see your game from a different light.
Then if you ever wanted others to look at your rules for suggestions or even playtesting, you would have a document ready to share.
From what you describe it does sound pretty cool.
Then if you ever wanted others to look at your rules for suggestions or even playtesting, you would have a document ready to share.
From what you describe it does sound pretty cool.
Manbearcat
Legend
Great post [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION] . Its a pity that it hasn't gotten more traction with/commentary from other posters in this thread. Unsurprisingly, I agree.
This isn't always true. While it is true that a great many systems do line up classic TTRPG incentives (win/achieve your primary goals and you progress/advance your character) to create a feedback loop that rewards min/maxing, that isn't the only primary goal:xp paradigm out there. You can make character progress/advancement either outright at tension with or orthogonal to "winning". This creates a dynamic where "winning" is irrelevant to or outright adverse toward character progression. Obviously, this throws a monkeywrench in the machinery that pushes players toward min/max mindset.
Some obvious ways of doing this are removing "xp" from achieving the "win condition" as the primary (or sole) mode of character advancement and in its stead have:
1) xp or advancement for failure or losing (both micro failure at this or that task and macro failure in that there is legitimately negative fallout when some "loss condition" is met in a conflict).
2) xp or advancement for the performance or resolution of thematic material embedded into your character that doesn't directly coincide with the "win condition" (for the classic conflicts of the genre - eg slaying monsters) being met.
3) xp or advancement for changing, provoking, or discovering aspects of the world that make for a mutually beneficial gameplay experience for the table's participants.
This isn't always true. While it is true that a great many systems do line up classic TTRPG incentives (win/achieve your primary goals and you progress/advance your character) to create a feedback loop that rewards min/maxing, that isn't the only primary goal:xp paradigm out there. You can make character progress/advancement either outright at tension with or orthogonal to "winning". This creates a dynamic where "winning" is irrelevant to or outright adverse toward character progression. Obviously, this throws a monkeywrench in the machinery that pushes players toward min/max mindset.
Some obvious ways of doing this are removing "xp" from achieving the "win condition" as the primary (or sole) mode of character advancement and in its stead have:
1) xp or advancement for failure or losing (both micro failure at this or that task and macro failure in that there is legitimately negative fallout when some "loss condition" is met in a conflict).
2) xp or advancement for the performance or resolution of thematic material embedded into your character that doesn't directly coincide with the "win condition" (for the classic conflicts of the genre - eg slaying monsters) being met.
3) xp or advancement for changing, provoking, or discovering aspects of the world that make for a mutually beneficial gameplay experience for the table's participants.
But, beware the law of unintended consequences. If you aren't encouraging min/max behavior, you may be encouraging (or discouraging) some other behavior.
Or, in some cases... do away with most of the advancement! FATE based games, for example, don't usually do a lot of "advancement", per se. The game focuses on character change over time rather than character advancement. The usual character change in stats is swapping skills (trade the positions of a Rank 2 and a Rank 3 skill, for example) rather than outright raising skills up.
Darth Quiris
First Post
These ideas here for how to handle xp is why I really love the Apocalypse World Engine games and the Cortex Plus games because how they handle the XP part of character advancement is pretty different than more traditional games. Smallville especially changes this up because the only way to 'advance' is to challenge yourself and cause your character Stress while also having another PC present at the end of an episode/session to help boost your character up so your character's progress is about perceivering through adversity and the challenges you struggle with.
Argyle King
Legend
Does your system use a flat roll such as a d20 or does it use multiple dice (such as 3d6) to create a bell curve?
strumbleduck
First Post
The basic way to discourage min/maxing is to arrange the incentives in your system so that characters can more easily become powerful by being well-rounded. In particular, it needs to be easier to improve at something you're bad at than at something you're good at.
I don't know the system that you're working on, but I think I can illustrate what I'm saying using the d20 system. The same principles apply to any system that you build.
1. Skill Points
The d20 skill points system encourages min/maxing of skills. The reasons for this are subtle. First, because it often suffices for only one member of a party to pass a skill check, it makes sense for the members of a party to specialize in certain skills. Second, because the DC's of skill checks often increase with level, you really need to keep up with the skills you have for them to remain useful.
In any case, here's a simple rule that would encourage characters to pick up more skills:
The first skill point gives a +5 bonus to checks in that skill. Every additional skill rank gives +1.
With this system, there's a much bigger incentive for characters to put at least one skill point in many different skills, since that single skill point makes a bigger difference in a new skill than in a skill that a character is good at.
Of course, this system will encourage characters to take only one rank in every skill. If you want to make the choices even more interesting, you could make a sliding scale:
This has the disadvantage of increasing the complexity, but it really encourages characters to put as many as four skill points into skills that they're "bad" at.
Of course, if you adopted this system, you would need to increase the DC's of most skill checks, since characters would be receiving such large bonuses for skills that they're good at. You might also want to give characters more skill points (e.g. an extra 2 per level) so that they have enough to spread around.
2. Ability Scores
The d20 system already has a mechanism to prevent min/maxing of ability scores at character creation, namely the "point buy" system:
Using this system, it usually makes sense to have a nice range of scores, with some very high, some medium, and some low. Of course, it would be possible to increase the costs of the very high scores, which would discourage min/maxing even more.
In d20, characters also get a +1 increase to a single ability score every 4th level, and characters often choose to increase just a single score (usually their primary stat). Unfortunately, this encourages min/maxing. Here's an alternative rule:
Every fourth level, characters get 3 additional points that they can use to "point buy" higher ability scores.
For example, a character could choose to increase a single 16 to a 17, or could increase a low ability score by 3, or three low ability scores by 1 each. This system would encourage characters to spend points to improve their low scores, although they would still have the option of improving their best score.
Finally, characters also use magic items to improve their ability scores. Again, there is already a system in place to discourage min/maxing, which is the sliding cost scale for ability score improvements:
Because of these costs, it usually makes more sense for a character to get two different +2 items than a single +4 item.
If you want to discourage min/maxing even more, one way would be to make magic items available that improve more than one ability score. For example, there could be an 8,000 gp magic item that grants a +2 enhancement bonus to all physical ability scores, and another one that grants a +2 enhancement bonus to all mental ability scores. Or, if you prefer, there could be 6,000 gp items that grant +2 to one physical and one mental each, or a 12,000 gp item that grants +2 to all ability scores, and so forth. The point is, if you want characters to spend money to become more well rounded, then incentives to do so need to be built into the selection of magic items.
3. Other Things
The same general philosophy applies to any part of the system: *if you want characters to be well-rounded, you need to build incentives for this directly into the system*.
For example, most melee characters in a d20 system take exclusively combat feats, to the exclusion of all other choices. If you want to prevent this, you would need to sort the feats into categories, e.g. "combat feats" and "skill feats", or some such. If you want characters to take both, there are a few choices:
1. Mandate that every character take some combat feats and some skill feats. For example, some of the bonus feats that characters get could be required to be skill feats, and some could be required to be comabt feats.
2. Instead of mandating, just make it easier for characters to pick up feats in their non-preferred category. For example, you could make a rule that, whenever a character has four more combat feats than skill feats, then they can pick up two skill feats for the price of one.
You may even be unhappy with the way that the d20 system encourages characters to specialize in either fighting or magic. If you want to see more gish characters (on the grounds that they're well-rounded), just make it easier to gain combat power when you have lots of magic power, and vice-versa. For example, you could make a rule that any character with at least six more levels of wizard than fighter can get two levels of fighter for the price of one.
The point is, players will always tend to build the most powerful characters they can in a given system, and for most RPG systems this means min/maxing. If you want to encourage well-roundedness, you really need to put incentives into the system itself to encourage this. It needs to be easy to pick up new abilities and improve at the things that you're bad at, but hard to improve at the things that you're good at.
Finally, none of this will matter unless it's also to a character's advantage to become well-rounded. There needs to be some in-game reason why every single skill or ability is important to every single character. For example:
1. For every single skill, there would need to be some reason that it's advantageous for every member of a party to have that skill. For example, if you want everyone to feel like they should personally take a Knowledge skill, there needs to be some personal bonus to having knowledge that can't be communicated. Maybe passing a Knowledge check on a monster should give you a +2 insight bonus to attack rolls against that monster for the rest of the encounter . . . something like that.
2. Every feat or ability needs to be useful for every character. If you want wizards to improve their combat abilities, then there needs to be some reason that wizards commonly find themselves in combat. For example, it might be common to run into monsters that are immune to magic, or perhaps the way magic works is that wizards need to "recharge" (not cast spells) for a few rounds after casting a powerful spell.
I don't know the system that you're working on, but I think I can illustrate what I'm saying using the d20 system. The same principles apply to any system that you build.
1. Skill Points
The d20 skill points system encourages min/maxing of skills. The reasons for this are subtle. First, because it often suffices for only one member of a party to pass a skill check, it makes sense for the members of a party to specialize in certain skills. Second, because the DC's of skill checks often increase with level, you really need to keep up with the skills you have for them to remain useful.
In any case, here's a simple rule that would encourage characters to pick up more skills:
The first skill point gives a +5 bonus to checks in that skill. Every additional skill rank gives +1.
With this system, there's a much bigger incentive for characters to put at least one skill point in many different skills, since that single skill point makes a bigger difference in a new skill than in a skill that a character is good at.
Of course, this system will encourage characters to take only one rank in every skill. If you want to make the choices even more interesting, you could make a sliding scale:
| Skill Ranks | Bonus |
| 1 | +5 |
| 2 | +9 |
| 3 | +12 |
| 4 | +14 |
| 5 or more | skill ranks +10 |
This has the disadvantage of increasing the complexity, but it really encourages characters to put as many as four skill points into skills that they're "bad" at.
Of course, if you adopted this system, you would need to increase the DC's of most skill checks, since characters would be receiving such large bonuses for skills that they're good at. You might also want to give characters more skill points (e.g. an extra 2 per level) so that they have enough to spread around.
2. Ability Scores
The d20 system already has a mechanism to prevent min/maxing of ability scores at character creation, namely the "point buy" system:
| Score | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| Cost | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 16 |
Using this system, it usually makes sense to have a nice range of scores, with some very high, some medium, and some low. Of course, it would be possible to increase the costs of the very high scores, which would discourage min/maxing even more.
In d20, characters also get a +1 increase to a single ability score every 4th level, and characters often choose to increase just a single score (usually their primary stat). Unfortunately, this encourages min/maxing. Here's an alternative rule:
Every fourth level, characters get 3 additional points that they can use to "point buy" higher ability scores.
For example, a character could choose to increase a single 16 to a 17, or could increase a low ability score by 3, or three low ability scores by 1 each. This system would encourage characters to spend points to improve their low scores, although they would still have the option of improving their best score.
Finally, characters also use magic items to improve their ability scores. Again, there is already a system in place to discourage min/maxing, which is the sliding cost scale for ability score improvements:
| Bonus | +2 | +4 | +6 |
| Cost | 4,000 gp | 16,000 gp | 36,000 gp |
Because of these costs, it usually makes more sense for a character to get two different +2 items than a single +4 item.
If you want to discourage min/maxing even more, one way would be to make magic items available that improve more than one ability score. For example, there could be an 8,000 gp magic item that grants a +2 enhancement bonus to all physical ability scores, and another one that grants a +2 enhancement bonus to all mental ability scores. Or, if you prefer, there could be 6,000 gp items that grant +2 to one physical and one mental each, or a 12,000 gp item that grants +2 to all ability scores, and so forth. The point is, if you want characters to spend money to become more well rounded, then incentives to do so need to be built into the selection of magic items.
3. Other Things
The same general philosophy applies to any part of the system: *if you want characters to be well-rounded, you need to build incentives for this directly into the system*.
For example, most melee characters in a d20 system take exclusively combat feats, to the exclusion of all other choices. If you want to prevent this, you would need to sort the feats into categories, e.g. "combat feats" and "skill feats", or some such. If you want characters to take both, there are a few choices:
1. Mandate that every character take some combat feats and some skill feats. For example, some of the bonus feats that characters get could be required to be skill feats, and some could be required to be comabt feats.
2. Instead of mandating, just make it easier for characters to pick up feats in their non-preferred category. For example, you could make a rule that, whenever a character has four more combat feats than skill feats, then they can pick up two skill feats for the price of one.
You may even be unhappy with the way that the d20 system encourages characters to specialize in either fighting or magic. If you want to see more gish characters (on the grounds that they're well-rounded), just make it easier to gain combat power when you have lots of magic power, and vice-versa. For example, you could make a rule that any character with at least six more levels of wizard than fighter can get two levels of fighter for the price of one.
The point is, players will always tend to build the most powerful characters they can in a given system, and for most RPG systems this means min/maxing. If you want to encourage well-roundedness, you really need to put incentives into the system itself to encourage this. It needs to be easy to pick up new abilities and improve at the things that you're bad at, but hard to improve at the things that you're good at.
Finally, none of this will matter unless it's also to a character's advantage to become well-rounded. There needs to be some in-game reason why every single skill or ability is important to every single character. For example:
1. For every single skill, there would need to be some reason that it's advantageous for every member of a party to have that skill. For example, if you want everyone to feel like they should personally take a Knowledge skill, there needs to be some personal bonus to having knowledge that can't be communicated. Maybe passing a Knowledge check on a monster should give you a +2 insight bonus to attack rolls against that monster for the rest of the encounter . . . something like that.
2. Every feat or ability needs to be useful for every character. If you want wizards to improve their combat abilities, then there needs to be some reason that wizards commonly find themselves in combat. For example, it might be common to run into monsters that are immune to magic, or perhaps the way magic works is that wizards need to "recharge" (not cast spells) for a few rounds after casting a powerful spell.
Though I already posted one other way to do this, hold on a second....
There is a large degree to which the progress/advancement issue is not relevant to the discussion. Why? Because player generally don't want their PCs to die!
If you have the potential for violent conflict, the player's going to consider that in their strategy. The more potential conflict, the more important survival in them will be. Thus - the more fighting you have, the more the players will want to min/max for survival. The long-term reward system is secondary, because a dead character can't generally reap the long term rewards anyway.
If you don't mind me making this suggestion but you should write down your game and organize it. Write down the steps to making a character, and when you have the document's rough draft finished than show it to your players and let them go at it. Most likely they will still do the same thing, but by writing it all down it could help you see your game from a different light.
Then if you ever wanted others to look at your rules for suggestions or even playtesting, you would have a document ready to share.
From what you describe it does sound pretty cool.
This.
I'm sorry but this is sounding like a horribly mismanaged mess. If you ain't got it written down, how can a player read it and learn the rules? How can anybody get the entire picture of how it all works and see if it makes sense or is balanced? How can anybody be sure we're actually playing by the rules, and not CalvinBall?
An RPG is generally a large mass of rules. Larger than can be stored in one persons memory, let alone easily shared with others in entirety. While I can imagine playtesting a component without writing it down, in general, you should be writing first, then playtesting what is written. ISO9000 applies to a lot of things (write down what you're going to do, then do it like you wrote it down).
