The Min-Max Problem: Solved

[Celebrim]

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.

 

[Starfox]

Cracking down on abuse of player skill and whether and when you should do that is a whole thread itself.

Quoted for truth.

 

[pemerton]

'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.

 

[gatorized]

Why I am a Min-Maxxer: Part 2 - The Gaming Den