When the system gets in the way

[The Shaman]

1. Min/maxing does not preclude roleplaying.
I am something of a min/maxer, and always have been. Lots of rules, or only a few, and I will usually find some way to maximize my character so that he's really good at something - I'm less focused on minimizing my character's weaknesses, instead looking for a niche to fill in the party and allowing other adventurers to take up my character's slack.

The things I choose to maximize, however, tend to be as much about roleplaying as about working the system for advantages. Some examples -

Character 1: 1e AD&D human fighter. The character was a former pit-fighter, a low-rent gladiator. He wore leather armor and carried a buckler and short sword - Dex rather than Str was his high stat. I used the tactical combat rules to make flank and rear attacks as often as possible and took advantage of weapon speed mods every chance I got, and relied on foot speed and his Dex-enhanced armor class rather than heavy armor to avoid damage.

My choices about weapons and armor and stats were driven by the character's brutal origins - in many ways the choices were suboptimal for a frontline fighter. He did less damage and tended to be hit more often, particularly when there was no room to maneuver and he was forced to slug it out toe-to-toe. I maxed the character along the lines dictated by his past experiences, and accepted the penalties that came with those choices.

Character 2: 3.0e D&D human barbarian/bard. The character came from a steppeland dominated by tribes of horsemen - his goal was to become a chief of his tribe by proving his worth. To that I end I multiclassed into bard for the skill points and social class skills, and focused on selecting feats related to riding and mounted combat. He was a superb mounted warrior, a credit to his tribe, in a game where our characters rarely fought from horseback. My choices drove the min/maxing elf evoker player nuts, since I was missing all the 'obvious' feats that a barbarian 'should have.'

Character 3: Sidewinder: Recoiled wrangler. The character was the quintessential cowhand, more at home in the saddle than on two feet. Once again I maxed riding skills, to the point where the character could take 10 at any time and achieve a check somewhere in the mid-30s - he was also a good hand with a lariat. I had no idea at the time the character was created whether or not the adventure would call for extensive riding and roping skills.

All three of these characters were good at what they did, and I worked the three rules systems to make them so. However, none of the characters was likely to end up on anyone's "best build" lists. The chargen choices were guided by roleplaying considerations, by character background and goals, rather than whether or not the character was the best at filling a party niche.

Working the mechanical side of the character doesn't have to be about doing the most damage, or casting the the most metamagicked fireball. That min/maxing devolves into this kind of decision-making says more about the players than the game.

2. Rules-lite systems often require on-the-fly rules creation.
I was playing classic Traveller one night a month or so ago, and one of the players wanted to fight with two weapons, specifically a pistol in one hand and a cutlass in the other. I ruled that his Str and Dex were effectively halved for determining if his character met the minimums required for wielding each weapon without a penalty, and threw an extra -2 modifier in there to boot.

The fact that there was no rule covering two-weapon fighting didn't mean that I just waved my hands and said okay, go ahead - it meant than I needed to apply what rules existed in the game and create a new one during play. The absence of rules did not streamline play in this instance - effective improvisation on the spot did.


Now, having said that, I agree that complex rules sets may not lend themselves to role-playing as well as less complex rules sets, if for no other reason than more complex rules sets may attract players for whom developing rules mastery is more important that characterization.

I also prefer rules-light systems because I am comfortable with my ability to interpolate missing values when I need to, and because my players apparently trust me not to hose their characters unreasonably when I do so.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Gamer 1- he wanted to make a general based on spartacus. Unfortunately diplomacy and bluff suck for fighters. So his fighter had no chance to talk decently, and when he was talking to someone his sense motive sucked. So it was virtually impossible to turn a fighter into a rebel rousing, loyalty inspiring Spartacus.

He needed diplomacy, bluff, sense motive and knowledge (military tactics) to be a believable slave freeing Spartacus. Unfortunately 2 skillpoints per level and most of those being non class skills rendered Spartacus impossible to believably achieve as a fighter. Neither ranger nor palidan made sense so Spartacus was clearly impossible to have ever existed as a character.

IRL Sparticus wasn't allways a gladiatorial fighter. From a purely historical sense, he was a soldier, who was captured and used as a slave for a while, then made to fight as a gladiator. Unfortunately, there is no record as to what he did before he was a solder, so let's imagine a life of petty street crime for the kid...

Rogue 1

Spilling over into his early youth,

Rogue 2

before a brush too close with the law drives him to the millitary...

Fighter 1

Where he's shipped across the continent

Fighter 2

And battles the romans

Fighter 3

In spite of overwhelming odds

Fighter 4

Is ultimately overcome, enslaved, and sent to the pits...

Gladiator 1.

From which he escapes, along with a small band of followers

Fighter 5 / LEADERSHIP feat

THere! a 8th level PC for whom Diplomacy and Intimidate are not cross-class skills, AND he has a small loyal following, among whom he can have more charismatic and skilled cohorts.

Frankly, Spartius wasn't that great a tactician, or that great a general. At the point in history when he led a revolt, slaves outnumbered their owners by a wide margin.

He escaped forma rural area with only a few hundred other slaves, and as they travelled his ranks swelled to over 100,000 as they travelled, meeting no serious resistance for over a month of marching. a hundred thousand men, even poorly armed men, are more than an overwhelming force in comparison to the first army he had to face (which concisted of 3,000 raw recruits who had been told there were only a few hundred slaves).

What limited tactical knowledge he did posess was supplimented by really, really stupid enemies (one general chased Sparticus's army up a mountain, only one side of the mountain. Sparticus had soldiers decend the other side of the mountain, then walk around the base and flank the romans, who had left their rear completely unguarded.)

Really, he didn't start getting hit by hard enemies until several months had passed, and by then the majority of his slave army was armed with the spoils of war. Sparticus himself was probably approaching near-epic levels from sucessfuly commanding the army for so long.

 

[buzz]

It just seems that many min-maxers are so focused on min-maxing and working over the system, that they don't put much effort into being in character.

Well, like I was pointing out above, "being in character" is only one way to roleplay. Some poeple like to do that, some poeple like to test their systen mettle and face challenges, some people like to explore moral or social issues. Some people (probably most) mix many of those up in the same session. It's all roleplaying, baby.

 

[Hussar]

Working the mechanical side of the character doesn't have to be about doing the most damage, or casting the the most metamagicked fireball. That min/maxing devolves into this kind of decision-making says more about the players than the game.

QFT

Just to add. I play in much the same way that TheShaman has outlined. I don't deliberately shaft my characters in the name of serving some sort of roleplaying. Unless there is a very specific reason why, I would never play a one legged man for instance. Not that doing so is bad role playing, but, doing so would so seriously disadvantage my character from the get go that I am not interested.

I play a character who, in my view, is good at what I want him to be good at. My current dwarven fighter uses a pike and trips. However, that's not the character, that's just what he does. He's also a snarky bastard with a huge chip on his shoulder, a very bad slavic accent and so tight with a coin he poops diamonds. Perhaps not hte most original dwarf, but a heck of a lot of fun to play.

And, that, boys and girls, is the ONLY reason to play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, like I was pointing out above, "being in character" is only one way to roleplay. Some poeple like to do that, some poeple like to test their systen mettle and face challenges, some people like to explore moral or social issues. Some people (probably most) mix many of those up in the same session. It's all roleplaying, baby.

If you define "roleplaying" as X, then X is roleplaying, regardless of what X is. However, dealing with metagame issues is not generally considered roleplaying. Dealing with metagame issues does not preclude roleplaying in any sense, but mistaking metagame issues for in-character issues might well inhibit roleplaying.

 

[Mr Vergee]

Having just found this thread, I can relate to quite a few of the points raised.

Though I do nog agree that min-maxing gets in the way of roleplaying from the players' side at all (at least not in my campaign), it does tend to get in the way of the DM's focus. As a DM you have to have a good understanding of the rules, as has been stated many times before. With the dozens of extra rule books coming out you simply cannot keep up, certainly not if you want to use your preparation time focusing on the story. Preparing is hard enough just doing the latter. From that perspective extra rule books get in the way.

With the extra books players get more options and their PCs tend to get (a lot) stronger if players can come up with nifty combinations, which leaves the basic NPCs lacking in power, unless you spend a lot of prep time bringing them up to speed. This requires you to sacrifice a lot of time studying and rereading all the extra rule books which you could have used studying the adventure more, fleshing out NPC characters, motives, plots ...

Of course, a DM could forbid the use of all the extra material, but that is not an option in my game. We have played together for such a long time that every decision we make is a group decision. Some of my players are really into the extra books, which makes them really eager to use the material, and I do mean REALLY EAGER. Try making a 'group decision' that excludes these books then. It won't work. And I do want to continue playing with these guys because they are great people, good friends and excellent role-players.


Then there is another point I woul like to address. Some people claim that min-maxing is human nature. It might be in game land, but in real life it is anything but. I am a teahcer and I can tell you that none of my students, not even the best, are maxing out their talents. As a human you want a broad range of skills up to a level that allows you to function adequately in the/your world. Having a broad skill range is more important than being superspecialised in just one thing. I mean, everybody wants to know how to drive, but we don't have to be top racers; we all want to be able to communicate on a decent level, but we're not learning the dictionary by heart. If min-maxing was human nature, you probably wouldn't be reading this right now, but you would be training some skill that would allow you to get ahead in life.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If you define "roleplaying" as X, then X is roleplaying, regardless of what X is. However, dealing with metagame issues is not generally considered roleplaying. Dealing with metagame issues does not preclude roleplaying in any sense, but mistaking metagame issues for in-character issues might well inhibit roleplaying.

Quite.

 

[RFisher]

2e doesn't support tactical combat (at least out of the box it doesn't) so it doesn't make much sense to think tactically in that game. 3e does support tactical thinking in combat, so, we tend to see much more tactical combat occuring.

2e supports tactical combat. 3e requires something more--subtactical, I suppose.

To me, one of the biggest drawbacks of subtactical games--like 3e or Gurps advanced combat--is that it's more about the specific rules system. Anyone with a good real-world understanding of tactics can apply them to almost any system. The much of the understanding required to excel at subtactical games is--to a large extent--specific to that system.

Reguardless of how strong you are or how the country is laid out, the DM will send things at you that are just on the limit of what you can handle, and the party gets tougher for it.

This has always frustrated me about dungeon design.

I try to put encounters where they belong & let the PCs decide when they want to avoid a region because it tends to be too dangerous for them & when they want to waste their time with cakewalks.

Of course, it's a broad thing. A particular area may have some uncharacteristically tough as well as uncharacteristicly weak encounters.

Sure, I might tweak things a bit based on the PCs, but it's a balance. I don't, however, throw an ancient dragon into the middle of town just because the PCs are high level & happen to be in town at the moment. Likewise, if a low-level party decides to take a shortcut through the Forest of Unbelievably Lovecraftian Nightmare Horrors, they best be prepared to run from the first encounter, & even that might not save them.

 

[The Shaman]

2e supports tactical combat. 3e requires something more--subtactical, I suppose.

To me, one of the biggest drawbacks of subtactical games--like 3e or Gurps advanced combat--is that it's more about the specific rules system. Anyone with a good real-world understanding of tactics can apply them to almost any system. The much of the understanding required to excel at subtactical games is--to a large extent--specific to that system.

This is an interesting observation.

I never played 2e, so my comments come from my experience with 1e AD&D. Many of the so-called "tactical" rules of 3e are extensions of the combat rules in 1e that were apparently overlooked or otherwise never used by many gamers. The AD&D rules reflected an old-school minis wargamer sensibility, where the action in the RAW wasn't tightly confined to a grid (as in 3.5) and didn't further abstract elements like facing, shield-side attacks, and so on. As a tape measure-packing, protractor-wielding grognard, I can definitely appreciate the approach to tactics presented in the 1e AD&D rules over those of 3.5.

There are certainly advantages to be gained in combat using both rules systems: where 3e has its attacks of opportunity, flanking, and sneak attack, 1e has free attacks on a disengaging opponent, flank and rear attacks, and backstab. Mastery of the system certainly yields bonuses in both cases. This could be an argument for "subtactical" combat going back to the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

So why is it after playing both games, I feel like there are fewer constraints on my tactical choices using 1e AD&D?!?

I think part of it may be the feat system. While feats don't automatically preclude a character from trying some tactical move or action in 3e, the penalties for attempting an action without the appropriate feat can be daunting. For example, the penalties for fighting with two weapons in 1e AD&D were less severe than they are in 3e D&D: -2/-4 in 1e, compared to -4/-8 without the Two-Weapon Fighting feat in 3e, assuming light off-hand weapons for each - investing in the appropriate feat is a hit on a 3e rogue, compared to his dual-dagger wielding 1e thief counterpart.

I think the other part may be the increased codification of the rules in 3e - where so much was left to the game master's good judgement (or, to be fair, bad judgement at times) in AD&D, now there's a rule for (just about) everything, and for (just about) everything a rule. I agree, RFisher, that this is contributes to the subtactical feel that you described, a tendency to play the rules more carefully to avoid those heinous penalties or discarding actions that are described in terms of class abilities or feats that the character doesn't possess.

It doesn't have to be this way with 3e - it certainly wasn't in my three-point-oh game - but I suspect that it may be, more often than not, the way gamers approach the current edition.

 

[buzz]

Deleted.