How to design a game where players don't seek to min-max

[System Ufera]

Hello, everyone! As some of you may know, I'm designing my own system from scratch. After a decent amount of testing and player commentary, I've been made plainly aware of players' tendencies to focus solely on what what their character does (and at that, only actively, as in very little attention is paid even to defenses), and with no focus on anything else. I've intended from the start that this should NOT make an optimized character, but every character that's been made by players has been ridiculously over-powered in one area and entirely incompetent in other, even related, areas, and even character's I've pregen'd for my players tend to go in that direction once the players get a hold of them.

Now, granted, I've recently had to start over in terms of player content, and so there's admittedly little for my new players to invest in, but before I start re-making content, I want to know what's out there in terms of design techniques for promoting better-rounded characters over min-maxed characters. Currently, what I'm using to reach for that goal is the following:

-There are 5 "defenses" (similar in concept to DnD 4e), each based on a set of two basic attributes (there are nine attributes in my game), and most of the attributes are secondary, or even tertiary, for the character archetypes that would have these defenses (for example, a brave warrior would want a high Morale defense to keep from getting scared, and Morale is based on Resolve, a primary attribute which otherwise does little else for warriors).
-Every check to determine success/failure in my game combines the values of two attributes or skills (plus other values, if applicable) to determine the character's chances of success in accomplishing what they set out to accomplish.
-Damage in my game is primarily determined by an attribute's modifier (the attribute divided by five), which determines the number of damage dice rolled, but a small static bonus to damage is based on another primary attribute's modifier
-Many "edges" (the term my game uses instead of "feats") require as prerequisites some investment in attributes or skills that are tertiary at best to the characters that would most likely use them

In addition, my game further supports the viability of well-rounded characters by being classless, with each and every option purchasable (via XP) to any character that both meets the prerequisites and has the XP to spend on it.

Apparently, all of that isn't enough, since my players still seem to be min-maxing as much as possible. Any help in discouraging complete min-maxing will be appreciated.

EDIT: It seems that there's some additional confusion regarding exactly what I'm trying to cut down on. I'm not saying that I'm trying to cut down on optimization of all kinds, but rather, I'm trying to cut down on specifically the sort of optimization where players will create characters that have invested in only an extremely narrow set of stats. I realize that, to an extent, optimization is both good and necessary; however, as elaborated on the second page, I'm trying to make my game such that a truly optimized character will be at least somewhat rounded.

 

[Morrus]

I'm with you. It's tough. In my own game, every playtest report I get involves characters with combat stats min-maxed to the fore. And I don't want to mechanically prevent it, because I want the possibility for such characters to exist. I didn't quite anticipate that players would only play such characters, though.

That's useful, though. It shows me that I'm not incentivizing them to do otherwise well enough yet. Although a very large portion of that is the adventures themselves - an adventure can very strongly define what's useful and what's not. A combat munchkin will not fare well in a political intrigue, for example.

My suggestion is playtest adventures which reward well-rounded characters with excitement and fun!

One idea I'm playing with is granting well rounded characters bigger luck pools in my game. It's just a vague idea right now, though. I haven't considered how to implement it.

 

[gamerprinter]

One way to minimize min-maxing with a system, could be how Twilight 2000 did it. If you wanted to create a soldier who had the best physical attibutes, this meant that character was young, low ranking and had very little skills and capability. If you wanted someone with experience and a large skillset, they had rank, but this meant that there were long exposed to radiation, and physically weak compared to the young guy. There was no way in that system to do both in the same character. I'm not saying this is a universal fix, just how Twilight 2000 did it.

 

[Celebrim]

Apparently, all of that isn't enough, since my players still seem to be min-maxing as much as possible. Any help in discouraging complete min-maxing will be appreciated.

The first question you have to ask is why you wish to do this? Is the game going to be better if your players don't min/max?

Off hand, I think you are fighting a problem that can't be solved entirely via rules. Regardless of the rule set, a character's success depends on having reliable choices. A smart player never trusts his success to a coin flip. If a character's powers don't succeed the overwhelming majority of the time, they aren't really worth having. It's far better to be reliably good in one area and reliably fail in every other area, than it is to fail half the time in every area.

None of the rules you describe really get around that. In fact, you almost seem to have gone out of your way to make a system that encourages min/maxing and system mastery. Sight unseen, it sounds like a number fiddlers paradise on par with GURPS. In particular, your estimation that being classless supports the viability of well-rounded characters is exactly backwards. Classes support well-rounded characters. Removing the stricture of having to adhere to a class structure allows for maximum min/maxing.

The only possible way I can think to mitigate against that via rules is have a system that doesn't have binary pass/fail, but has for all tasks varying degrees of failure. In such a system, it would be worth it to have your character only fail marginally most of the time, rather than consistently fail disastrously. Degree of failure systems in general though involve extra math and have a pragmatic problem in that its rarely possible to define a critical fumble in all situations. Usually, to define critical failures, you have to appeal to some sort of narrative power which involves some sort of 'jinx' or 'curse' where the world rearranges itself to accommodate the failure. Note that if you have degrees of failure and degrees of success, and not degrees of failure only, you're probably back to a system that encourages min/maxing to ensure those critical successes on a reliable basis.

However, the real issue here in my opinion is less of a rules problem than a encounter design problem. As long as the group can depend on another member of the group to solve a problem in their area of specialization, there is no need to build a well balanced character. A well balanced party will tend to be far superior because everyone's problem solving will collectively be more reliable. To mitigate against that, you have to force everyone into situations where they are reliant on their own resources.

Which brings me back to my first point, are you sure you want to do this?

 

[Celebrim]

One way to minimize min-maxing with a system, could be how Twilight 2000 did it. If you wanted to create a soldier who had the best physical attibutes, this meant that character was young, low ranking and had very little skills and capability. If you wanted someone with experience and a large skillset, they had rank, but this meant that there were long exposed to radiation, and physically weak compared to the young guy. There was no way in that system to do both in the same character. I'm not saying this is a universal fix, just how Twilight 2000 did it.

This only tells me that the Twilight 2000 implemented balance in the game - that is, it obeys the fundamental law of RPGs by not letting you be good at everyone. It doesn't tell me that you can't min/max, or even that the system punishes min/maxing.

 

[Andor]

The answer is "It depends on what kind of game you want to make, and why you want it to dicourage min-maxing."

For example what genre is the game, and what tech level?

A more modern game encourages more rounded characters for the simple reason that it's obvious to a modern player why their character might want to be able to drive and use a computer as well as shoot a gun. It is less obvious to the majority of gamers why a medieval character might want to be able to spin twine into rope as well as swing a sword. Likewise for far future games it may be hard to grasp why a knowledge of crystal holography and poly-linguistic logic is more important that aiming a blaster.

The intended problems that the characters are intended to face and how they are expected to solve them will also play a role. For example if you were to sell a campagin as modern day monster hunting you would need to make it very, very clear to most players that they were not expected to deal with the monsters directly. Even if it's movie class dracula they are going to try packing a Barrett with silver ammo before they try to out wit their foe.

OTOH if the game is sold from the outset as being one of intrigue, trade and diplomacy then they will find it easier to grasp why a well rounded character is to their advantage.

Lastly sometimes a player will min-max not because it's mechanically optimal but because sometimes it's fun to play Jayne from Firefly. A socially crippled psychopath with no usefull skills aside from a propensity for violence. In fact when entering a new system or world it's often a standard strategy to make a mono-dimensional character simply because it's both easy and does not require the player to effectively employ a bunch of knowledge about the world which he hasn't had time to learn yet. Jayne doesn't need to know the history of conflict between the Temperence Guild and the Feathered Union and why it's a bad idea to mention tea at a meeting of them, he just stands in the back of the room looking baffled and punches things when a fight breaks out.

 

[gamerprinter]

This only tells me that the Twilight 2000 implemented balance in the game - that is, it obeys the fundamental law of RPGs by not letting you be good at everyone. It doesn't tell me that you can't min/max, or even that the system punishes min/maxing.

There was no way to min/max - that capability wasn't built into the system - it was a rather simple system if I recall.

 

[Celebrim]

A more modern game encourages more rounded characters for the simple reason that it's obvious to a modern player why their character might want to be able to drive and use a computer as well as shoot a gun.

I agree with all your post except for this. In an RPG context, only one character needs to be able to drive or use a computer. It may be obvious that a character might be able to live a rich and fuller life if they are more independent, but in an RPG context that 'normal' life isn't something you are striving for. You are trying to overcome heroic challenges while acting as part of a team, and really there is almost never a reason for the best driver to not drive the vehicle or the best hacker to not use the computer. Usually the only time you see deliberate back up skills is on something like 'heal', so that someone can take care of the usual healer in the event the usual healer is incapacitated. Otherwise, if someone has invested in Ancient History to the point of being reliable, there is usually never an incentive to know anything about Ancient History.

You can try to get around that through encounter design - every one has to escape the jungle base on ATV's, everyone has to pilot the X-Wing through the asteroid field, everyone has to mingle at the party and the NPCs insist on speaking to everyone, etc. But it's not clear that a sufficiently steady diet of that which would force the players to abandon min/maxing is actually more fun than letting the party cooperate on problems.

 

[Celebrim]

There was no way to min/max - that capability wasn't built into the system - it was a rather simple system if I recall.

If it had a skill list and points to spend, you could min/max.

 

[gamerprinter]

I believe it did, but I don't have the rules handy and haven't played since 1980's, so I couldn't really say. I only mentioned one aspect that I remembered about it. I actually only played one game with one player. So I couldn't tell you much. As an aside I hadn't even heard the concept of min/maxing until D&D 3x.