Blaming the System for Player/GM actions

[Faraer]

I've also surmised that rules complexity is sustained by a feedback loop. The more publishers cater to the segment of people who like complex rules, the more they feed and confirm that desire and alienate the roleplaying culture from people who don't.

 

[Odhanan]

No, it's not fair to blame the system for Players/DMs decisions.

 

[prosfilaes]

Is it fair to blame a game system for player and GM decisions, such as the ever infamous min/maxing?

Wow, what a biased question. I'm stunned how both roleplayers and programmers always blame the user, not the tool. If a lot of people are being killed in car crashes, we shouldn't add seat-belts, because it's all the fault of the idiot drivers.

Most roleplayers want to play effective characters, and don't want to be playing second fiddle to someone else in the party who can do everything they can do better. So they are going to min/max. That's why almost every roleplaying game invented, including every edition of D&D, has tried to make the characters balanced. It certainly is reasonable to blame the game system if it doesn't try to do that.

Games that don't try and balance just mean you've got to min/max. If you choose a Vagabon in Rifts, the Juicer can and will walk right over you. So if you want an effective character, you've got to carefully sit down and calculate what an effective character would be. In D&D, you can at least pick any class for roleplaying reasons and still make a reasonably effective and useful character in the party.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Have you read this yet?

Yes, now that I've followed the link, I remembered that I have read it.

 

[3catcircus]

Wow, what a biased question. I'm stunned how both roleplayers and programmers always blame the user, not the tool. If a lot of people are being killed in car crashes, we shouldn't add seat-belts, because it's all the fault of the idiot drivers.

Most roleplayers want to play effective characters, and don't want to be playing second fiddle to someone else in the party who can do everything they can do better. So they are going to min/max. That's why almost every roleplaying game invented, including every edition of D&D, has tried to make the characters balanced. It certainly is reasonable to blame the game system if it doesn't try to do that.

Games that don't try and balance just mean you've got to min/max. If you choose a Vagabon in Rifts, the Juicer can and will walk right over you. So if you want an effective character, you've got to carefully sit down and calculate what an effective character would be. In D&D, you can at least pick any class for roleplaying reasons and still make a reasonably effective and useful character in the party.

All I've got to say to this is: Bulls**t.

You do *not* have to min/max if a game doesn't try and balance. In fact, I would argue that if you are not chosing a character based on what you *want* vice what you *think* you need, then you aren't doing your job as a player - regardless of game system.

As a DM - I don't *want* min/maxers, munchkins or powergamers. For games that have non-balanced rules, *I* ensure that obstacles and encounters are matched up to the PC's power level. The players set the pace and determine how challenging things will be by the choices they make when developing and advancing their characters. In inherently balanced systems like d20, the rules themselves ensure that this occurs.

When someone decides to min/max, it can ruin things for the other players who may now feel that they *have* to min/max to "keep up with the Joneses" instead of letting their personal choices shape their PC development - and it definitely ruins things for the DM who now has to work twice as hard to challenge the min/maxers and not outright kill the non-min/maxers.

In my current campaign I am running into this problem because I let one player chose a race/class that combined with a specific set of feats, is way overpowered. My current campaign has a kobold wizard, a human wizard, an aasimar cleric, a halfling rogue, a dwarven fighter/ranger, and a githzerai monk/psionicist. Based on each players' character background, the possibility of the gith being in the campaign world was possible, so I allowed it (I disallowed him playing a xeph because they don't exist in my Forgotten Realms). The player playing the halfling rogue wants to change his character and I suspect it is because the monk/psionicist can scout better than he can. If I disallowed the gith, *or* the monk, *or* psionics, I don't think I'd have this problem.

As it is, I don't (and never have) explored how to min/max a PC, so I didn't see this possibility beforehand. Now I know better.

I think that if a DM limits player choices to some degree, players can still min/max while not being able to MIN/MAX and it will make the game go smoother for everyone.

 

[prosfilaes]

You do *not* have to min/max if a game doesn't try and balance. In fact, I would argue that if you are not chosing a character based on what you *want* vice what you *think* you need, then you aren't doing your job as a player - regardless of game system.

So if you decide you want to play a vagabond, it's all right if everyone else plays juciers and cybernetically enhanced characters? If in combat encounters, you can't damage the enemies and they can destroy in one shot, since that's what it takes to challenge the other players? If in NPC encounters, you get shoved to the back, because you don't have a cybenetically enhanced tongue and a surgery enhanced appearance? If in knowledge checks, you have no chance against the PCs consolting in-built computers?

In another system, do you really think it would be fun playing a first level fighter in a group of 20th level characters?

In inherently balanced systems like d20, the rules themselves ensure that this occurs.

Inherently balanced? That's absurd; there's nothing inherent about d20's balance. Most people agree that there's more and less powerful prestige classes. d20 is balanced based on the balance of the feats, classes and races.

When someone decides to min/max, it can ruin things for the other players who may now feel that they *have* to min/max to "keep up with the Joneses" instead of letting their personal choices shape their PC development

Why? I think rather, they were always working to make effective characters, and now the level of effective character has just been upped.

and it definitely ruins things for the DM who now has to work twice as hard to challenge the min/maxers and not outright kill the non-min/maxers.

Then in fact balance does matter.

The player playing the halfling rogue wants to change his character and I suspect it is because the monk/psionicist can scout better than he can.

So in fact d20 is not inherantly balanced, and "most roleplayers [...] don't want to be playing second fiddle to someone else in the party who can do everything they can do better.

I don't see why the profanity was even necessary. You didn't even disagree with me all that much.

 

[3catcircus]

So if you decide you want to play a vagabond, it's all right if everyone else plays juciers and cybernetically enhanced characters? If in combat encounters, you can't damage the enemies and they can destroy in one shot, since that's what it takes to challenge the other players? If in NPC encounters, you get shoved to the back, because you don't have a cybenetically enhanced tongue and a surgery enhanced appearance? If in knowledge checks, you have no chance against the PCs consolting in-built computers?

In another system, do you really think it would be fun playing a first level fighter in a group of 20th level characters?

That is the GM's fault, not the fault of the rules. The GM shouldn't allow everyone to play the same type of character except for one player, and then throw them into situations where that one player isn't given the opportunity to let his character shine.

Inherently balanced? That's absurd; there's nothing inherent about d20's balance. Most people agree that there's more and less powerful prestige classes. d20 is balanced based on the balance of the feats, classes and races.

I never said that being more or less powerful was balanced or imbalanced. The d20 core mechanics are inherently balanced. It is only when somone (a designer/developer) min/maxes the rules to come up with some prestige classes that are more powerful than others. Then someone else (the player) min/maxes exponentially by using an already min/maxed feat, prestige class, etc. as part of his min/max efforts.

Why? I think rather, they were always working to make effective characters, and now the level of effective character has just been upped.

"Effective" by whose standards? Powerful and effective don't necessarily mean the same thing. A rogue with a high Dex and tons of ranks in "Open Locks" is no more effective than one with an average Dex, or not as many ranks in "Open Locks" but who has a crowbar, or special acids in addition to the thieves' tools. Maybe he has spread his skills and has some ranks in disguise, bluff, etc. - this could be even more effective even if his raw skill ranks don't make him as "powerful."

Then in fact balance does matter.

Only if the DM doesn't do his job.

So in fact d20 is not inherantly balanced, and "most roleplayers [...] don't want to be playing second fiddle to someone else in the party who can do everything they can do better.

See my above - the core d20 mechanics *are* balanced.

I don't see why the profanity was even necessary. You didn't even disagree with me all that much.

What profanity? You call *that* profanity? And, yes - I did disagree with you, I just think you missed my point entirely.

 

[prosfilaes]

That is the GM's fault, not the fault of the rules. The GM shouldn't allow everyone to play the same type of character except for one player, and then throw them into situations where that one player isn't given the opportunity to let his character shine.

So why didn't you deal with the monk/psionisist?

The d20 core mechanics are inherently balanced. It is only when somone (a designer/developer) min/maxes the rules to come up with some prestige classes that are more powerful than others.

What on Earth does it mean that they are inherently balanced? Toughness surely isn't balanced against Power Attack. You don't have to min/max the rules to produce a more powerful prestige class, since there's no balancing elements you have "work".

"Effective" by whose standards?

By the players. Effective in getting stuff done.

A rogue with a high Dex and tons of ranks in "Open Locks" is no more effective than one with an average Dex,

A rouge with a higher Dex and more ranks in "Open Locks", all other things being equal, can do more things than a rouge without that. The first rogue has less chance he will be replaced by a knock spell and the fighter with a crow-bar.

or not as many ranks in "Open Locks" but who has a crowbar, or special acids in addition to the thieves' tools. Maybe he has spread his skills and has some ranks in disguise, bluff, etc. - this could be even more effective even if his raw skill ranks don't make him as "powerful."

But that's a non-sequitor. Just because you can rearrange things and produce an equally effective character doesn't mean that there aren't more and less effective characters.

Only if the DM doesn't do his job.

Then why do you complain that some designer produced a more powerful prestige class? That's your problem, not the systems.

Under your way of thinking, I don't see that LA is a good idea; it's the DM's job to look at a 8th level fighter hobgoblin and 7th level mage aasimar and say whether they're equal or not. Why bother rolling for attributes; why not just let the players pick attributes and let the DM do his job?

 

[Ourph]

Dear D&D3.5,

I'm sorry to be writing this instead of telling you in person, but I just can't stand another encounter. You know we always end up doing the same thing, drawing it out onto a huge battlemat and arguing about ridiculous things like cover bonuses and attacks of opportunity. It's just not working out and I can't take it anymore. I want you to know that it's not YOU, it's ME. No one can say it's your fault. You are what you are and that's OK, but we just don't fit. I just don't have the time or energy to invest in loving you the way you deserve. There are a lot of other gamers out there who can appreciate and love you more than I can, and you deserve that. I hope you understand.

Goodbye!

Ourph

 

[The Shaman]

Dear Ourph,

Enclosed is an emergency room bill for $567.82, for services rendered in treating a sprained back and four bruised ribs, suffered from falling out of my chair laughing while reading your post. Thank you for your prompt remittance.

Sincerely,

The Shaman