Blaming the System for Player/GM actions

[Lanefan]

If it's not a desirable result, why is min-maxing encouraged? That would seem to say that the rules are not doing what they're intended to do.

In that case, what I'm trying to say is that the rules are thus "intended to do" the wrong thing...or, possibly, that the wrong result is arising out of a completely different intention.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I beileve that you're confusing your personal preferences for an objective standard (i.e., synecdoche).

Define "synecdoche"; that's a new one on me.

Are you suggesting that D+D should be a competitive game between the players, then? I thought the idea was that the players co-operated (in theory) through their characters...?

If not, what are you suggesting?

Lanefan

 

[prosfilaes]

If you like that analogy - Did you happen to note how the rolecages, seatbelts, and airbags do nothing to prevent you from running your car into a tree?

But the problem is not running the car into a tree; a toddler in a toy car can run his car into a tree all day. It's the damage that results is the problem, and that's what those things try to deal with.

Perhaps it is better, though, to recognize that the analogy was a bit of (hopefully) catchy introduction. There's perfectly good reasoning given afterwards. Do you feel further reductio ad absurdum analogizing is a fitting way to address that?

I feel the original question was broad and your analogy was broad. The tools we use do matter and should be blamed when broken.

The rules are hardly the only thing that encourage playstyles - the DM and other players have input as well. We should only blame the rules in the cases where the players and DM all wanted to play a certain way, and the rules made that playstyle too difficult to achieve.

It's not just about difficult to achieve; it's about which direction the rules encourage. People are going to build characters that the rules encourage; in D&D, that's physically and magically powerful characters.

 

[Hussar]

It's not just about difficult to achieve; it's about which direction the rules encourage. People are going to build characters that the rules encourage; in D&D, that's physically and magically powerful characters.

Really? Characters are expected to be 25 point buy. That's the baseline assumption for physical attributes. Hardly powerful. Typically such a character has a single 15 as a highest stat and frequently suffers penalties from other stats. Magically powerful? Again, really? Following the wealth tables, we see the characters are most certainly not all that blinged out at least not until mid double digit levels.

The difference between a 7th level character with a +1 sword, a +1 suit of armor, +1 shield and a +2 Stat buff item (all within the range for a 7th level character and certainly not terribly overpowered) and a character with masterwork versions of weapon and armor is not a huge one. Yes, one is better, but, it's not like it's a vast chasm between the two.

 

[prosfilaes]

Really? Characters are expected to be 25 point buy. That's the baseline assumption for physical attributes. Hardly powerful.

I fail to see the baseline to judge whether that's powerful or not.

More importantly, the game rewards having characters that are more physically powerful and magically powerful, by giving them more XP because they can kill bigger creatures. When you get enough XP, you get more physically and magically powerful.

As counterexamples, GURPS doesn't encourage this as much, since XP is not related to size of creature killed; it's purely a judgement call of the GM and hence motivates whatever the GM wants to motivate. Call of Cthulhu doesn't encourage this, because there really is no reward to being the most physically powerful or magically powerful in most campaigns.

 

[Mr Jack]

Having just agreed greatly with this same poster on another thread, I have to largely disagree here...yes, the system encourages min-maxing but this is not a desireable result , for a few reasons.

I'm unsure on this. It is obvious from threads here and elsewhere that a lot of players enjoy the rules mastery angle of constructing highly effective builds. I think the problem lies in the level of additional power acheivable and, ultimately, in totally unbalancing combos.

First, it's not supposed to be a competitive game, so just because one player knows the sneaky angles should not by design give that player too many built-in advantages.

But that is a system design flaw. A well designed system has no master strategy. I'd also disagree on the competitive front, I think D&D is quite clearly (and for the most part, rather well) designed to have a competitive angle to it. It's not the be all and end all, sure, but it's definetely there.

Second, if a player who knows the sneaky angles has a character concept in mind that is intentionally weaker in some way there should not be too much of a systemic penalty attached.

I'd say that is a game design choice, not a "should".

Third, things like this tend to greatly discourage the casual player.

This to my mind is one of the biggest problems. It's far too easy in D&D for new players to produce simply underpowered characters by making bad choices long before they could be reasonably expected to understand those choices.

 

[Kormydigar]

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

Personally, I feel it is part of the GM's job to prevent system abuses.

Ok. Here is the way I see it. Most of the problems that are blamed on the system are actually conflicts in playing styles. The hardest thing to do in this hobby is get a group of people together that are all on the same page with regard to playing style. If you have that then the rules set really doesn't matter because you will have fun with just about anything.

As far as the min/maxing concern goes it will happen as long as there are rewards for doing it. In most D&D games combat plays a large role (and, yes there are exceptions) so building the most effective combatant is rewarded in the game. If a DM wants to reduce the amount of this min/maxing then the campaign that is running will have to prove out in actual play that min/maxing won't really pay in the long run. There are so many DM's that complain that thier players always optimize for combat yet run campaigns that are an endless series of fights. I have run many campaigns of this type and had a lot of fun doing it and I was never shocked or dissappointed by my players for optimizing thier characters to the extreme reaches of cheese. It really is all about player expectations and past experience.

All that being said, the rules system certainly can influence playing styles. While no system that provides much in the way of player options can really be optimization proof, I believe that game designers owe it to thier customers to reasonably playtest rules and work out obviously abusive combinations of powers before a product is published. I don't appreciate spending upwards of $40.00 for a book just so I can be a playtester for it.

 

[fusangite]

Ok. Here is the way I see it. Most of the problems that are blamed on the system are actually conflicts in playing styles.

Agreed.

The hardest thing to do in this hobby is get a group of people together that are all on the same page with regard to playing style. If you have that then the rules set really doesn't matter because you will have fun with just about anything.

Here I disagree. A group of people whose collective playing style does not fit with the system are more likely to experience conflict and frustration than if the game fits with their style. In a system where nobody cares much about mechanics, a very crunchy set of rules will lead to a collective apathy and mild annoyance.

As far as the min/maxing concern goes it will happen as long as there are rewards for doing it.

Indeed. If you don't like Min/Maxing, then for God's sake, use a system that does not reward it.

In most D&D games combat plays a large role (and, yes there are exceptions) so building the most effective combatant is rewarded in the game.

Furthermore, building an effective combattant is a sub-game of its own; because balance is an important principle, it is extra-challenging to gain minor mechanical advantages. And meeting such challenges is part of the enjoyment experienced by players who enjoy D&D as a system.

If a DM wants to reduce the amount of this min/maxing then the campaign that is running will have to prove out in actual play that min/maxing won't really pay in the long run.

And the only way to do that is to develop or purchase rules where this is true.

 

[Hussar]

And the only way to do that is to develop or purchase rules where this is true.

Fusangite, I agreed with you up to this statement. This statement assumes that a given system will only support a narrow range of play styles. While this is true of some games, I'm not sure if it is fair to say that it is universal. I also disagree that DnD assumes that characters must be min/maxed. Campaigns which feature little combat would be an example where combat min/maxing would not be rewarded.

In other words, in a high intrigue game set in Shelzar in Scarred lands, playing an orc barbarian would not be the optimal choice.

 

[buzz]

Define "synecdoche"; that's a new one on me.

Here's a definition.

I'm using it in a logical fallacy sense: "The Synecdoche fallacy is the mistake of thinking that an argument which proves something about a part of a thing actually proves it for all of that thing."

Are you suggesting that D+D should be a competitive game between the players, then? I thought the idea was that the players co-operated (in theory) through their characters...?

If not, what are you suggesting?

What I'm suggesting is that, when you say that min-maxing is "not a desirable result" and D&D "is not supposed to be a competitive game," you're only expressing your own personal preference. I.e., just because you consider these things undesirable, does not mean that everyone does, nor that they're "bad roleplaying."

I also don't believe that min-maxing inherrently means that the players are competing against each other. It's more that they're competing against the system itself.