Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 7476693" data-attributes="member: 6685730">I see three causes of min-max character creation:1) Quantitative/optimization preference. 2) Suppressed bloodlust.3) Succeed/fail rules.Now if you're a min-maxer, I'm sure you love to make those numbers pop, per #1, and you're not actually a threat to society.&nbsp; That's your preference, and that's cool.&nbsp; But some of your brethren have primal blood, so #2 is an issue for them.&nbsp; You may or may not gravitate toward games that have succeed/fail rules, #3.&nbsp; #3 is under the direct control of game designers and GMs, so it's the one cause that we can remedy.Why succeed/fail rules?&nbsp; First, these are a known issue, which is probably why the &quot;fail forward&quot; idea has been raised, as well as &quot;damage on a miss.&quot;&nbsp; But, for me, it boils down to this:So why make a character that can fail?&nbsp; Why waste time?&nbsp; The obvious solution is to make a character with the greatest possible bonus to whatever he could possibly fail, which is most often attacks in combat.&nbsp; Failure will still happen, but at least it's minimized, which means that the player spends the least amount of time twiddling her thumbs.As a GD/GM, you can give PCs something interesting to do - all the time - so that sitting around, doing nothing, is not a concern of the player.&nbsp; And min-maxing is not necessary for maintaining interest in the game.Are there other causes of min-maxing?&nbsp; Do you dread doing nothing at the table while watching the other players have fun?&nbsp; What games have addressed this and subsequently reduced min-maxing?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 7476693, member: 6685730"] I see three causes of min-max character creation: 1) Quantitative/optimization preference. 2) Suppressed bloodlust. 3) Succeed/fail rules. Now if you're a min-maxer, I'm sure you love to make those numbers pop, per #1, and you're not actually a threat to society. That's your preference, and that's cool. But some of your brethren have primal blood, so #2 is an issue for them. You may or may not gravitate toward games that have succeed/fail rules, #3. #3 is under the direct control of game designers and GMs, so it's the one cause that we can remedy. Why succeed/fail rules? First, these are a known issue, which is probably why the "fail forward" idea has been raised, as well as "damage on a miss." But, for me, it boils down to this: So why make a character that can fail? Why waste time? The obvious solution is to make a character with the greatest possible bonus to whatever he could possibly fail, which is most often attacks in combat. Failure will still happen, but at least it's minimized, which means that the player spends the least amount of time twiddling her thumbs. As a GD/GM, you can give PCs something interesting to do - all the time - so that sitting around, doing nothing, is not a concern of the player. And min-maxing is not necessary for maintaining interest in the game. Are there other causes of min-maxing? Do you dread doing nothing at the table while watching the other players have fun? What games have addressed this and subsequently reduced min-maxing? [/QUOTE]

Verification