This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments  (Read 8664 times)

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #75 on: October 05, 2022, 06:35:18 PM »
The only time it really causes a problem is when you have a mix of player types.  A non optimizer among an optimizing group will have a weaker character, and that’s not much fun for him.  An optimizer in a nonoptimizing group will hog the spotlight, and that’s no fun for everyone else.  The important thing is to get everyone on the same page.  You can do this by making sure that the rules ensure that everyone is equally powerfully, but that comes at a cost.  Such rules are tough to design, and are in my experience bland and flavorless.  The better option is to be aware of the issue and have agreement of the group as to how you’re going to approach things.  If you do that it won’t much matter that there are broken or OP builds.

In D&D I have a blast with that particular problem.  I make explicit to the players that magic items they find will be a mix of random and specially placed things that I find interesting and hope they do too.  The things I find the most interesting are the items that pull characters out of their shell and allow them to participate.  Power gamers then have two choices:  They can get less "cool" equipment than the other characters, or they can put their skills to work making sure the party is roughly equal in that respect--without stamping on other toes or telling people how to build their characters.  Which means that all power gamers that want to run wild have to turn into player diplomats. 

Of course, like tenbones said, they are going to pick their challenges in the sandbox anyway.  So more power just means more opportunities to push it.

In any case, "power gamer" is one of those terms that is on a sliding scale at every table.  It takes on negative or positive connotations exactly to the degree that the other players think the accused is diverging from the norm too much.  All I really do is try to fix it so that the players have to come to a consensus on what is desired, allowed, or excessive amongst themselves, because I ain't got time to police that nonsense during the game.  If I can do something with the game selection, nudges, house rules, etc. to discourage obvious problem, well I enjoy that kind of tinkering for its own sake.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #76 on: October 05, 2022, 07:55:24 PM »
I think this is the core of difference. I absolutely want a game where players succeed or fail based on their in-game choices [. . .] However, I don't want character creation to be a tactical game that players win or lose in.

No, that's definitely not it. I was speaking about the very nature of what it means to choose at all. All choices are made with the end result in mind. If the end results are all equally appeasing, then the choice itself has no meaning. Appeasing doesn't have to mean mechanical advantage. The player just has to want one thing more than the other.

If the player wants to play a Knight more than a Magician, that gives him good reason to choose the Fighter class over the Magic-User class, even if they are mechanically balanced and "equal" in some sense. All things being equal, he might also want to choose to play a human or an elf rather than a half-orc or a dwarf under the presumption that the former races have a more courtly vibe than the latter. I think we both agree that this part is all well and good.

But maybe the choice isn't so obvious if the player is deciding whether to play a Cleric, a Fighter, or a Paladin. And that's where I think taking a look at what you rolled for stats and how they mix and match with the different options can actually help guide the player along the process. Yeah. Sometimes this means some kind of mechanical advantage is going to be the bait. I'd rather that be the case than the player having no investment in this decision. And maybe that's where we differ.

I get that sometimes this extra concern of mine may not be an issue. Some players come to the table with fully formed character concepts and do not need that guidance. They just need the system to stay out of the way, and hopefully not make their idea suck. I'm not sure that's always realistically possible. So while I acknowledge that some gamers do indeed like the concept-first approach as a matter simple preference, it's not a preference I'd wish on my worst enemy. Sometimes it works. But I think it can also set you up for major disappointment.


Quote
Character creation to me is a metagame step prior to when the game itself starts.

I don't know that this is material to what we're talking about here, but I do think of character creation as part of the game insofar as, as part of the game, I expect, even demand it be fun. I want to feel engaged at this stage, and I want my players to feel engaged as early on as possible as well. This is especially on my mind as my group is playing Dangerous Journeys this coming weekend, and coming to the table with ready-to-go Heroic Personas is our homework for the week. I will bet anything one player shows up without a completed character. The process is a lot of work and not always all that fun.


Quote
I generally run character creation as a cooperative stage, and I try to make sure all players start out on an equal footing. I don't want players approaching character creation tactically, thinking about how they will get the best build to maximize their power.

For example, if during the game, a player comes up with a clever in-game strategy that will shortcut their opposition to win, I will applaud them and let it work. However, if someone comes up with a cleverly extra-powerful character creation build, I will tell them no and make a ruling so that their character is roughly balanced with the others.

So here's the problem I have with this. Say I tell each player to go out and get any one food and any one drink. Much in the same way D&D has you choose a class and a race. And I have a menu to choose from, much like D&D provides you with a list of classes and races.

Am I really supposed to think it's a bad thing if someone comes back with cookies and milk?
How much would I have to stale their cookies and sour their milk to make their snack combo equal to gouda cheese and orange juice?
Would doing so really add to the value of the snack table? Or would it only take away?
Do I really even want to encourage gouda and OJ by dignifying it with equal respect? I feel this is how we get halfling paladins and pineapple pizza.


Quote
I agree the half-orc cleric/fighter isn't cookie-cutter, though long-term it has the problem that half-orc is capped at Cleric level 4. Still, it sounds like approaching character creation tactically based on optimizing bonuses. The problem I was expressing in the beginning isn't that all optimized characters are cookie-cutter. In the modern D&D community, there are all sorts of people coming up with creatively optimized builds.


We began with the premise that racial adjustments encourage min-maxing, that whatever your highest stat is, it practically chooses a race for you because it's optimal. But you agree that there are all sorts of creative builds that are just as good. That doesn't seem like the original choice is all that optimal to me. It sounds like players have a lot of choice in the matter.

If my half-orc cleric/fighter is created so tactically and is so optimal, why is it that almost no one ever plays such a character? I don't know that I've done anything tactical at all. Although I may have exercised tact. As in, if I want to go with a cheese & juice combo, that maybe I should exercise some tact and pivot to grape juice rather than stick with OJ. If that's what the allure of min-maxing racial characteristics encourages, then yeah, I'm 100% all for it. It's a good thing.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #77 on: October 06, 2022, 01:09:56 AM »
I think this is the core of difference. I absolutely want a game where players succeed or fail based on their in-game choices [. . .] However, I don't want character creation to be a tactical game that players win or lose in.

No, that's definitely not it. I was speaking about the very nature of what it means to choose at all. All choices are made with the end result in mind.

If I got the difference wrong, then sorry. I suspect examples will work better than a philosophical approach about what a choice is, though.

For example, if during the game, a player comes up with a clever in-game strategy that will shortcut their opposition to win, I will applaud them and let it work. However, if someone comes up with a cleverly extra-powerful character creation build, I will tell them no and make a ruling so that their character is roughly balanced with the others.

So here's the problem I have with this. Say I tell each player to go out and get any one food and any one drink. Much in the same way D&D has you choose a class and a race. And I have a menu to choose from, much like D&D provides you with a list of classes and races.

Am I really supposed to think it's a bad thing if someone comes back with cookies and milk?
How much would I have to stale their cookies and sour their milk to make their snack combo equal to gouda cheese and orange juice?
Would doing so really add to the value of the snack table? Or would it only take away?
Do I really even want to encourage gouda and OJ by dignifying it with equal respect? I feel this is how we get halfling paladins and pineapple pizza.

It sounds like you're saying that halfling paladins are objectively bad for the game. Can you elaborate on why? For example, in the last GURPS Fantasy campaign I played in, I played a halfling airship captain - I guess the closest equivalent in D&D would be a Fighter - Battle Master. I felt he was a great character to play and contributed well to the campaign. He was very commanding and militaristic, and was known for speaking about things like a door being "normal sized" or "giant sized".

Likewise, I don't see anything wrong with a halflng paladin - taking inspiration from the legend of Bullroarer Took in Tolkien, for example. I can easily picture a halfling paladin as a great PC. There are a lot of games without racial attribute modifiers, like Fantasy Hero, Star Wars D6, and others. I've played games like those a lot over the years - and had a lot of outside-norm characters like halfling paladins. I've also had them in D&D despite attribute modifiers. The last character I played (rather than DMed) was a 5E one-shot this spring where I played a half-orc wizard.

1) Based on my experience, I don't have any problem with a halfling paladin or other race-class combinations outside the norm. Of course, these are also playable in D&D, particularly since 3rd edition after level limits were taken out.

2) In terms of choices, the choice for a wizard between +2 Strength and +2 Intelligence isn't an interesting or colorful trade-off. It's blatantly imbalanced and obvious.

3) Without attribute modifiers, D&D in every edition still has plenty of colorful choices between options. If a given elf character has a 16 Dexterity instead of 18 Dexterity, how much does that really change? If the 16 Dex elf is completely flat flavorless and identical to human, I assert that it doesn't suddenly because flavorful and interesting with 18 Dex.

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #78 on: October 06, 2022, 01:28:51 AM »
The only time it really causes a problem is when you have a mix of player types.  A non optimizer among an optimizing group will have a weaker character, and that’s not much fun for him.  An optimizer in a nonoptimizing group will hog the spotlight, and that’s no fun for everyone else.  The important thing is to get everyone on the same page.  You can do this by making sure that the rules ensure that everyone is equally powerfully, but that comes at a cost.  Such rules are tough to design, and are in my experience bland and flavorless.  The better option is to be aware of the issue and have agreement of the group as to how you’re going to approach things.  If you do that it won’t much matter that there are broken or OP builds.

In D&D I have a blast with that particular problem.  I make explicit to the players that magic items they find will be a mix of random and specially placed things that I find interesting and hope they do too.  The things I find the most interesting are the items that pull characters out of their shell and allow them to participate.  Power gamers then have two choices:  They can get less "cool" equipment than the other characters, or they can put their skills to work making sure the party is roughly equal in that respect--without stamping on other toes or telling people how to build their characters.  Which means that all power gamers that want to run wild have to turn into player diplomats. 

Of course, like tenbones said, they are going to pick their challenges in the sandbox anyway.  So more power just means more opportunities to push it.

In any case, "power gamer" is one of those terms that is on a sliding scale at every table.  It takes on negative or positive connotations exactly to the degree that the other players think the accused is diverging from the norm too much.  All I really do is try to fix it so that the players have to come to a consensus on what is desired, allowed, or excessive amongst themselves, because I ain't got time to police that nonsense during the game.  If I can do something with the game selection, nudges, house rules, etc. to discourage obvious problem, well I enjoy that kind of tinkering for its own sake.
What do you mean by the characters getting pulled out of their shells and participating? Can you elaborate on that and the player diplomat thing?
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #79 on: October 06, 2022, 11:40:56 AM »
If I got the difference wrong, then sorry. I suspect examples will work better than a philosophical approach about what a choice is, though.

Maybe in general, but I did initially did use an example, and that led you to think I was talking about something tactical. I'm talking about the nature of choice itself. As in literally all choices. Fundamentally, that involves using scarce means to achieve ends. If you only get to choose one race for your character, that's scarce. The ends part is a lot harder to label, because different players might have different reasons for choosing a particular race, and some of those reasons might not even have anything to do with game mechanics.

Also, as with any choice, it's possible to choose foolishly. I remember there being an old dragon magazine article retooling the monk for the umpteenth time where it was said something like choosing a monk thinking you were getting David Carradine only to be disappointed. That would be an example of a foolish choice. While it may be true that the monk is perhaps the closest choice you have to David Carradine, a lot of players might legitimately hold the view that, while they would rather play David Carradine than play Shrek, they would much rather play Shrek than something that is only 80% Carradine.

All this complicates the task of identifying the ends. But they're always there. In any choice, there's always going to be some looking ahead involved. And all choice has the potential for disappointment. Depending how loosey goosey you want to get with definitions, it's plenty easy to be able justify any example of choice as being tactical and resulting in unequal outcomes. Choice can always appear that way. That doesn't mean it is tactical, if we're using the word tactical in a way that makes meaningful distinctions.

Quote
It sounds like you're saying that halfling paladins are objectively bad for the game. Can you elaborate on why?

I haven't said that at all. I likened it to pineapple pizza. What could possibly be more a matter of taste than what people want on their pizza? For that matter, this idea that cookies & milk is somehow a better combination than gouda & OJ is also a matter of opinion.

But I confess, I did bait you on that. Because while we understand it's subjective, we also understand that so many people have such strong negative feelings about pineapple pizza that it's gotten to be something of a cultural meme of what not to do. As was the halfling paladin for a time.

And it's not entirely without justification. If I'm throwing a party and I want to have 6 pizzas waiting for when the guests arrive, and I don't necessarily know who exactly is going to show up or what exactly they'll be in the mood for, pineapple pizza is probably not going to be one of my go-to's. I probably am going to avoid anchovies as well. At least one of them will be plain, for sure. Probably one pepperoni and one house special just because those are classic pizza options. One vegetarian option.

Maybe one will be my favorite. Host privilege. And if I want pineapple and anchovies, so be it. What's the worse that can happen? No one else touches it? I have left-overs. It's fine. But if I don't like it, it's a silly thing to order. Even though it's technically possible there will be enough guests who will enjoy it that it won't go to waste, it's not where the smart money goes.

So when I called for tact in terms of tweaking orange juice to grape juice to go with the gouda, that might be analogous to playing a halfling who wants to be a paladin rather than playing a halfling paladin. Which I actually think is a much more interesting character, who comes to the table with motives. But the point is, it's not just about what that one player wants to play. It's about compromise and playing well with others in cooperative creation of a shared fantasy.


Quote
2) In terms of choices, the choice for a wizard between +2 Strength and +2 Intelligence isn't an interesting or colorful trade-off. It's blatantly imbalanced and obvious.

I don't necessarily agree. Which I think is sufficient to strike "blatant" and "obvious." I think you're objectively incorrect on those counts. But if I also happen to be correct in my assessment, it removes it from the "imbalanced" category as well.

To a degree, it's edition specific. If you're playing a version of the game that allows the wizard to fire limitless cantrips out their butthole and the potency of those spells is linked to INT in one way or another, yeah, you might have a point. But certainly in old school, where Intelligence usually does not affect the potency of the spells, and where spells are scarce, such that a wizard will have to a lot of non-wizard stuff through the course of an actual adventure, that undermines the point. I've played a magic-user with 18 STR. It was a frickin' awesome build. The pew-pew power of tossing 3 darts per round, all with that strength bonus applied? I didn't need magic missile. And that freed up slots for other more varied spells.

But there is also an asymmetry at work on a system-agnostic level. Going back to the premise in your original post, we were assuming that characters will tend to play to their strengths. The thing is, when fighters play to their strengths, they do a lot of fighting. Which is a lot more dangerous than sitting back casting spells (short of conjuring powerful beings). Right off the bat, they're not equal activities. No matter how much assume they are or like to pretend they are. No matter how much we think GMs can control it by what proportions of what they're including in the campaign. Some activities are more dangerous than others, and when it comes to danger, the chain is going to break at the weakest link. So there's every incentive in the world to strengthen that link given the choice.


Quote
3) Without attribute modifiers, D&D in every edition still has plenty of colorful choices between options. If a given elf character has a 16 Dexterity instead of 18 Dexterity, how much does that really change? If the 16 Dex elf is completely flat flavorless and identical to human, I assert that it doesn't suddenly because flavorful and interesting with 18 Dex.

It's hard to see clear why Elfs seeing in the dark is fine but a bonus to DEX is a bridge too far. Is a bonus when using bows and swords also a problem? Hey, if I'm going to be a fighter and specialize in longbow, I may as well play and elf an stack up another +1 to hit on top of that.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #80 on: October 06, 2022, 05:56:40 PM »
I don't experience this issue because I randomly roll for race.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #81 on: October 06, 2022, 06:06:17 PM »
What do you mean by the characters getting pulled out of their shells and participating? Can you elaborate on that and the player diplomat thing?

I always have some process in the game that rewards the more boisterous, aggressive, system guru, etc. types trying to include the other players as much as possible.  The exact process varies by system, but usually in a D&D-like game, I gear it to magic (items, spells, etc.).  In some cases, I'll use cachet, favor, reputation, etc. in a similar way.  It varies a little by group, because the point is that it something that the aggressive players want and are trying to get. 

It's just something that I started doing a long time ago when I realized that my games had changed.  When I started, it was everyone was aggressively pushing what the group and the individuals wanted. Simple party dynamics took care of it.  Now, I'll have 2/3 to 3/4 of my players will be somewhat reserved to shy.  If let untouched, the aggressive ones will all sit right next to me and drown out the rest.  I have gone as far as to do arranged seating, but since it's exactly the opposite of what everyone is trying to do naturally, it doesn't go well.  So the next best thing is an incentive for the aggressive players to be spread amongst the rest by their own choice, so that they can steer the shy players towards a similar party dynamic that an all aggressive group has.

If you like non-standard magic items a little on the strange side, then it's easy to harness that towards the same goals.  Strangely enough, I find mild curses on an otherwise good item to be excellent for this.  The aggressive character is always trying to eradicate every last negative.  The shy character is perversely proud that his magic sword causes goblins to want to kill him on sight.   Then the aggressive characters see how much fun that is, and they want their own quirky thing. 

It's about thinking about what your players want, why they want it, how they go about getting it--and then determining what you can throw in the way of situation or stuff or villain to get them to use that same energy going after something you want for the good of the group as a whole.  In the context of the original topic, you can't really stop a power gamer from power gaming, at least not without fighting them over it.  It's a lot less stressful and much more rewarding to instead channel the power gaming into something that helps you.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #82 on: October 06, 2022, 07:34:24 PM »
Without attribute modifiers, D&D in every edition still has plenty of colorful choices between options. If a given elf character has a 16 Dexterity instead of 18 Dexterity, how much does that really change? If the 16 Dex elf is completely flat flavorless and identical to human, I assert that it doesn't suddenly because flavorful and interesting with 18 Dex.

It's hard to see clear why Elfs seeing in the dark is fine but a bonus to DEX is a bridge too far. Is a bonus when using bows and swords also a problem? Hey, if I'm going to be a fighter and specialize in longbow, I may as well play and elf an stack up another +1 to hit on top of that.

It seems like you're inferring that I like everything about D&D except racial attribute modifiers, which I hate. But from my view, I mildly dislike racial attribute modifiers, and I've considered them just one among many minor annoyances with D&D rules (as with any system). In other threads, posters were saying that racial attribute modifiers were essential, and that removing them is horrible (like Pundit's "Grey Goo" thread) - which implies that games like Hero System and Star Wars D6 somehow reduced all races to grey goo.

To answer your questions - the criteria I have is that I prefer for character creation options to be roughly balanced, rather than certain builds being superior to other builds. So I dislike rules that create more search for superior builds.

For example, the elf bonus to bows and swords in AD&D was changed in 3rd ed D&D to automatic proficiency instead. I like that change, precisely because it removes the preference to always make bow specialists into elves. Infravision is broadly useful to all classes, so it doesn't particularly change the balance.


It sounds like you're saying that halfling paladins are objectively bad for the game. Can you elaborate on why?

I haven't said that at all. I likened it to pineapple pizza. What could possibly be more a matter of taste than what people want on their pizza? For that matter, this idea that cookies & milk is somehow a better combination than gouda & OJ is also a matter of opinion.

But I confess, I did bait you on that. Because while we understand it's subjective, we also understand that so many people have such strong negative feelings about pineapple pizza that it's gotten to be something of a cultural meme of what not to do. As was the halfling paladin for a time.
So when I called for tact in terms of tweaking orange juice to grape juice to go with the gouda, that might be analogous to playing a halfling who wants to be a paladin rather than playing a halfling paladin. Which I actually think is a much more interesting character, who comes to the table with motives. But the point is, it's not just about what that one player wants to play. It's about compromise and playing well with others in cooperative creation of a shared fantasy.

To paraphrase what I understand from this, you're saying that a halfling paladin isn't bad in itself, but that other people could have strong negative feelings about it - so it's best to compromise and not play a halfling paladin in order to play well with them.

But that just begs the question. Why do these people have such negative feelings about other people playing halfling paladins that should be respected?

From my side, since the 1980s playing Fantasy Hero and many other games with open character creation, I've seen a lot of characters like halfling paladins, and they haven't seemed like a problem to me.

ForgottenF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #83 on: October 06, 2022, 09:17:24 PM »
But that just begs the question. Why do these people have such negative feelings about other people playing halfling paladins that should be respected?

From my side, since the 1980s playing Fantasy Hero and many other games with open character creation, I've seen a lot of characters like halfling paladins, and they haven't seemed like a problem to me.

I suppose it depends on who you're playing with. Personally, I care quite a lot about the genre and tone of my campaigns, and it is always dispiriting when a player rocks up with a character that flies in the face of the tone I'm trying to achieve. Now, I will fully concede that is mostly on the GM's choice of ruleset, setting, and house rules. If you don't want halflings to be Paladins, you should probably pick a game that does not allow it, or state it out front in the campaign rules. At the same time, players will always find something you didn't expressly ban, but which flies in the face of the intended tone, and as the GM, no one want to be the guy that vetoes character concepts on no stronger basis than that he just doesn't like them.

Furthermore, there are certain character types which very reliably produce annoying PCs (e.g. the tiefling bard being a horny show-boater, the gnome tinkerer being a "quirky" clown, etc.). You could argue that the solution is to just find less annoying players, but I fully understand someone who gets so tired of them that he juts bans the character type entirely. Personally I've played with so many irritating gnomes that I've started to dread whenever someone joins a game I'm in and wants to play one. 

As to the halfling paladin in specific. There's always going to be something faintly silly about a pint-size PC playing a tanky front-line warrior. There's myriad solutions to the problem, from unique character concepts to different interpretations of the race and class. In Dark Sun, for example, a halfling paladin might be an oddity, but a halfling Barbarian fits the world perfectly. Problem is that there's a high chance that a player who chooses the halfling paladin is doing it precisely because they think the concept is funny. If that's how you play, then no worries, but it can be an irritant to players who prefer their game a bit more straight-faced.

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #84 on: October 07, 2022, 01:02:41 AM »
What do you mean by the characters getting pulled out of their shells and participating? Can you elaborate on that and the player diplomat thing?

I always have some process in the game that rewards the more boisterous, aggressive, system guru, etc. types trying to include the other players as much as possible.  The exact process varies by system, but usually in a D&D-like game, I gear it to magic (items, spells, etc.).  In some cases, I'll use cachet, favor, reputation, etc. in a similar way.  It varies a little by group, because the point is that it something that the aggressive players want and are trying to get. 

It's just something that I started doing a long time ago when I realized that my games had changed.  When I started, it was everyone was aggressively pushing what the group and the individuals wanted. Simple party dynamics took care of it.  Now, I'll have 2/3 to 3/4 of my players will be somewhat reserved to shy.  If let untouched, the aggressive ones will all sit right next to me and drown out the rest.  I have gone as far as to do arranged seating, but since it's exactly the opposite of what everyone is trying to do naturally, it doesn't go well.  So the next best thing is an incentive for the aggressive players to be spread amongst the rest by their own choice, so that they can steer the shy players towards a similar party dynamic that an all aggressive group has.

If you like non-standard magic items a little on the strange side, then it's easy to harness that towards the same goals.  Strangely enough, I find mild curses on an otherwise good item to be excellent for this.  The aggressive character is always trying to eradicate every last negative.  The shy character is perversely proud that his magic sword causes goblins to want to kill him on sight.   Then the aggressive characters see how much fun that is, and they want their own quirky thing. 

It's about thinking about what your players want, why they want it, how they go about getting it--and then determining what you can throw in the way of situation or stuff or villain to get them to use that same energy going after something you want for the good of the group as a whole.  In the context of the original topic, you can't really stop a power gamer from power gaming, at least not without fighting them over it.  It's a lot less stressful and much more rewarding to instead channel the power gaming into something that helps you.
I see, interesting! So stuff like magic items, and other in-game rewards, help steer those players. Can you give an example of a magic item that might steer the party dynamic and how that would do it? I'm kind of curious to try this myself, but magic items on their own never work out -- you place a magic item for the monk and then the party gives it to the wizard instead.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #85 on: October 07, 2022, 07:59:55 AM »
I see, interesting! So stuff like magic items, and other in-game rewards, help steer those players. Can you give an example of a magic item that might steer the party dynamic and how that would do it? I'm kind of curious to try this myself, but magic items on their own never work out -- you place a magic item for the monk and then the party gives it to the wizard instead.

You have to make it explicit.  First, I tell the players this before the game starts.  I'm going to hand out stuff that is clearly meant for certain characters.  It's there to give those characters a way to participate a little more if I see the situation, rules, drift of play, etc. are starting to exclude them.  This is something you can teach a group over time.  It's so ingrained in one of my groups now that they consider this when they find any magic.  One of the first questions in their minds is who is going to run with this and cause a lot of fun for the group?  The same dynamic also makes them more likely to move items around if they think they can get a better result by doing so.  Sometimes, they come up with a better arrangement than I envisioned, but it's in the same spirit.

Likewise, don't give items that appeal (solely) to power of a generic type.  I can't tell you an item that a monk and wizard could both theoretically use that won't end up in the unintended hands.  Give me a particular monk and wizard in a game, then it can be done.  And the monk will take the item most of the time, even if it isn't all that powerful.

Magic items work for me in a D&D-like game, because I play versions that are heavy on niche protection.  Closer to B/X than WotC versions.  Even when I ran 5E, I heavily limited the classes and races available--and paid attention to who was proficient in what.  In a Fantasy Hero game, I did a lot of items where the magic was keyed to certain races.  If there are only 2 elves in the group, and only one of them is capable of wearing a heavier set of armor, guess who is going to end up with that elven armor?  Now, I prefer it with lots of limits, in part because i don't care for "kitchen sink" settings, and I find that everyone is a unique snowflake, the targeted items seem to targeted.  But if you don't mind that, then that's one of the few advantages a kitchen sink setting has.

There are of course other ways.  Don't give the item as treasure.  Instead, an NPC gives the item as a reward--to the exact character that should have it.  Yeah, it's a little ham-handed sometimes, but not always.  In my current game, I've put some extra emphasis on sizes of armor.  Dwarves, elves, and humans can't wear the same armor without refitting, which costs, in a game where money is scarce.  (Within reason, shields translate, and a slight, shorter human might wear elven armor better then typical human armor.  Point being, every character has explicit size and it matters.)  If the players are serious enough about moving something to another character, they can, but it costs.  In practice, this means that they don't.  I've got lots of items geared to language and even literacy, in a setting where there are about 12 common languages and a few more exotic ones, and no one is literate for free.  It means that people putting effort into language and literacy have access to more and different specific magic than if they don't--literally "literally". :D

Find the points of difference in the game and setting that you want to use and drive those hard.

Examples are tricky, because what works for my system choices, my setting choices, might be useless elsewhere.  Here's a fun one to try sometime:  Run a setting where every race is keyed to an "element", but the dividing lines are not player versus monster.  It helps to get creative with your elements.  Dwarves are rock, elves are wood, humans are earth, for example.  Then maybe goblins and trolls are wood, orcs are earth, and kobolds are rock.  Or however makes sense to you.  Then have have specific items that are keyed on that.  There is an axe, human-made long ago, bane of wood, too big for a dwarf to use, deadly to all creatures of the wood--in a party that includes elves.  Instant tension.  Throw a few things like that into the game, don't be surprised if the party decides to destroy some of them. :)
« Last Edit: October 07, 2022, 08:02:24 AM by Steven Mitchell »

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #86 on: October 07, 2022, 08:52:43 PM »
I see, interesting! So stuff like magic items, and other in-game rewards, help steer those players. Can you give an example of a magic item that might steer the party dynamic and how that would do it? I'm kind of curious to try this myself, but magic items on their own never work out -- you place a magic item for the monk and then the party gives it to the wizard instead.

You have to make it explicit.  First, I tell the players this before the game starts.  I'm going to hand out stuff that is clearly meant for certain characters.  It's there to give those characters a way to participate a little more if I see the situation, rules, drift of play, etc. are starting to exclude them.  This is something you can teach a group over time.  It's so ingrained in one of my groups now that they consider this when they find any magic.  One of the first questions in their minds is who is going to run with this and cause a lot of fun for the group?  The same dynamic also makes them more likely to move items around if they think they can get a better result by doing so.  Sometimes, they come up with a better arrangement than I envisioned, but it's in the same spirit.

Likewise, don't give items that appeal (solely) to power of a generic type.  I can't tell you an item that a monk and wizard could both theoretically use that won't end up in the unintended hands.  Give me a particular monk and wizard in a game, then it can be done.  And the monk will take the item most of the time, even if it isn't all that powerful.

Magic items work for me in a D&D-like game, because I play versions that are heavy on niche protection.  Closer to B/X than WotC versions.  Even when I ran 5E, I heavily limited the classes and races available--and paid attention to who was proficient in what.  In a Fantasy Hero game, I did a lot of items where the magic was keyed to certain races.  If there are only 2 elves in the group, and only one of them is capable of wearing a heavier set of armor, guess who is going to end up with that elven armor?  Now, I prefer it with lots of limits, in part because i don't care for "kitchen sink" settings, and I find that everyone is a unique snowflake, the targeted items seem to targeted.  But if you don't mind that, then that's one of the few advantages a kitchen sink setting has.

There are of course other ways.  Don't give the item as treasure.  Instead, an NPC gives the item as a reward--to the exact character that should have it.  Yeah, it's a little ham-handed sometimes, but not always.  In my current game, I've put some extra emphasis on sizes of armor.  Dwarves, elves, and humans can't wear the same armor without refitting, which costs, in a game where money is scarce.  (Within reason, shields translate, and a slight, shorter human might wear elven armor better then typical human armor.  Point being, every character has explicit size and it matters.)  If the players are serious enough about moving something to another character, they can, but it costs.  In practice, this means that they don't.  I've got lots of items geared to language and even literacy, in a setting where there are about 12 common languages and a few more exotic ones, and no one is literate for free.  It means that people putting effort into language and literacy have access to more and different specific magic than if they don't--literally "literally". :D

Find the points of difference in the game and setting that you want to use and drive those hard.

Examples are tricky, because what works for my system choices, my setting choices, might be useless elsewhere.  Here's a fun one to try sometime:  Run a setting where every race is keyed to an "element", but the dividing lines are not player versus monster.  It helps to get creative with your elements.  Dwarves are rock, elves are wood, humans are earth, for example.  Then maybe goblins and trolls are wood, orcs are earth, and kobolds are rock.  Or however makes sense to you.  Then have have specific items that are keyed on that.  There is an axe, human-made long ago, bane of wood, too big for a dwarf to use, deadly to all creatures of the wood--in a party that includes elves.  Instant tension.  Throw a few things like that into the game, don't be surprised if the party decides to destroy some of them. :)

So if I understand this right: you give out the items with very strict requirements, then leave it to the players to suss out who actually would qualify for it. Which is one or two people because you set the requirements so it is basically only for them.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #87 on: October 08, 2022, 12:05:56 AM »
It seems like you're inferring that I like everything about D&D except racial attribute modifiers, which I hate. But from my view, I mildly dislike racial attribute modifiers, and I've considered them just one among many minor annoyances with D&D rules (as with any system). In other threads, posters were saying that racial attribute modifiers were essential, and that removing them is horrible (like Pundit's "Grey Goo" thread) - which implies that games like Hero System and Star Wars D6 somehow reduced all races to grey goo.

I strongly disagree. I don't think that's implied at all. And I've got three reasons.

First is context. The rationale being given for the removal of these attribute adjustments is not at all for the same reasons you express. Their reasons are couched in a weird parody version of biological essentialism. And that logic followed to its fruition means ultimately eliminating all differentiation. It's a slippery slope into grey goo. Don't buy that? Okay. Forget logic. Try empathy instead. Pundit's position, near as I can tell, is and always has been that these people will never be satisfied and they will never stop. Correct or not, that is the perspective he's coming from, and it should color how you take what he says, what he means, and his implications. And I don't think those match the implications you raise here.

Second is technical. I don't know Hero System. I do know Star Wars D6. You don't even roll for your stats in d6. Even if there were adjustments, they would be fungible. If I were to implement a point-buy system in D&D, I might just say, okay, you get all 3's and can allocate 50 points anywhere, provided no stat goes over 18. And then apply racial adjustments. Or I could save a step and apply the adjustments in advance to the mins and maxes, and then let you spend the 50 points. It's the equivalent thing. It's as good as adjusting the final scores. And that's pretty much how d6 works. Wookies have a higher min and max STR than humans. It has an equivalent thing and it uses it to differentiate races.

Third is personal. I've been using the term myself for a long time. Actually, my version is "mushy grayness." And I can say I apply it to a broad array of things. But the one that's probably most common is when it comes to Alignment. And alignment doesn't have as much mechanical ramifications as racial attribute adjustments. But most RPGs don't even have an alignment system. I can say with certainty it would be an error to imply that therefore I'm calling all these other RPGs mushy grayness. So I'm going to tend to be skeptical when I see someone making a similar claim about others saying similar things.


Quote
To paraphrase what I understand from this, you're saying that a halfling paladin isn't bad in itself, but that other people could have strong negative feelings about it - so it's best to compromise and not play a halfling paladin in order to play well with them.

But that just begs the question. Why do these people have such negative feelings about other people playing halfling paladins that should be respected?

I have to admit that I am glad you asked me about halfling paladins. If you had instead asked me about the why's of pineapple pizza, you would have had me stumped. But this one's easy.

It's a violation of canon. To me, the greatest offender was dwarf mages. Mind you, I play other fantasy RPGs where you can play spell-slinging dwarfs. I don't have a problem with the concept at all. But 3E tied the rules to setting, and made the default setting World of Greyhawk, which is one of the settings out there that is near and dear to me. Even if you were doing magic-using dwarfs in your homebrew all along, Greyhawk had it's own canon. Dwarfs not being magic-users was part of that.

And it's not as if we didn't already have examples of how to deviate from the class/race restrictions in a way that's respectful to the canon. Dragonlance and Dark Sun were a couple of great examples. The 1E Lankhmar supplement opened up multi-classing to humans. Mystara had a whole different set of rules as featured in BECMI.

Even within Greyhawk / 1E BtB, dwarfs can be thieves. And beginning at 10th level, thieves are able to cast from scrolls any spells other than cleric spells. But they can also be clerics and cast cleric spells that way. So there is really no spell in the game dwarfs cannot cast. If a player wanted to, they actually could play a spell-slinging dwarf. It just takes a different path.

At the end of the day, no one was telling players what they had to play. No one was telling DMs how they had to run their games. There was never a good reason to re-write the canon.

And that's just my answer. I'm sure a lot of different people could give a lot of different answers.

Quote
From my side, since the 1980s playing Fantasy Hero and many other games with open character creation, I've seen a lot of characters like halfling paladins, and they haven't seemed like a problem to me.

I seem to remember there being an RPG where you would get a bonus die to your action if you described your action in a way that involved the scenery. Maybe another bonus die if your description incorporated some other element, and so on.

I have some admiration for the idea of the thing. Making your actions specific to the circumstance and all. I think it's a good thing. Main reason why I was never sold on it is because the bonus was generic. A die, or a plus. It seems to me if you want to go all in on the idea, the "bonus" should be a specific effect rather than something that just feeds into the generalized core mechanic. But I digress.

The point is, if you did something similar, without question the description of things the halfling would be doing and how the human would be described performing the same act in a game mechanics sense (I attack) would be completely different. Presumably, halflings would find a way to use their smaller size to their advantage, which isn't going to look like standing toe to toe facing their opponent head on. To some that could make the halfling appear to lack courage. However, if the halfling just ignored their size advantage, to some that could make the halfling appear to be stupid or unclever. And the paladin is expected to embody all the virtues. Not just pick and choose some.

I'm not saying it's impossible for a halfling to live up to that. I'm just saying I'd have to see it first.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #88 on: October 10, 2022, 12:08:47 PM »
Magic items for me are not gifts to the players. They're items for me to use to kill them or further the machinations of the NPC's. If the PC's *kill* the NPC's/Monsters and take them... what they do with them.

I recognize people walk into games with different styles and agendas. Good GMing is incentivizing the play you want at the player/PC level. Recognize the players who want more social interaction and built their PC's to facilitate that need - FEED THEM. Recognize the Power Gamers that want to crack skulls and pillage gold with their Int 6 Fighter with 20+ Str. FEED THEM.

And then it's further your GM job to make your setting react with utmost fidelity to those actions to represent itself to the party. And the consequences of their choices should matter at all times. Reward/punish them accordingly.

Eric Diaz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
    • http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/
Re: Min-maxing and racial ability score adjustments
« Reply #89 on: October 10, 2022, 12:41:34 PM »
Small anecdote: I just started a new campaign. The players wanted to be thief, fighter, cleric (well, druid/shaman). One player chose a tabaxi... and the others decided they would be brothers.

+1 dex for everybody (plus darkvision, +4 to climb, 1d4 claws).

No one complained or reconsidered. They most want to play PCs they consider to "look cool".

My only concern is that they get attached to these PCs ... it is a deadly campaign and they are level 1 (which I already regret, should have gone with the standard "start on level 3" since we're playing Dark Fantasy Basic).
« Last Edit: October 10, 2022, 12:43:29 PM by Eric Diaz »
Chaos Factory Books  - Dark fantasy RPGs and more!

Methods & Madness - my  D&D 5e / Old School / Game design blog.