Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EvilJames

Playability/annoyance check for a character concept.

Recommended Posts

 

In my experience, it's more amusing to confound min-maxers by not playing a murder-hobo. Like, talking to people, accepting surrenders and not torturing prisoners.

I think you're confused. Min-maxing is not a bad thing. It's just a thing. Do you not put your highest stats where they'll most useful? THAT is min-maxing. What you're talking about is 'roll playing vs. role playing.' Two totally different talking points.

 

 

Dave is right here, we all put our best stats where they are most needed/required and we all put our lowest where we don't. 

 

I also see min-maxing as using the grey areas and loop holes in rules to try to make a more powerful character. Most of them are one-trick ponies, but the one-trick is usually uber powerful or could even be broken in game terms. These are the people I don't like playing with. I enjoy playing with people who want to have fun and enjoy the adventure without needing to be the most powerful X of all time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In my experience, it's more amusing to confound min-maxers by not playing a murder-hobo. Like, talking to people, accepting surrenders and not torturing prisoners.

 

I think you're confused. Min-maxing is not a bad thing. It's just a thing. Do you not put your highest stats where they'll most useful? THAT is min-maxing. What you're talking about is 'roll playing vs. role playing.' Two totally different talking points.

 

Dave is right here, we all put our best stats where they are most needed/required and we all put our lowest where we don't. 

 

I also see min-maxing as using the grey areas and loop holes in rules to try to make a more powerful character. Most of them are one-trick ponies, but the one-trick is usually uber powerful or could even be broken in game terms. These are the people I don't like playing with. I enjoy playing with people who want to have fun and enjoy the adventure without needing to be the most powerful X of all time.

Ub3r's second explanation tends to be what I use min-maxers to describe, or those players that are the living incarnation of Red Mage from 8bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In my experience, it's more amusing to confound min-maxers by not playing a murder-hobo. Like, talking to people, accepting surrenders and not torturing prisoners.

I think you're confused. Min-maxing is not a bad thing. It's just a thing. Do you not put your highest stats where they'll most useful? THAT is min-maxing. What you're talking about is 'roll playing vs. role playing.' Two totally different talking points.
 

Dave is right here, we all put our best stats where they are most needed/required and we all put our lowest where we don't. 

 

I also see min-maxing as using the grey areas and loop holes in rules to try to make a more powerful character. Most of them are one-trick ponies, but the one-trick is usually uber powerful or could even be broken in game terms. These are the people I don't like playing with. I enjoy playing with people who want to have fun and enjoy the adventure without needing to be the most powerful X of all time.

Ub3r's second explanation tends to be what I use min-maxers to describe, or those players that are the living incarnation of Red Mage from 8bit.

 

I call those guys "power gamers." Some call them "optimizers," but you can "optimize" a character to do anything. you can "optimize" a character to present role-playing opportunities, so I never saw that term as fitting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see min-maxing as going to extremes about putting their points where they're most useful. Finding a way to drop CHA down to 4 so you can buy your STR up extra high, or whatever. Building an optimized game piece rather than an interesting character. It tends to correlate pretty strongly with roll-playing, but there are edge cases where a player does one and not the other.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see min-maxing as going to extremes about putting their points where they're most useful. Finding a way to drop CHA down to 4 so you can buy your STR up extra high, or whatever. Building an optimized game piece rather than an interesting character. It tends to correlate pretty strongly with roll-playing, but there are edge cases where a player does one and not the other.

I wouldn't know about that particular quirk. As a GM, I don't run point-buy (in systems that offer the option to roll stats instead). Hell, even as a player, I prefer to roll my stats. I think it's more interesting to roll my stats and see 'what's in the cards,' as it were. I don't like going into a game with a concrete character concept. I'm more fluid about it. I also let my characters grow organically (as in: I don't pre-plan what I'm going to do for any given level, I let what the character's done in the past influence the future).

If a GM wanted to run a game that required strong characters, I'm fairly certain I could break the game. I know how to do it, I just prefer not to.

Edited by dsmiles
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes like to run games where powerful characters are needed and highly encouraged, I'm talking Gestalt characters here against enemies to make you tremble in fear normally and would kill most normal characters very easily, but against gestalts they are a difficult challenge instead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accidentally broke a (unknown to me, the new guy in the group) gestalt game with a not-gestalt Psion/Thrallherd. That's actually what made me stop playing that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave is right here, we all put our best stats where they are most needed/required and we all put our lowest where we don't. 

 

Actually, when I played that charismatic, intelligent fighter I never once throughout her career spared more points for STR or CON than the absolute minimum required. Just some DEX in addition to that charisma and intelligence (edit: and,err... wisdom equivalent, I guess). Admittedly it wasn't D&D, but still a system where it is pretty hard to be a powerful fighter without STR or CON. Of course, that's just extra incentive to try and win a war of words in such a way you don't have to draw steel... 

 

(Come to think about it, what would be the bigger problem in pulling the same character off in D&D is a crappy skill system that basically amounts to "if you fighter, than you dumb, yah!")

Edited by Arkady
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. Yes for concept. No as in "people bring fighters to fight when fighting simply can't be avoided".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, it's more amusing to confound min-maxers by not playing a murder-hobo.  Like, talking to people, accepting surrenders and not torturing prisoners.

Actualy you can min-max non-murder-hobos pretty easilly and they are even worse than a min-maxed murder-hobo. Look up Diplomancer.

 

Min maxing or optimizing in and of it'self is not a bad thing, so long as it's within reason. We all generally put are stats where they do the most good or the least harm (unless your DM is making you roll them in order old school style like I do for games at cons, because I'm just mean) The kind no one likes is trying to break the game or steal the show. There is nothing wrong with wanting an increased survivability chance or to feel like your character is meaningfully contributing to the team. There is a problem if your character one shots the boss regulalry and activly prevents the other party members from feeling like they are contributing.

 

There is also a problem if you get mad at somebody trying out a different style because it is "less optimal" For instance with the summoner the optimal way to play is the standard. Buff the beast up and send it in to battle. and have it let you do the talking. In my concept the summoner would be fighting along side his eidelon which is considerably riskier and less optimal, but it still will be intersting and I've already done the standard summoner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actualy you can min-max non-murder-hobos pretty easilly and they are even worse than a min-maxed murder-hobo. Look up Diplomancer.

 

Min maxing or optimizing in and of it'self is not a bad thing, so long as it's within reason. We all generally put are stats where they do the most good or the least harm (unless your DM is making you roll them in order old school style like I do for games at cons, because I'm just mean) The kind no one likes is trying to break the game or steal the show. There is nothing wrong with wanting an increased survivability chance or to feel like your character is meaningfully contributing to the team. There is a problem if your character one shots the boss regulalry and activly prevents the other party members from feeling like they are contributing.

I find that monopolizing the play is the far bigger problem for me. This can be a single player that is much better at building a game-breaker than everyone else, but it can also be the single player that built a character that is so max-minned that the game has to be nerfed to keep the character alive and interesting.

 

If everyone is playing ... quirky ... characters, you can work with that as a GM. If everyone is playing combat monsters, it's easy enough to adjust difficulty. It's the toxic mix that cause problems for me.

 

I pretty firmly prefer characters that have a niche that they're good at and that let other characters dominate their own parts of the game. It makes sharing the spotlight easy, reinforces a feeling of teamwork among the players, and makes it easy to design adventures with a starring role for everyone.

 

There is also a problem if you get mad at somebody trying out a different style because it is "less optimal" For instance with the summoner the optimal way to play is the standard. Buff the beast up and send it in to battle. and have it let you do the talking. In my concept the summoner would be fighting along side his eidelon which is considerably riskier and less optimal, but it still will be intersting and I've already done the standard summoner.

We call that a "druid".  ::P:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone is playing ... quirky ... characters, you can work with that as a GM. If everyone is playing combat monsters, it's easy enough to adjust difficulty. It's the toxic mix that cause problems for me.

Good point, and I'd say you're far from alone there. I remember this being a huge problem in some groups I played in. Though to be fair, it did seem more balanced rule sets were less prone to this occurring than, say, Shadowrun 3.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We play fairly optimized, but work for everyone to fill a niche that will be needed.  Skill monkey, Combat beast, Buffer, Face man, Ninja, etc.  Those that have trouble optimizing, usually work with the 'better' builders, to develop a concept the player wants, and then find the mechanics that will work best.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Maglok
      Some people might call it Minivember, though technically I had 23 days of vacation and just wanted to paint a mini every day. Some were finishing older minis, some entirely new, some were the size of a nailclipping. I present, my Minivember.
       

       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       

    • By Unit04
      My friend is playing a fighter in a Pathfinder game, so I decided to take a break from my Batman game to paint up a figure for her, though I decided to paint two.  
       
      I asked her what her favorite color is, and she said "Blue", so I painted up a mini with lots of blue.  If I paint her again I think I'd pick out the fleur-de-lis in a different color, to make it stand out some more.  
       

    • By Neatpete
      The new Kickstarter got me motivated to dig up some old bones. I realized after all these years I have never painted a dragon, so I got after it. Rather happy with how this came out.
       

    • By Floyd Ryan
      This is Barzillai Thrune, the major villain from the Pathfinder Hell's Rebels campaign. I painted him as a service to my DM because we are currently playing that campaign and my intuition tells me that it will be needed some day. The mini is extremely faithful to the original Wayne Reynolds art and I also used the same colour scheme, but I regret using my standard unimaginative "block of acryl paste" base. With the burning mace the mini would be excellent for OSL experiments and there are two fine versions of it on the forum with lighting effects, but I thought to late about the idea and was reluctant to add it to the almost finished mini.
       
       




    • By Floyd Ryan
      So here is my take on the famous Pathfinder Sorceress Seoni. I mostly kept to the original color scheme but wanted to find out how a green dress would look.
       
       



  • Who's Online   29 Members, 2 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...