|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 1:56PM
#231
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
No, I have never participated in a D&D session where characters were built towards a certain style of play (social etc), in fact, "built" at all, always been more organic.
So you've never seen a min-maxer? That's a mythical creature in your world?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 1:57PM
#232
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
Except that's not really min/maxxing. The point of min/max is to minimize your weaknesses and maximize your strengths at the same time.
No, that's not what min-maxing means.
"Min-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizingdesired ones."
-WP
I guess you "minimize your weaknesses" by choosing "undesired or unimportant" weaknesses. But that's exactly how bluespruce described min-maxing: "very weak in one area and very strong in another".
That's an unclear wikipedia article. Min-maxing is based off of minimax, which is about aiming to minimize worst case scenarios to a minimum loss. A scenario which allows a big loss, because you're weak in an area is not effective min-maxing.
My Swordmage, as an example, has Arcane Mutterings, which lets him use Arcana to make certain kinds of Charisma checks in 4e once per encounter. He has a relatively average Charisma and is not trained in any Charisma skills. Yet he is not weak in the social skills area, in fact, he's usually quite strong because of how good his Arcana is.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 1:58PM
#233
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
I got to thinking about this and came up with an interesting thought. I said earlier that 'balance issues' had never ruined a game for me, but that MAY not be true.
The ONLY edition of D&D that has been 'ruined' for me was 4th. Can't stand it. It suddenly dawned on me that supposedly 4th was the ONLY edition designed for balance. So it's POSSIBLE that the act of 'balancing the game' is what ruined D&D for me.
I don't actually think that's it, at least not entirely. However it IS possible.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:00PM
#234
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
2 solutions:
1 never play a man down. If someone can't make it find another activity for the night, or push back the plans till the guy gets out of work.
2 characters are always there even if the player is not. The character is just extremely quiet for that session. basically even if jimmy is at work it doesn't matter because his character is still there.
I was thinking that the party could just investigate another area, or work on solving a puzzle from some other adventure, or go to town and see what was happening at the tavern.
The completely linear adventure has some problems, its OK every now and then, but it wouldn't work as a mainstay for me. When the players all sit down at the table there should be plenty of options, both for sucess and failure. Otherwise it seems like everyone at the table already knows what the results are going to be.
I wonder if that is what some people hated about 4e?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:02PM
#235
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
That's an unclear wikipedia article. Min-maxing is based off of minimax, which is about aiming to minimize worst case scenarios to a minimum loss. A scenario which allows a big loss, because you're weak in an area is not effective min-maxing.
I think we're talkign past each other. A scenario which allows a big loss, because you're weak in an area can be effective min-maxing, if the "big loss scenario" is remote in possibility. For instance, in a system that lets you take flaws to get additional bonuses, you might take, for example, a flaw that make you a mute in exchange for a +6 to hit. This will give you a "big loss" if you're in a trap that requires you to speak to avoid getting slain, but the benefit of that +6 may so outweigh the remote likelihood of a "speak or die" scenario, that it's totally worth taking.
That's min-maxing -- taking a flaw in something you don't plan on incurring in exchange for a benefit you plan on using frequently.
My Swordmage, as an example, has Arcane Mutterings, which lets him use Arcana to make certain kinds of Charisma checks in 4e once per encounter. He has a relatively average Charisma and is not trained in any Charisma skills. Yet he is not weak in the social skills area, in fact, he's usually quite strong because of how good his Arcana is.
Again, not all optimizing is min-maxing. All min-maxing is an attempt at optimizing, however.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:03PM
#236
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
No, I have never participated in a D&D session where characters were built towards a certain style of play (social etc), in fact, "built" at all, always been more organic.
So you've never seen a min-maxer? That's a mythical creature in your world?
Of course I have, I was talking about a party built towards a certain style of play.
I know what you mean about "..this guy never calls for a Diplomacy check." action.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:04PM
#237
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
No, I have never participated in a D&D session where characters were built towards a certain style of play (social etc), in fact, "built" at all, always been more organic.
So you've never seen a min-maxer? That's a mythical creature in your world?
Of course I have, I was talking about a party built towards a certain style of play.
I know what you mean about "..this guy never calls for a Diplomacy check." action.
Oh. Okay.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:08PM
#238
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
Except that's not really min/maxxing. The point of min/max is to minimize your weaknesses and maximize your strengths at the same time.
No, that's not what min-maxing means.
"Min-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizingdesired ones."
-WP
I guess you "minimize your weaknesses" by choosing "undesired or unimportant" weaknesses. But that's exactly how bluespruce described min-maxing: "very weak in one area and very strong in another".
That's an unclear wikipedia article. Min-maxing is based off of minimax, which is about aiming to minimize worst case scenarios to a minimum loss. A scenario which allows a big loss, because you're weak in an area is not effective min-maxing.
My Swordmage, as an example, has Arcane Mutterings, which lets him use Arcana to make certain kinds of Charisma checks in 4e once per encounter. He has a relatively average Charisma and is not trained in any Charisma skills. Yet he is not weak in the social skills area, in fact, he's usually quite strong because of how good his Arcana is.
Hah! thats funny. Another debate that is fundamentally a misunderstanding. I think you need to go and tell all the RP'ers that war gaming has been around a lot longer and Min-maxing in war games is as I have described it; so you guys will just have to find another word!
=-D I guess thats not going to happen. Its just something that we will have to be aware of.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:08PM
#239
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
Reminds me of one player we had who rolled up a druid. She was unhappy that she couldn't fight as well as a fighter, that she couldn't sneak as well as a rogue, couldn't heal people as well as a cleric, and couldn't have a familiar like a mage. She never seemed to comprehend that she should be playing a druid instead of a multiclassed F/R/C/M, and never listened to any of our suggestions of how to accomplish what she wanted to do. What she really wanted to do, we decided, was to be as good at everything as the specialist in that particular skill set. She left the group after a short while, and we didn't cry.
The irony is that a 3.xe druid with the right spells and other class features certainly could out-sneak the rogue and out-fight the fighter, and leave them wondering why they bothered to turn up. All whilst being close to on-par with the cleric and wizard in their specialities.
I guess I should have included that this was a 2nd Ed game. Not 3.x.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:10PM
#240
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
2 solutions:
1 never play a man down. If someone can't make it find another activity for the night, or push back the plans till the guy gets out of work.
2 characters are always there even if the player is not. The character is just extremely quiet for that session. basically even if jimmy is at work it doesn't matter because his character is still there.
I was thinking that the party could just investigate another area, or work on solving a puzzle from some other adventure, or go to town and see what was happening at the tavern.
The completely linear adventure has some problems, its OK every now and then, but it wouldn't work as a mainstay for me. When the players all sit down at the table there should be plenty of options, both for sucess and failure. Otherwise it seems like everyone at the table already knows what the results are going to be.
Sure, but sometimes it's unavoidable. If you're halfway down a five-level dungeon and you left off last week with the DM saying "As you move further into the room, a red light blooms in the inky darkness, illuminating the form of a massive red dragon... Okay, let's wrap it up there for now", then you can't easily come back the next week and say "okay, we'll just pop back to town for awhile".
I wonder if that is what some people hated about 4e?
Whoa, where the heck did that come from? I haven't seen anything in 4e which makes it any easier or harder to change tack than in any other edition.
|
|
|
