Min-Maxing Characters

[Persell]

Just wondering what other people's impressions are on this subject.


I personally find it to be a serious problem. I enjoy playing characters that are focused on their area of expertise while still being well rounded. Just because I'm playing a soldier doesn't mean I can't have some points in Linguistics, or even a few charms in Larceny/Stealth. A social character can still have a fairly impressive Occult score and not suffer in his niche. In my Solar's game, Indigo has the highest Stealth or Acrobatics rating of the group, and he's primarily a Social Combat character.


It also grates on me to be in a game where one of the other player's has seriously min-maxed his character. Its hard to plan a story from the ST side if one player has two or three times as much combat ability as the rest of the group. (Above mentioned Solars game, one of the players has spent 16xp on abilities outside of MA or Dodge...we've each got roughly 150-180xp)


Sorry about the minor rant, but this was prompted by a conversation with the min-max player. I noticed the massive imbalance of his xp and asked him about it, pointing out how my character was much more balanced concerning xp spending. His response was "Thats how you're supposed to do it. You shouldn't have wasted the xp on stuff outside of your role in the group." I was pissed to say the least. How can someone tell me that I'm doing something wrong in a game (ie intended to be relaxing and fun) that I introduced them to?


Besides how people feel about it, how do STs handle the issue in their games? Do you do what I do, which is avoid the min-maxer's area of focus? This seems kinda cruel because the player did earn the xp and this punishes them too much.


Or do you try to very overtly get the "You need to play at least marginally balanced characters" idea across? Maybe have the Big Bad engage the combat twink in social combat, have them look directly into their eyes and say "Go fuck yourself with your diaklave" and watch as the other player realizes with horror they've never spent a single point of xp on Integrity in a somewhat Social focused game?


okay...rant really over this time...Thoughts?

 

[Sherwood]

I have written combat based characters in the past, with the understanding that there will be times that I'll be sitting back and twiddling my thumbs because we are at a tea party instead of a battlefield.  If your players make a uber-fighter, see how s/he deals with sitting out while the other, more balanced members, get to do stuff and the fighter sits out.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

I'd go with introducing them to situations where combat skill alone is not the answer...and where they cannot rely on someone else to cover for them. If they are fine with such, and their concept really is 'I is thug man, me sucks at all else' then, well, them's the breaks. They can enjoy their life as someone's mindfucked bitch. Uberthugs can sometimes add to rp...but they can also hurt it.


Dealing with such build in combat is usually best answered with multiple opponents...someone to keep combat monkey busy, and reasonable foes for others. I'm not talking extras here, or some such, but other foes who are significant and require the attention of a PC, and are interesting enough to keep the other PCs from feeling like supporting cast. Also, make sure to include plenty of chances for others to shine...and not just as individuals, but as a group. Even consider some situations where thugboy needs to help the group with something other than combat...perhaps they need to infiltrate somewhere, and they have to leave their arms and armor behind.


In one game I'm playing/running (we trade STs) my character, the Gunzosha Warrior, is significantly more combat focussed than the others. Does this mean she is the lead character, or detracts from the group? Far from it. If anything, the lead characters are the Scavenger Lady and the Crusty Old Military Engineer. The current campaign arc focuses around investigating a strange disease that makes those who catch it into cannibals...among other things. Does the thug have something to do? Yes. She keeps the cannibals from killing the others to the best of her ability. The Engineer and the Scavenger Lord use their vaunted intellects to figure things out (and argue with eachother, often), the Sneaky Djala keeps to the shadows, scouts for trouble and is caoable of tracking...useful when they are trying to figure out how far the ailment has spread...and more. Last arc, the thug took on another Terrestrial Martial Artist, a ghostblooded, while the group investigated an ancient ruin in a Shadowland, the scout, well, scouted, the Scavenger Lady investigated...and well, hmm. Crusty Engineer needs some more Engineering to do next arc I think. Might be easier if Powered Armor girl wasn't almost as good a tech as him, since she's learning to maintain her own armor. A little hard to find a use for being a master of Craft: Earth when someone has no Geomancy or some such.


Sometimes, being spread too thin can be a problem for both the character, and their usefulness...but being more than just a combat twink is never a flaw...unless you're playing a tournament combat game that includes nothing else...and then, well, that's kind of a waste. However, being too focussed doesn't necessarily mean a character is a problem...though it can be, if the player reacts poorly to situations outside their specialty.

 

[Gtroc]

I really don't think of it as a "min-max" scenario, it merely a player who likes a certain aspect of the game and makes a character fit how he want to play. as an ST I have yet to have problems with this. I play with rules-laywers and twinks almost across the board, but I look at this as a benifit not a down side. generally speaking predicting what they will do next is not hard, the hard part comes in finding a way to show off each of there bits of twinkery every game. if a guy makes uber-fighter, that tells you he wants at least one meaningful combat every session, if a guy make charisma-monster, or super-ninja, then you know what they want each game as well. I find that the simpler the character concept the easier it is to run. and one-sided characters are about as simple as they come.

 

[Jukashi]

Min-maxing is generally a holdover from games like D&D, where, if you're following the standard encounters given in the books (I don't, personally ) you have to focus during the early game in order to overcome your character's innate weakness; if your 1st-level fighter wastes a feat on being a pastry chef, he'll just get eaten by kobolds. And it carries on into the higher game as a "solution"; people min/max because they anticipate some obstacle and customise their character to overcome it pre-emptively.


Alternate explanation: In real life, when people are presented with the choice of "50% chance of either total failure or stunning success" or "100% chance at mediocre success", they'll go with the second choice. But they wonder what things would have been like if they'd been better; so, when they play an RPG, they build a character that's really good at one thing, and they don't care about the failings. They just want to see the big reward they can get.


In both cases, it shouldn't really apply to Exalted. It's a flaw of comparative thinking; people look at the options and, seeing the highest-level Charms, mark those as being "best". Then, instantly, all the lower Charms become "not as good", and people forget that having any Charm means you're totally awesome.


So, in a way, you can fix a min/maxer in Exalted by not challenging them. If every obstacle they come across that fits "their role" is easily steamrollered, they'll get bored of it. And, realistically, any Exalted that did specialise to such an extent would just easily pound anything in that area of expertise, because an Exalt who specialises in something is supposed to be the best person in the entire world at it.

 

[Moonsilver]

It’s a difficult one. Some steps I have taken:


If you use Merits and Flaws, bin the discount some Castes have for certain Merits. But keep the extra cost some Flaws have for certain Castes.


Only one Attribute and one Ability may be at 5.


Nothing in Attributes at the starting one dot. Your god cures any problems you had so the minimum in an Attribute is 2.


Essence starts at 2. It cannot be raised at character creation. You cannot start saving points to raise it till the GM says. Expect a few scenarios under your belt before that happens.


No Manse, Artefact, backgrounds. Why? The player picks Dex 5, Melee 5, so three guesses on the artefact


Just talking to them and making them see the big picture outside of there speciality helps:


"You remember that Ranger one of the guys played in MERP? Thats going to be you in this game. No city skills, no social skills, and not even outdoors skills!"


I should point out I am a bit of a Min/Maxer myself, takes a real effort not to add...ONE MORE DOT.

 

[Jukashi]

Essence starts at 2. It cannot be raised at character creation. You cannot start saving points to raise it till the GM says. Expect a few scenarios under your belt before that happens.

So... no starting sorcerors, and no Immaculate DBs?

 

[wordman]

It doesn't help that Exalted has a big soybean trading problem at character generation. Costs are linear when generating a character but use triangular sums for improvement thereafter, which means you will spend much less xp later if you get either zero or five in whatever you are buying at generation, with nothing in between. This practically begs for one-dimensional min-maxing.


Anyway, some questions to the original poster:


1) Is the min-maxer a good role-player?


2) Does the min-maxer move the story?


3) If the min-maxer were replaced by some other min-maxer, would anyone even notice?

 

[Persell]

...stuff about chargen...

Yeah, you've got a point about the chargen costs. One dot at 5 saves 8-12 xp, for no real extra cost.

Anyway, some questions to the original poster:


1) Is the min-maxer a good role-player?


2) Does the min-maxer move the story?


3) If the min-maxer were replaced by some other min-maxer, would anyone even notice?

1)Not really
2) No...unless you when one of the groups says "You mean you don't have any points that that ability either?" and having to change plans


3) Not unless you count how much quieter it is when he misses games

 

[Moonsilver]

I don’t have DB as players. I make an exception for Sorcery, you can learn Terrestrial and I give characters a spell pick with that. But they can’t buy any more spells. After creation they cannot pick any more spells until they have raised thir Essence to 3.


The Mini/Maxer in my game still has 4 charms of MA to pick. Who was the only one to pick 7 Flaws? Who was the only one that instead of just taking GM advice on what Charms to pick had to try to understand the whole Exalted system before he chose his own? Don’t you just love erm?

 

[Persell]

Yeah, there's always the people that focus on the pretty shiny things and won't listen to reason. I suppose the reason that I have such a problem with min-maxing is that I think that a player benefits so much from starting with a broad base and moving on from there. Yeah, you may seem weak at first, but given some time and xp a character really starts to shine in their area of specialty without being totally neutered in other areas.

I don’t have DB as players. I make an exception for Sorcery, you can learn Terrestrial and I give characters a spell pick with that. But they can’t buy any more spells. After creation they cannot pick any more spells until they have raised thir Essence to 3.

Essence starts at 2. It cannot be raised at character creation. You cannot start saving points to raise it till the GM says. Expect a few scenarios under your belt before that happens.

I understand your reasoning here, but this seems a bit harsh. Do you ever have any players learn Sorcery in your games, or at least before they reach mid-level power range?

 

[wordman]

1)Not really... 2) No... 3) Not unless you count how much quieter it is when he misses games

More questions:


4) What do the other players think about this?


5) Do you really want this guy at your gaming table?

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

I have to agree that Moonsilver's answer seems too extreme. Remember that a mortal can achieve a 3 Essence, and learn either Sorcery or Necromancy. Admittedly they'll suck at either, what with having an Essence Pool of 30, but they can do so. Also, flawed characters can add to rp quite a bit. Requiring the totally honest person to have a 2 Manipulation, the ugly one to have a 2 Appearance, and so on seems excessive to me. A hero's flaws are as important as their strengths...especially if they actually roleplay them out. You can be epic and awesome without removing every weakness a person has.


Disallowing Artifact or Manse...also seems excessive. What if someone actually makes a Geomancer or Enchanter? Even a mortal Master Enchanter can create level 1 Artifacts, and the Artifact background can be used to purchase Talismans. A mortal Geomancer can do more than that with manses, though it does take a good bit longer. I can understand disallowing either above 3 perhaps...or requiring a story from them about how they managed to get their hands on such. Personally, I favor the later, as I've found that some higher level artifacts can be quite interesting...if they are actually incorporated into the story. When someone has a Skyship or First Age Naval Vessel, it can help a story more than hinder. A Warstrider...is likely to be a bit more problematic, unless the game is centered around such. If you ever do run a game including Dynastic or Lookshy Dragonblooded, or Abyssals, or Sidereals, then this prohabition becomes truly excessive. All three have a support structure willing to supply necessary gear. Additionally, no Artifact armor means no Hardness. This can be a major PC killer. DB anima flare alone may become the death of your PCs.


Frankly, telling players what charms to pick isn't something I'd want in a game I played in. Advice if I was new, perhaps...but commentary about who did this or that, well, I know I like to understand the system before I play...I don't see how reading the rules before playing a game is an example of min-maxing. Thats just having sense. Do you play Monopoly without anyone but the banker reading the rules? I doubt it. Having the players know what charms they can take and understand how they work isn't a hinderance, but a bonus likely to speed up game play, instead of having to pull the book out each time someone wants to buy something or use something.


Personally, I like flaws, but not for their min-maxing factor. I've been known to take more than the maximum possible (for only the max points, note), just because the specific flaws fit the character concept. Sometimes, someone should have a powerful enemy, an insane disciple, and a missing eye from their army days, before they settled down and became a monk. Now, if someone only takes flaws for the points and tries to avoid any negatives from them, then there might be a problem.

 

[Dracogryff]

It’s a difficult one. Some steps I have taken:
If you use Merits and Flaws, bin the discount some Castes have for certain Merits. But keep the extra cost some Flaws have for certain Castes.


Only one Attribute and one Ability may be at 5.


Nothing in Attributes at the starting one dot. Your god cures any problems you had so the minimum in an Attribute is 2.


Essence starts at 2. It cannot be raised at character creation. You cannot start saving points to raise it till the GM says. Expect a few scenarios under your belt before that happens.


No Manse, Artefact, backgrounds. Why? The player picks Dex 5, Melee 5, so three guesses on the artefact


Just talking to them and making them see the big picture outside of there speciality helps:


"You remember that Ranger one of the guys played in MERP? Thats going to be you in this game. No city skills, no social skills, and not even outdoors skills!"


I should point out I am a bit of a Min/Maxer myself, takes a real effort not to add...ONE MORE DOT.

Egads...this almost makes me cry. Not a game I'd want to play, ever, in. No ability at one? Why not? I will grant that I will generally question anything more than a singe '1' in an attribute on a character...but that one '1' can be as character defining as a 5 can be. If it's a busload of min-maxers...then I'd require justification on any stat (ability, attribute, virtue, background) at 5 and any ability at 1 (and only allow one ability to be at 1)...justification that's more than 'they're quick but weak.' Why are they so? If the player doesn't want to make the effort to justify, well then, they get a 4 (or have to increase it to a 2) and that's that.


I also agree that the Essence at 2 is a little extreme. I'd simply require in character justification, and nothing above 3, myself. No Manse and no artifact are even more crippling, IMO. Granted, there are a number of hearthstones that would recieve a flat out no from me...but generally, I'd just disallow any artifact/manse above 3, and disallow certain artifacts (like warstriders) that can technically be obtained at that level. As LK said, no hardness can be killer (especially if you run into DB opponents a lot...I've been ping-death'd before...it sucks).


But hey, it is your game, and if you and your players like it, then it's all good in the end...just don't expect me to think it's a good solution for my own games.


But on topic, min-maxing is a bit hard to deal with. My solution for the uber-warrior would either to be let him steamroller everything (probably the more likely in the end because I don't want to make the effort to come up with something every single game session that would be a challenge to him...I have a hard enough time making characters, still) and let the other characters get annoyed at him if the whole group is big on combat, or divide the fight into two parts. This has worked beautifully for me in the past. LK's Gunshosa fighter and the ghost blooded MA? That was only half the fight. The rest of the PCs were trying to hold off a pair of Barghests. Aside from a slight misjudgement of LK's character's power (well, that and a crap roll), it actually came out as a pretty decent challenge to everyone involved.


But if the character is that min-maxed...I'd probably state right at the beginning that 'at least x amount of XP earned must be spent outside your specialty,' somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2....doesn't help the current game...but I'd definitely make it a rule in any future game I ran...and if they bitched, well, they're not the ST, and I'd say that I want more than one trick pony characters in this chronicle...but I'm not sure exactly how to help with a game already in progress. Throwing a situation where being the god of fighting isn't going to help, or is actually going to hinder is likely a good thought as well, though.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

It's Time For...SOCIAL COMBAT!!!


Out of willpower? FINISH HIM!!! Rebuild his Motivation into becoming the greatest basket weaver in all Creation. Soon, he will be the greatest master of Competitive Basket Weaving ever found.

 

[Chaka]

Min-maxing is occasionally nice. For example, a min-maxed full moon lunar tank for when you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherfucker in the room. Or the geographical area, for that matter. Similarly, a min-maxed Eclipse Caste Solar can convince you to eat your own children and say it tasted pleasantly like pork. Are they balanced characters? God no. Are there people out there who concentrate on their talents and interests to the exclusion of all else? Yes, a lot of them. I don't punish min-maxers specifically, as long as they make why they're such an ungodly combat death machine with the social skills of a newt or social butterflies who tend to pick up daiklaves by the pointy end sound convincing, because there ARE people out there like that. Obviously, they can't deal with every situation I'm going to throw at them. However, I think going to the other extreme and deliberately balancing your character completely with no edge in any given area is a form of metagaming, because people that well rounded are a hell of a lot less common. Still, a mix of the two is generally best.

 

[Cynis Filthist]

My problem in this situation isn't so much when they have exceptionally high stats that can be unbalancing - this can be more of a challenge and detract from the fun of some games - but decent gamers and ST can handle it.  My problem comes more from when people completely ignore aspects of their character they should have a few dots in due to their background.


A walking Daiklave from the West who knows the game will be based in the Scavenger Lands that buys zero points in sail, i could continue with examples but i'm pretty sure people know what i mean.


Characters are, for me, more fun when they have those little facets of the past, even if they end up being skills I never use - hell sometimes its those 'eh, i'll never use this skill' that is most fun in being creative and using it to save the party

 

[Lord Ben]

Maybe that's true to a point.  But sometimes if you require a player to spend points that accurately reflect every aspect of his background you end up with a party full of ex navy seals instead of interesting characters.


To use your example, the Exalt with 5 wits and no sail is just as good at sailing as the mortal with 2/2.

 

[Moonsilver]

With not having an ability giving a 2 die penalty he would be on a dice pool of 3, but thats still rather good.

 

[Lord Ben]

Exalts don't get a 2 die penalty.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

I do agree that characters should actually match their background. If you used to be an officer, you should likely have War, Presence, and some combat ability, at a minimum. If you were a sailor before Exaltation, well, then you should have Sail. Even a Dragonblooded hasn't always been Exalted, though many of their skills were likely learned after and not before, unless they were a late bloomer. You should take the skills your character would have required as a mortal into account when making them, particularly with Celestial Exalts. Just about everyone should have their 1 dot in Resistance. Why? So they survived to adulthood without dying from the common cold. They frankly likely still did with the disease rules...but at least now they had some dice. Similarly, anyone who is literate should have their 1 dot in Lore. If someone was a doctor in life, they should consider the requirements for a medical license, which are frankly quite easy to meet...no wonder plagues are terrifying. Most former farmers likely should have some Survival and Craft of one or two sorts.

 

[Lord Ben]

Maybe, but then they need to give more dots at creation.  An experienced person who's 60 years old at Exaltation likely has far more skills than a 15 year old homeless kid.  But character creation is exactly the same for both concepts.  So sometimes things have to suffer.

 

[Chaka]

The joys of houseruling come into play there. I always tend to give a couple of background or ability dots for free in certain areas that reflect the backstory of the character. Not many, maybe two or three. Similarly, I don't make characters by backgrounds like artifact, contacts or heart's blood with xp during the course of the game. You go and bloody find them, you get them. They don't just magically appear because you've managed not to be dead for a certain period of time. But that's my attitude to things.

 

[Moonsilver]

I try to balance this by saying your dots must match your background, but Sol or Lunar can just throw a few dots in to round you off.


That way they dont need an explanation for every dot. But when someone wants to play a savant gardener who also has the skills of a ninja you just say; hang on Sol only tweaked your skills this is a rewrite.


Oh and well spoted Lord Ben!

 

[Ker'ion]

So, why don't you use the Experience and Knowledge backgrounds to remedy this discrepancy?


They're in the 1E Player's Guide under the Thaumaturge rules.


I use them for players in my games, if they have a good enough background to justify it (usually a page per decade).