Starting Characters and Minimaxing

[Vanman]

I'm about to start my campaign and we had the first character creation session last night. Everyone is new to the system. In looking at the character creation rules, several players came to the decision that the most cost effective way of builiding their characters is the max out on stats, particularly in the primary, because of the relative disparity of the costs involved. If, in your primary, you go 4/4/3, the cost to raise one of those four stats to five is 16 XP, 32 if you want to raise both fours to fives. Conversely, if you went 5/5/1, the cost to raise the one to a three is 12 XP. Likewise, the training times are significantly reduced.


Now I have a good group of roleplayers. They're not munchkins but they do like getting value for money, so to speak. And, in this instance, I'm not sure I can disagree with them. Does anyone have any thoughts? My first inclination is to set a limit - only one attribute at five, something like that. The other possibility is to either increase the time it takes to train up an attribute or to say you can only increase an attribute with my say so. They're used to the latter suggestion because that's been the norm in the last campaign we played. But I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with that. So. Any suggestions?


Cheers.

 

[simnine]

Get them to tell a story about why some of their traits are so low. Perhaps they'll even keep them low, because they'll like to roleplay their flaws. In any case, it is a step towards having the characters become more than cardboard cut-out heros.

 

[Persell]

Yeh, do speak up against stupid traits. They have to be justified by the character, his background etc.


But then the problem is mechanically not as grave as you think it is. Most of the time it is better to spend the points in other places than atributes and when the first stamina one solar gets hit be a goremaul minmaxing looses its appeal pretty fast anyway.


Last but not least, training times should be mentioned, if you are strict about them they can offset this problem, too.

 

[Hanat-Osul]

Tell your players that they should worry more about having a character with an interesting history and well-developed personality than about goddamn dots.


Min-maxing is a product of FEAR, and not just the fear that the Big Mean ST Man is going to throw you up against a Meanie Meanie Monster that will kill your ickle hero in 2 turns.  It's born of the fear that without a bunch of 5s on your sheet, you won't be able to "do anything" in the game.  That's bullshit for two reasons.  Being able to "do stuff" means, in the minds of most roleplayers, being able to control the situation... which is THE STORYTELLER'S JOB.  It's also bullshit because the rules of the game reward creativity.  Don't have a 5?  Stunt it.  You don't NEED fucking 5.  You don't NEED to hoard experience points so you can max out your combat pools and defeat every enemy.  You don't need to be maxed out to win... and you shouldn't even be concerned about "winning" in the first place.  You want to "win"?  Go buy Morrowind or some shit.  Roleplaying is a form of interactive fiction, not a goddamn video game.

 

[Jakk Bey]

HO is perfectly on point here--though, he might need a cup of coffee to calm that shit down.   :wink:


A good ST puts together Stories for the characters people already have, which means it's tailored to their quirks, their skill sets, and what they are good at, and challenges them where they ain't so good, sometimes as a prod to get better, or to give some dramatic impetus.


Your players know that you're not throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them, then they can concentrate on making a neat character, not a bundle of dots and powerz...

 

[Hanat-Osul]

HO is perfectly on point here--though' date=' he might need a cup of coffee to calm that shit down.   :wink:[/quote']
NO JAKK, WE NEED MORE COFFEE.  MOREMOREMORE.  CALM IS WEAK.  CALM IS FOR THE DEAD.  CALM IS SPIRITUALLY REPULSIVE & IMPURE.  CALM IS MY ENEMY.  I HATE CALM.

A good ST puts together Stories for the characters people already have, which means it's tailored to their quirks, their skill sets, and what they are good at, and challenges them where they ain't so good, sometimes as a prod to get better, or to give some dramatic impetus.

Precisely my point.  No Exalted story should be a beat-the-villains get-the-loot scenario.  Nor should it have one quest set aside for each Caste.  This is not Everquest or some formulaic dungeon-crawl; the world of this game is too intricate to excuse cardboard NPCs and generic plots.  As a Storyteller, you OWE it to your players to give them a complex, challenging story, and they OWE it to you to build characters worth incorporating into that story.

 

[Jakk Bey]

HO--Channelling the Rutger Hauer film Split Second much?

 

[Hanat-Osul]

HO--Channelling the Rutger Hauer film Split Second much?

Haven't seen this.  Should I?

 

[Persell]

For a moment picture what a character with a strength of 5, a dexterity of 5 and a stamina of 1 would be and look like. He would look like a typical steroid-using body builder. Muscles sculpted and bulging everywhere, but he wouldn't be able to climb the stairs without stopping half-way to catch his breath. He would work out all day stretching and lifting weights, but only for maybe ten minutes at a time. Now ask yourself what kind of person would do that? Living your life that way marks you. It severly affects your personality, and an appropriate background should be written for such a character.


That aside, it could make an interesting character concept. He could be a house Cynis slave raised and built for Cynis parties and mansions to be a living statue standing in the background to be used in any way possible by the depraved revelers. If I should make such a character I would play him slightly effeminate and make him an introvert thinker. He would be extremely narcissistic and over the years, while he absentmindedly let his body be violated by Dragon Blooded perverts, he would build himself a philosophy build on strength and respect - the things lacking in his life. He would then exalt the moment he acted on that philosophy.


So: stupid stats can still make a great character.

 

[Vanman]

Tell your players that they should worry more about having a character with an interesting history and well-developed personality than about goddamn dots.

Why can't you do both? Why is it automatically assumed that you can't do one without the other? One of my players really enjoys taking apart a system and seeing where the cost effective breaks are. Should I deprive him of that joy? Will I be serving his needs if I do so?


I have no doubts that, once the story begins, they'll all be fully cooperative, and add much to the story. They do have interesting character concepts and backgrounds. That's not my fear. And I think I know what I'm going to do, based on some of the suggestions here (thanks for all the comments, by the way). But, having said that, I don't think a player who wants to buy stats cost effectively means he's ignoring the larger issues of story. He just wants a cost effective character.


I think that this is, perhaps, mostly my fault. None of my players have played Exalted before, so they don't necessarily know the downsides of having a one in a stat. I probably need to explain it a bit better, in conjunction with explaining training times (and I may extend these a bit, to reinforce the idea). Of course, I've only played Exalted once, at a con, so I'm new to running this system. And that may be part of the problem as well. Hence my ability - or lack thereof - to properly explain it.


I guess I'm just trying to feel my way here in uncharted territory. Again, thanks for the suggestions.

 

[Persell]

Van77man,


I like cost-effective character builds that represent the concept I have in mind (or that the player has in mind if I'm ST).


Here's some things I do to rectify your problem (which may or may not be suitable for your group).


1. I ask the characters to write up a character story/bio/background. And then I generate the stats for ALL my players (noobs or not).


2. Let the players change the character as they see fit for the first 3 sessions of the game. I generally rule that if the player uses it they keep it, but if by session 3 it's obvious (and it generally is) that it's not suitable I'll allow the mod.


This gives noobs a chance to see the system in play, where the written statement of 'Solars are the best of the best in all things' can be verified and debunked.


Slightly off-topic


Systems help to provide a common framework for everyone to conceive of the events in the game the same way, that's why they exist. Getting the most out of the system isn't really a bad thing. What annoys me is when certain elements of the game are ignored in preference for others. For instance, flaws are ignored because players don't want their characters to look 'weak'. I'm lucky in that the groups I play with don't really have this as an issue (with some minor exceptions) and some the players absolutely revel in botches, flaws and so forth because they are just as much fun (and sometimes more so) than the uber-kick-arse powerz.

 

[Flagg]

1. I ask the characters to write up a character story/bio/background. And then I generate the stats for ALL my players (noobs or not).

This seems to carry the implication that your players aren't intelligent and mature enough to choose their own stats. If I were one of your players, I'd feel insulted. Next, I'd find a new ST.


-S

 

[Persell]

Stillborn,


Sheesh, touchy!


I am well aware that some of my beliefs, attitudes, etcetera don't work well with others, there's no implication of thinking of my fellow gamers (those in I currently play with, or others) as either stupid or immature. Fwiw, I'd stick by my beliefs, explain them if you'd asked, and genuinely wish you well as you went to find a new ST.

 

[Flagg]

So what's the foundation of your decision not to let your players choose their own stats?


-S

 

[Kajata]

What I often do is say to my players "okay, what's your character going to be like in a few sentences?"  They tell me then I tell them to go away and put dots on paper.  Then I look at said paper and say "so, why does he have dex 5?" and just make them tell me why.  This has the ability of allowing me to alter abilites I don't like in my game (ie. dex 5 melee 5 chars), as well as making them think about WHY their characters are who they are.


I'll normally just ask them why they have certain abilities above level 3/not at all, and their charm expenditure, but whatever I don't think seems right for the concept they presented me with, I'll pull them up on.


I agree with Still, though maybe for different reasons.  If you take the actual act of putting the dots on paper down, it can take quite a lot away from the feeling of "this is MY character".  Sure, your players came up with the idea for the character, but they weren't the ones who puts the dots on the page, which is like the final stamp of approval.  If you wanna make sure the characters are both fair and what your players want then just keep passing the sheet back and forth, them modifying it how they'd like it, you saying "no, wait, this doesn't make sense.  Maybe only Stamina 3?  No?  Why not?".  You don't have to force them to play a character they're not happy with, just show them why you want certain stats to be that way and make sure you're fair with ALL players.


There's nothing worse than when one player is AMAZING at something, and the rest of the players are generally just sitting around doing nothing, because this will result in one of two things; 1, your players will grow bored with the game or, 2, they'll all follow his example and max out on whatever he's maxed out on.


Don't let your Dawn fool you into believing that just cos he's the Dawn that that warrents ignorance of every other aspect BUT combat, and that he has no reason to buy anything but combat charms.  I did this and I'm STILL recovering from it a year and a half later.  My Dawn can kill anything but can do nothing else, the rest of my circle can do other things just fine, but they're all trying to get MUCH better in combat to have something to do when the badguys show up, and they get annoyed cos I have to keep saying "no, you can't take brawl 5 just yet... you're a sorcerer/engineer".

 

[Jakk Bey]

I'm with Still on this.  


Mind you, someone submits a character to me, I go over it, I ask questions, I make some suggestions, and I offer some alternatives, or even just wholesale add points to round the character out to make it fit the concept.  Because I think that a character ought to be capable and good at something--and at character gen, that might not be possible, with the normal amount of points.  I'm not afraid to tweak to help a player get a character that they're happy with.  


But, I do that with all the characters.  Doesn't mean that they're getting N/A Artifacts or five dots in a lot of Attributes or Abilities, but I sprinkle the love around so that we get a nice mix of ability and personality--quirks and all.


Then again, I also suggest to players that they use Merits and Flaws, because they are great plot hooks.


I find this method alleviates the desire to Min/Max, because there is less emphasis on points, as it is about concept and what makes sense for the character.

 

[Guest]

Seconded, Jakk.


I'm sure there are some of you out there who like playing utter failures and gross incompetents as characters and think it is the height of roleplaying to perform poorly on tasks central to the character concept, but I think most players want to be relatively confident of success at something or another. Yeah, alright, not a good idea to invest much of your ego in a character, but at the same time, caring a bit about whether they succeed in their goals or not is inevitable if you're getting at all emotionally involved in the game. So yeah, in their core competency, however that's defined,  I think players should have characters that are quite talented. Even if it's a core competency as narrow as writing epic poems commemorating the beneficence of small gods (something one of my players once spent a huge amount of time on IC).


Besides, if you want to fail at everything you attempt and just get screwed whenever you take a risk, go play Paranoia.

 

[Persell]

So what's the foundation of your decision not to let your players choose their own stats?
-S

I want to encourage the players to focus on their character's bio, numbers don't give me access to stories, but detailed character write ups do. I can do a better job as an ST and write interesting stories that involve the characters if I have well thought out character bios.


I want to be able to check where the changes to I've made to canon might cause problems with player/character interactions. House rules are one thing, but when a player expects something about the world (Solar shards, for example) and I've modified it, I desperately want a chance to discuss it with that player, before we start play, so that they don't go in expecting something other than what they get. Focusing on stories helps this (in my experience).


I want it to be quick. (We start play immediately the session starts.)


I want it to be fair (all numbers come from the same source, me, so the only one who can be accused of min-maxing is me, and it is my hope that newbies get to the same degree of versatility as the veterans.)


It's all done in consultation with the players, it's not as black and white as the statement suggests, it's not a dictatorial kick, it's meant to be a collaborative process.


I'm also incredibly demanding as the ST and as a courtesy to the players this sort of process gives them some notice of what they're in for. So I'm probably vulnerable to hubris, see below


It's also a trust thing, the idea of giving something up to get something in return.


Ultimately though players still choose the stats, they just describe their character and I try to guess the dots, when they look at their sheet and say that's not what I meant I can say "Where is that again? … I couldn't find anything that supports that! … Oh! So that's what you mean, perhaps [this] would be better!". The PC's bio describes the stats, I just put in the dots, and then check with the player to make sure they're happy. If they find something they don't like they change it (as point 2. in my earlier post)


I believe your comment is a valid one Stillborn (and others) and while I disagree it's good to be involved in groups that help me to question myself, my methods and my beliefs.

 

[Flagg]

While none of your reasons sound unreasonable, it all sounds somewhat unnecessary, and somewhat control-freakish, to me. To each his own, I guess.


-S

 

[Silence In Daylight]

Is any customization possible pre-start? I mean, are there any bonus points to spend should the player really dislike the (effectively) pregen you've handed her?

 

[Guest]

The biggest issue my group would have is that they all think they're decently clever people, and would feel vaguely insulted by being given numbers that were at least thus established as the baseline character from which negotiations over precise statistical details would begin. though, yeah, if your players are alright with it, de gustibus non disputandum est, like Still said.


also, a depressing number of my players are mathematicians anyway, and have probably found all the possible numerical systems exploits that exist. In a recent session, under admittedly different circumstances, I made rulings that damage to a particular enemy would be halved pre-soack and then halved post-soak. A lengthy argument ensued as to which would actually be more advantageous statistically.


*shudders* Mathematicians.

 

[Flagg]

de gustibus non disputandum est, like Still said.

Did I say that?


-S

 

[Guest]

Roughly, tastes must not be disputed.

 

[Persell]

…somewhat control-freakish…

I will readily admit to this. I tell my players beforehand and understand that this type of thing isn't for everyone. The 'control freak' element should stop as soon as the game starts, self-adjudication isn't easy though, I strongly encourage players to put things that will fit into the scenery for stunting purposes and to make up their own take on how various aspects of the world work.

Is any customization possible pre-start? I mean' date=' are there any bonus points to spend should the player really dislike the (effectively) pregen you've handed her?[/quote']
Of course!


I'm pretty sure I said before that the process isn't as black and white as it appears when distilled into a single sentence, there's lots of negotiation.


I don't take this approach for every game I run, and in most games it's a matter of degrees. The games that work the best are those where I've done this religiously, I guess it fits my paradigm and helps me provide the best game I can.

 

[Obsidian Silence]

Now I have a good group of roleplayers. They're not munchkins but they do like getting value for money, so to speak. And, in this instance, I'm not sure I can disagree with them. Does anyone have any thoughts?


Cheers.

Dont limit them.  Get a story and background from them, then show them the error of their ways by putting them in positions where the uber low (below human average) lights the bulb in their heads.


I.E.  Str 1 chr's cant wear armor or for that matter carry anything.  If they have a horse to carry can a str 1 pull his own body weight up onto a horse?


dex 1 is not just not dexterious they are clumsy


Sta 1 can wear armor but for like 5 minutes after the time to get in it is taken into acount for and the armor would be useless in ambushes cause you wouldn't be wearing it.


int 1 is just dumb knows like nothing.  would only be able to get abilities that are more on the instinctual level, gotta make sense no int 1 guy is gonna know 3 languages.


wits 1 -- give him like 5 seconds to make decisions. why? he's not quick enough on his feet to make snap decisions well


per 1 -- wouldn't know he was in trouble if he fell asleep in a nest of vipers


cha 1 --- people would walk on the other side of the stree he is that unpersonable


ap 1 ---- no more sex for her


man 1  no one would ever listen to her side of a story or for that matter do anything she says, she just doesn't get her way


well there are my thoughts for the day