The perennial "should skills and attributes be linked" has come up on the Fudge List, and as an offshoot of it minmaxing came up... specifically, how to deal with the one-trick pony who's dumped everything into one uber-skill. Several people gave advice then on how to bypass that skill... which leads me to ask the question, did the player pick that uber-skill because he wanted it to be the focus for him? And if so, what happens when the GM does nothing but avoid it? It reflects a bigger problem I have with any point-build system... or heck, *any* character generation system. Do the points, levels, or whatever actually express the most important things (for player *and* GM) about that character? -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Greetings,
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:09:04 CST, Karen J. Cravens wrote
> The perennial "should skills and attributes be linked" has come up on the
> Fudge List, and as an offshoot of it minmaxing came up... specifically,
> how to deal with the one-trick pony who's dumped everything into one
> uber-skill.
>
> Several people gave advice then on how to bypass that skill... which leads
> me to ask the question, did the player pick that uber-skill because he
> wanted it to be the focus for him? And if so, what happens when the GM
> does nothing but avoid it?
>
> It reflects a bigger problem I have with any point-build system... or
> heck, *any* character generation system. Do the points, levels, or
> whatever actually express the most important things (for player *and* GM)
> about that character?
I think the problem is that it SHOULD express something important but too
often it is received as something entirely different. The player might be
saying "I want to be awesome at combat", but the GM is hearing "I want to
break your plot".
I think that the root cause of this is that combat is too easy for the GM to
use as a plot device. Diplomacy, subterfuge, stealth, artistry are all options
that could move the plot forward but for the most part combat is used in most
games. It is far easier to put in a combat encounter than a art competition.
It is far easier to force a player to stay within the limits of he character
in battle than in a riddle contest.
Min/Maxing is a problem because games do not have a level playing field.
Combat is more important than diplomacy. The person who has uber-skills in
combat has a disproportionate advantage over the character with an uber-skill
in diplomacy.
Games that do have a level playing field (like Amber) min/maxing is part of
the game system. You are encouraged to be the best in something because
everyone is going to try to be the best in one thing. I think Buffy also has
ths type of rule where each character can identify ONE thing that is their
specialty. If I choose computers, anyone in the group can take skills in
computers but I will always be the best in computers in the group.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane
shane.knysh at YonerDotCom http://churchofthegame.blogspot.com/
Join the #Fudge IRC channel at irc.psionics.net
"If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works,
the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat."
- Douglas Adams
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Shane Knysh wrote: SK>I think the problem is that it SHOULD express something important but too SK>often it is received as something entirely different. The player might be SK>saying "I want to be awesome at combat", but the GM is hearing "I want to SK>break your plot". Right. *Or* the player might be saying "I never want to have to worry about combat" because something else is important. How can a GM tell the difference? (Does the player always KNOW the difference?) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Greetings Karen,
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:52:10 CST, Karen J. Cravens wrote
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Shane Knysh wrote:
>
> SK>I think the problem is that it SHOULD express something important but too
> SK>often it is received as something entirely different. The player might be
> SK>saying "I want to be awesome at combat", but the GM is hearing "I want to
> SK>break your plot".
>
> Right. *Or* the player might be saying "I never want to have to worry
> about combat" because something else is important. How can a GM tell the
> difference? (Does the player always KNOW the difference?)
weird... have we ever agreed before? ;)
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane
shane.knysh at YonerDotCom http://churchofthegame.blogspot.com/
Join the #Fudge IRC channel at irc.psionics.net
"If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works,
the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat."
- Douglas Adams
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Shane Knysh wrote: SK>weird... have we ever agreed before? ;) Heh. Probably, but it isn't as much fun to comment on that as when we don't... -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> Right. *Or* the player might be saying "I never want to have to worry
> about combat" because something else is important. How can a GM tell the
> difference? (Does the player always KNOW the difference?)
If the player understands his own motivations, then there just needs
to be open communication among the players and GM.
This is one of the things the Forgeites have been big on, and one of
the areas that I think they're doing something of real value. They
recognize that there are a million assumptions about how we're going
to play, and that people don't talk about them enough. Bankuei gives
an analogy in a very recent blog post, about a culture who has never
seen a ball before, and when given balls to play with, they invent
games about them... except they consider them and the game to be holy,
and it's forbidden to actually talk about the rules of playing ball.
So to play game of Ball, they nominate a Ball King, who rewards or
punishes people according to their adherance to the rules... but he
can't _tell_ them the rules, because it's forbidden. He can only
reward or punish them and hope that they catch on.
It's goofy, and a bit over the top, but he's got a point. The average
roleplayer doesn't talk enough about what he is expecting from the
game... in part, because he assumes that we're all playing the same
game, and we all want the same thing, so there's no point in talking
about it.
And I think the bit of discussion Karen captured and brought over here
is a portrait of that... the player takes the biggest combat skills he
can get because he wants something from the game that involves this,
but you can't be entirely sure what it is he wants. The gamemaster,
thinking this is somehow damaging to the game, is on the defensive and
tries to figure out how to neutralize it, but doesn't outright forbid
taking it. The GM _punishes_ the player for making a choice that was
legal in the rules and not forbidden by the GM. And many GMs seem to
be assuming that this is a _natural reaction_ to the player's choices.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ ]
REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>If the player understands his own motivations, then there just needs CDC>to be open communication among the players and GM. If, yes. CDC>This is one of the things the Forgeites have been big on, and one of CDC>the areas that I think they're doing something of real value. They CDC>recognize that there are a million assumptions about how we're going CDC>to play, and that people don't talk about them enough. Bankuei gives Yep. That comes back to my own preferences: horrendously detailed character generation (and before that, campaign description), then no rules after that. Get all the assumptions out on the table and the rest of the game should flow. CDC>And I think the bit of discussion Karen captured and brought over here CDC>is a portrait of that... the player takes the biggest combat skills he CDC>can get because he wants something from the game that involves this, CDC>but you can't be entirely sure what it is he wants. The gamemaster, CDC>thinking this is somehow damaging to the game, is on the defensive and CDC>tries to figure out how to neutralize it, but doesn't outright forbid CDC>taking it. The GM _punishes_ the player for making a choice that was CDC>legal in the rules and not forbidden by the GM. And many GMs seem to CDC>be assuming that this is a _natural reaction_ to the player's choices. Some of it's part of the adversarial relationship, some of which is normal and some of which is dysfunctional. But yeah, it's back to the unwritten vs. written rules. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
