Noticing a lot of RTJ's lately with something along the lines of the following statement: "I reserve the right to reject your character if it is too min/max'd."  I've also noticed a string of games that are enforcing preselected stats.  One was to the extreme of structuring your stats based on your selected class.  For instance, Fighters were required to use a 14/15/13/10/12/8 style array and the Clerics were required to go with a 10/12/14/8/15/13 (Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha for those who are curious).  This is a single case, but I've also seen a game where the GM was allowing just Humans with stats of 13/13/13/11/11/8.  No exceptions.

The common excuse is that the GM does not want to deal with any sort of "power gamer" that will "ruin" his game.  Granted, I've been on the receiving end of that stick as the GM, but you can usually overcome it if you're clever (terrain, traps, weapon selection) or by talking to the player (asking for help in challenging his build or asking him to dial back a bit).  And in the extreme case of someone that's there just to be a douche, goodbye!

To me, the predetermined and preallocated stats thing is really just a symptom of something else but more on that in a bit.  First, as a player, I find this frustrating, because I'll have to hit level 12 sometimes to qualify for the Feats I want.  And no offense, but RPOL GM's are notorious for dropping off the face of the earth at the drop of a hat.  It seems so... weird to be so oddly restrictive about this.  And that's probably because of how I tend to be as a GM.

Personally, I dislike the stat restriction method of controlling PC's.  Certainly, having a standard array is fine when speed is the word in character creation.  But in the case where speed is not essential, that level of restriction is the sign of a GM that is too focused on telling his story in his world on his terms.  Maybe I'm just a little too different, but I've always been the sort of GM that loves to set a stage and let the players run off into whatever interests them.  Your players are they to get enjoyment out of the experience as well, and they are just as important to whatever story you want to tell.  I think a lot of otherwise good GM's lose out on this point when they start worrying too much about how "the players are going to ruin this story idea."  Maybe your story idea isn't as good as you seem to think, or maybe you should go write a book instead.

There is a saying that "players will be players."  Essentially, it means that a GM can count on his players to ruin his plans.  And that's true, but the corollary is also true.  The story will move in unexpected directions.  My favorite example of this is a game I ran...8 years ago.  I started with a group of heroes that were being revived from the dead as part of a prophecy and would have to face the trials to come.  They were essentially enslaved to the Necromancer that had revived them.  That's the stage I put them on.  After ferreting out a coven of Hags that were about to enslave the goblins and put the area to war, they caught word of a hidden mage tower.  This was meant to be a hook for later, but they decided to go haring after it right away.  Caught me by surprise, but I let them run with it.  After some shenanigans with a Golem, some kind of Ritual, and accidentally activating a piece of Magitech, they ended up time-travelling back to the period where they were meant to be much, much later.  This was meant to be the portal to their final adventure circa level 14, and they found it at level 6.  SO!  What was I to do?  Well, I ended that session right there, confessing honestly to my players that I didn't foresee this happening quite so soon, and starting coming up with a way out this.  My original story idea for a band of heroes beholden to a Necromancer seeking to dominate their souls who would turn on him only to discover that he'd been secretly trying to rekindle an ancient war turned into said band of heroes getting tossed back into the era of the ancient war and turning it around from the get go by somehow finding a way to forge an alliance of Men, Gnomes, Drow, and Goblins instead.  It was a fantastic game, and it never would have happened if I hadn't given my players enough rein to explore and develop organically.  So, don't be afraid to let your players do what interests them.  You'll often find that things turn out just fine, or take some truly fantastic turns that you could never plan or write.

Anyhow, those are some of my thoughts sparked by a trend I've started noticing on RPOL of late.  I'd love to hear what others think.

@Mods:  Wasn't sure if this should be in General or Community, so I guessed :P
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was the wrong forum, at 20:31, Mon 07 July 2014.

Well I have a few thoughts on this.

Personally I would not join a game that said my str had to be this and my dex that etc.  the GM has the freedom to make the rule and I have the freedom to not submit a RTJ.  On the other hand when I run a d20 style game I throw out, what i feel, a rather generous set of stats and allow the characters to assign them.  the Pro's no bad dice rolls and not having to worry about someone min/max their stats (more on that later), the Con's well my numbers may not match what someone may want for their character.

Min/maxers and power gamers:
Yes characters should be good at what they do, but overly optimized (min/maxed) is not something that I as a GM want to deal with.  and as a player its not something I want to have to deal with.  "My character attacks an misses while Min/Max hits every time and 2d100+5 million damage.  He also knows 36 ways to kill someone using only his thumb."  Party balance is the key to everyone enjoying the game.  To challenge the min/maxed character may easily mean the destruction of someone else in the party and if the challenge is geared towards the rest of the party then min/max walks right through it.  Yes there are creative ways to challenge minmax and not slaughter the rest of the players but as a GM finding ways to challenge minmax is not fun for me.

Setting the stage:
I like the concept, i actually love the concept and thing it should be used.  though to often players take no initiative and wait for the GM to, literally, throw the plot hook in their lap or guide them by their hand to the next door they need to kick open.  and yea, thats pretty much been from experience.  Yes there are good players who take they initiative and dont need hand holding.  More power to them.

There's some pros and cons. As gamers and Storytellers alike, we all know there are those people who seek to make the most broken character possible. It's all style, no substance, and that becomes painfully aware as the game progresses much to the dismay of the rest of the players. So yeah, it may be an up front guard to deter "power gamers" and "minmaxers."

As much as I am a fan of rolling for stats (I always do 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest), there are plenty of people who complain because of one bad score. I tell those people to suck it up and play your character, not your stats. I do agree that a point buy or stat array puts players on a more even keel, but I do like a touch of realism in my games. Meaning that we aren't born with the same stats.

I do have to agree that if a game owner is going as far as to tell players what classes can have what stats, that would lead me to believe that their game is so structured and planned out, that there is no room for actual adventure. They are merely getting actors to portray the story they want to see.

Okay, okay.  The coincidence is killing me!  So funny story...

I just had an RTJ go through for a game.  There was apparently a "Character Creation Rules" thread that was only visible after you were accepted into the game as a player.  This thing is.... this is literally the thing I was bemoaning in my post.

Leaving out a lot of detail to avoid a situation, the essence is that everyone is finding out that the game advertisement was... misleading.  Promising high adventure and a high level of tactical combat, it seems more like we're a bunch whipping boys.  We're starting 3 levels lower than advertised with stat arrays like 13/13/13/10/10/8 and this array apparently includes level up bonuses.  We are "free" to put the numbers where we like, but we may not buy down or up for adjusting the stats.  And the promised high adventure paired with tactical combat is apparently starting off with an extended prison break style intro.

I will be withdrawing from the game post-haste, and it seems like the others will be doing the same.  Mister GM, if you read this, it's a good idea to make your character creation rules public from the outset instead of a nasty surprise.  You'll probably attract the players you think you want and we others can avoid wasting your time and our time.

I guess im a weirdo, but when Im playing a game and have to roll for random stats, and I roll really good. Ill nerf myself.

My two cents:

Min/Max the term is abbreviation for the phrase "Minimum ability maximized". In short, it means any weakness the character could possibly be perceived as having in terms of combat, is at it's maximum potential. That means all of it's major functions are maximum efficiency with 0 chance of failure, and it's minimum stats are only slightly less.

Why do I explain it like this? Consider that if you enforce a minimum being low and a maximum being reasonable that no one can be that powerful. The logic is near flawless.

"Near flawless?" I hear you asking (if you're like some kind of audience member I suppose), "But Sleepy... how is it not perfect?" (Fully believable question... trust me).

Glad you asked! It's not flawless because a good GM will tailor his campaign to be difficult but obtainable to all players. Five wizards want to play? Great! Everything will be defeated and fully capable of beating via magic. That anti-magic golem might be immune, but that huge pillar of stone above his head isn't, let's use magic to collapse the room on him!

Five rogues? Great! Everything will be a tough fight face to face, but using clever tactics and stealth will win fights. Don't set off traps, and trust me there will be tons of them.

One weak as dirt character and one strong one? Make the enemy more resilient to the strong one and less resilient to the weak one. That wizard isn't all that tough, but the barbarian bear warrior frenzy berserker does a bajillion (totally real number) damage per round. Cool! The enemy has humungous damage resistance to non-magical attacks, and takes 50% more damage from spells. It may sound like you're nerfing the tough guy in the room, but every once in a while you throw him a muscle head with no resistance but is resilient to magic and let them duke it out while the wizard buffs the warrior instead of fighting and both parties feel totally justified in their characters.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you create an encounter before you know what your party will be, someone will resent their choice in characters. If you plan encounters around the party, the players will always feel like they are all-stars, and min/maxing won't matter.

</my-two-cents>

Min/maxing is relative. There isn't even a real consensus on what the word means, really. And when you try to differentiate between min/maxing and munchkin and twink and Mary Sue and whatever else, it gets even more complicated.

I find the most important thing (as someone said above) is to include tone and feel and mood in the Game Pitch. I'm always amazed that people will spend so much time dictating chargen rules but never say a word about the expected power level of the game, or the mood, or the desired tone.

Also, in D&D, stats have a negligible impact on character power level when compared to Feats and Class Abilities. And the classes that are the easiest to abuse are the classes least impacted by low stats.

When I see a DM trying to cap power levels with low stats, I tend to dismiss them as someone who fundamentally misunderstands the game. Just like people who think Monks are overpowered or restrict books to 'Core Only.'

And I don't usually apply.

For my money, if I want a low-powered game, I'd just pitch the game as low powered. And then give the players ALL the options they need to make cool characters within those guidelines.

My two cents,

I'm not into super stat restrictions since, frankly, it generally makes the game less fun for players to have cruddy stats and not be able to play.

I'm also not really into random rolling since I think party balance is very important and somebody rolling bad on the first day screwing them over for the entire campaign isn't very fun. On a side note, I've only used random rolling once, and I had nothing over 11. It kind of put me off of the idea.

In reply to CaesarCV (msg # 8):

I usually do rolling and/or Point Buy. Sometimes a combination. Sometimes let them choose. But whichever, no one has fun unless they're playing the character they want. So I'm all about options.

I don't mind either point-buy or rolling, although I prefer if there's some attempt at fairness (letting someone reroll if their stats are too far below the group average, for example.) I can work with default arrays, though that'll never be my favorite method... but I can't imagine just being giving a set of stats based upon my class. That'd take too much of the fun out of building my own character. Yes, you can interpret stats in different ways, but it'd limit your feat choices, what skills you'd be good at... no thanks. Fortunately, I haven't run into anyone insisting on this yet.

A rule I've used a good bit in rolling stats is this:  Reroll the whole array if your Net Total Modifier is below X or above Y.  It lets you set a specific power level for the game while keeping an organic element to the character generation.

So in D&D, a mid power game might want a Net Mod between 4 and 7.  A higher power game might want a Net Mod between 6 and 9.  For example, Grant rolls an array of 15/13/18/16/10/12 which has a Net Mod of 11, so he has to roll again.  This prevents any godlikes from getting made and makes sure that a character is sure to meet a minimum power level.

In reply to W0LF0S (msg # 11):

Power-level isn't really a function of stats. Low stats hurt the melee characters, who are the classes that need the most help. A single-attribute caster (Wizard, as the worst offender) can rule the world at 7th level or higher, with well-chosen Feats and Spells, and a single 13.

But the Fighers, and the Monks, and Paladins of the world, they're the ones that need multiple good stats just to keep up.

That's what I'm saying: power control through stats is completely backwards.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:56, Tue 08 July 2014.

I think the last time I rolled D&D stats, my high was an 11...

Anyway, I'm fine with any method of character generation... as long as it's clearly stated ahead of time.  If I disagree with it or get a vibe from the game that I don't like... I keep looking.  I also have a few personal blocks that I have to avoid falling into (some games I always love the sound of but can't find the rhythm of any time I try), but I'm getting better at not even applying to those.

My limited experience with GMs forcing stat arrays where I know the whole story usually point to the GM having had a very bad experience with a player in the past.  I always disallow synthesist summoners for just such a reason.

I've been RPGing since the Red Box days of D&D, and I've never really had any luck with randomly generated stats (or hit points, for that matter).

9 times out of 10, my randomly-generated stats will totally suck.  If the GM has set a minimum value for stats, mine tend to float right at or just above that minimum.  I had a buddy who rarely rolled a stat below 15... I could pick up the same dice and not get anything in the double-digits.

The other 1 time in 10, my stats will generally be outrageously good... which makes me feel bad for being overpowered.

And don't get me started on random hit points... whoever thought it was a good idea that a fighter or barbarian should have a chance to get just 1 hit point per level needs his head examined.  There's few things more pathetic than a high level barbarian with a puny handful of hit points that won't survive more than one or two attacks.  Even if you set a minimum or allow a re-roll of 1's... someone can still wind up hp-screwed while someone else is a virtual hp-god.

And to say that stats are not a big part of the equation of character power... well, that's true for some classes, I suppose, but in most cases it's just flat-out wrong.  Increasing a character's bonus to hit or the difficulty to save versus his spells by even one or two points is huge.  And those feats and such are supposedly more important?  Well, you can take them, too, on top of high stats.

I don't need my characters to have high stats to enjoy them... but I do need them to be on a more-or-less level playing field with the other characters, and point-buy systems just work better for that.  Maybe random stats and hit points are more "realistic"... but if I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a role-playing game.

In reply to truemane (msg # 7):

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 maximizing desired ones.

In gaming, a munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner.

Twinking is a type of behavior in role-playing games. A player who engages in such behavior is known as a twink. The precise definition of twinking varies depending on the variety of role-playing game. In "pen and paper" role-playing games, a twink is often synonymous with a munchkin.[1] In MUDs, a twink is a player who is variously anything from a munchkin to a newbie to a griefer

In fan fiction, a Mary Sue is an idealized character, often but not necessarily an author insert.

Not hard at all defining and seeing how they're different. Here's their definitions and how to separate them all. You said people don't all agree, well the majority of people agree with these definitions and thus they're accurate, that's just how language works.

Wow.  You forgot to provide a link to the site where the majority of people voted to agree on these definitions.  I'd love to check it out and throw my vote in there.

Or were you just relying on the opinion of the last person to edit the wikipedia page?

In reply to Sleepy (msg # 15):

Those are your definitions. I've heard others. Lots and lots and lots of others. "Mary Sue" is particularly contentious.

Twinking, to me, comes from MMORPGs (or similar) where you can have multiple characters on your account, level one up to a high level so they can get good gear, then pass that good gear down to a newly-created alt who therefore gets to start the game with loads of cool stuff and thus is more powerful and can level up faster and stuff.

I suspect that TV Tropes may have definitions/interpretations/examples of all/most of these (I've definitely seen Munchkin and Mary Sue, and possible Min-Maxer as well)...but probably best not to go check those out unless you have a few hours of your life you don't mind never getting back ;).

In reply to Ameena (msg # 18):

TV Tropes has lots of definitions. But the point is that there's no real consensus. You start a thread asking what people think the words mean and you'll get as many opinions as you have people.

TV Tropes is great for sorting out this sort of thing.  In fact, let me quote just one line from its Mary Sue article:



TV Tropes also has pages for min-maxing, twinking, and munchkins.  =)

This message was deleted by the user at 02:51, Wed 09 July 2014.

I am 110% with the OP here. I hate that crap, especially since so many GM's wanna play the 'you die when the dice say you die even if its boring and anticlimatic' style of GM.



Yeah, me too unless i'm within a few points of everyone else. I'll look at stat arrays, figure out how many points everyone else is, and bring myself down to the same level as the next-highest guy, or failing that just make a support character that isn't going to put those amazing stats to any use that will draw a ton of attention. I've found that its when you make characters that are combat monsters, instant walking problem solvers, or scene-stealing social beasts that people get upset with you being too powerful.



Also, this. This reminds me of an important point: I rarely ever play in random creation games. I can do with an array, but when i say '4d6 drop lowest' i usually run the other way unless its a good friend running the game, which does sometimes happen since I have those GM's on RPoL that I trust implicitly and will play with no matter what they're running. But in general, point buy tells me that you want me to create a living, breathing concept that i'm excited about, and random generation tells me you want me to bring something i don't care about to life (doable, but not my preference). If its done for purposes of 'game balance'? See what truemane said above. Random does not = balanced.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:42, Wed 09 July 2014.

I should be noted that my game is one of the games that W0LF0S is referring to.  Here is some more background to the concept.  All the players except 1 are playing Republic Commando Clones, the other one being a Jedi.

While I did originally base the RC stat line on the Clone commando from the Saga edition books, I wasn't hard set on the stat line, and ended up going with W0LF0S's suggestion for an increased stat line, to balance out the game.  It did not just benefit W0LF0S's character but the rest of the other players playing clones.

The concept for the game is to focus on the clone commandos and how they are the real force behind the Clone wars and to explore the Jedi/clone interactions while facing something larger.

W0LF0S has made some good points about fixed stats, but some bit of relevance should be noted that the fixed stat line has more to do about playing a clone then it does about trying to reduce the min/max ability of a player to tweak a sheet.