Forums of the Megaverse®

When it comes to Min-maxing, when is enough enough?
It seems like in my game, Min-maxing always seems to happen each time I allow players to play more “powerful” character and by “powerful” I mean allowing them to roll normal by the book characters and I also gave each player one extra minor and started them at 9th level. Each player picked every physical skill they could that allows bonuses and picked every power that gave combat bonuses…so now I have to deal with a Invulnerable Symbiote with Extraordinary P.P. and Superhuman P.S., a Alien with Defensive Immunity, Super Natural P.S., Radar and Extraordinary Speed. a Godling with Invulnerable, Super Natural P.S. and a Wizard who has a special set of spell from Blade Magic. All the characters beside the Wizard have a strike around +10 and Parry/Dodge +13 to 15. My villains can’t keep up with the heroes and I can’t even uses villains from villains unlimited and other books. Does this sort of thing happen in your game with your players?

There are lots of ways to combat this. The easiest is to look at the proposed characters and say "lets try again people, I think these are over powered"
or you can look at those characters, and make enemies that are similar.
or you can make enemies that exploit their weaknesses. Snipers, AoE, Poison, Gas, Social situations.....

rebis wrote:When it comes to Min-maxing, when is enough enough?
It seems like in my game, Min-maxing always seems to happen each time I allow players to play more “powerful” character and by “powerful” I mean allowing them to roll normal by the book characters and I also gave each player one extra minor and started them at 9th level. Each player picked every physical skill they could that allows bonuses and picked every power that gave combat bonuses…so now I have to deal with a Invulnerable Symbiote with Extraordinary P.P. and Superhuman P.S., a Alien with Defensive Immunity, Super Natural P.S., Radar and Extraordinary Speed. a Godling with Invulnerable, Super Natural P.S. and a Wizard who has a special set of spell from Blade Magic. All the characters beside the Wizard have a strike around +10 and Parry/Dodge +13 to 15. My villains can’t keep up with the heroes and I can’t even uses villains from villains unlimited and other books. Does this sort of thing happen in your game with your players?

No.
I start my players at level 1 as a rule, and don't hand out free powers.

Making NPCs to match is easy. Look over their character sheets, average the bonuses, bump it up to be challenging and that's your bad guy. No need to roll and fall short.

Make a skills-heavy game. Go for sessions without combat, but with every other question out of your mouth being "Do you have x-skill?" Missions that need card shark or gemology or land navigation will end up with hilarious results if your players are fumbling through without the skills.

I tend to start at level 3, but like Arouetta I'm starting to favor skills over powers. and have less combat, more RP. Also certain classes are getting cut and some only with players I know and recognize as smart and good players.

In short don't be afraid to say "Before you use that Super soldier try something similar to what you want first." then if they prove able to manage give them another option.

Have you written out the sort of game you want to run - how you imagine combat going? And told them that or showed them what you wrote up about it?

People don't necessarily make characters that fit your game concept when they don't know what your game concept is.

Noon wrote:People don't necessarily make characters that fit your game concept when they don't know what your game concept is.

That is true.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

rebis wrote:When it comes to Min-maxing, when is enough enough?
It seems like in my game, Min-maxing always seems to happen each time I allow players to play more “powerful” character and by “powerful” I mean allowing them to roll normal by the book characters and I also gave each player one extra minor and started them at 9th level. Each player picked every physical skill they could that allows bonuses and picked every power that gave combat bonuses…so now I have to deal with a Invulnerable Symbiote with Extraordinary P.P. and Superhuman P.S., a Alien with Defensive Immunity, Super Natural P.S., Radar and Extraordinary Speed. a Godling with Invulnerable, Super Natural P.S. and a Wizard who has a special set of spell from Blade Magic. All the characters beside the Wizard have a strike around +10 and Parry/Dodge +13 to 15. My villains can’t keep up with the heroes and I can’t even uses villains from villains unlimited and other books. Does this sort of thing happen in your game with your players?

No.
I start my players at level 1 as a rule, and don't hand out free powers.

Totally this.....

I gotta say, you sort of brought this on yourself.

Offering extra powers and starting at 9th level and you're surprised that they all went for powerful builds? You basically telegraphed that they will probably need to be powerful by virtue of the fact that they get extra powers and are starting out at 9th level. It's sort of like telling a guest to help themselves to anything in the fridge and then complaining they drink all the imported beer. If you don't want them to have all the imported beer, ask them to stick to one or two of the domestic.

All's not lost of course. You can as others have suggested, review their characters for weaknesses and then occasionally exploit them. Or you can start over. Just in the future, don't hand out so much and then complain when they use it.

as a rule i do start players as level 1 (sometimes if they are playing a character at least 30 i will let them roll 1D4 for the level)
i'm pretty open to (most) starting equipment as long as they can give me a good reason for why they want it or would have it

then again in games i ran i'm not short on combat (especially if the players seek it out) but there is times that skills like literacy, anthropology, land navigation etc are all more helpful , so depending on what your campaign consists of try throwing more skill challenges in the way, bumping up the enemy difficulty, using things they may not be able to combat (either something like vampires if they don't have silver or wood etc) or even a biological or chemical weapon that could kill sybiotes or something (it would be an even harder hit if none of the players took 'biological, chemical and nuclear weapons' skill but would have had a chance to stop it if they had)

I encourage a little bit of min-maxing. I really don't want my PC's to have to make characters every other session. Rifts can be a rough place to make a credit.

Though i don't encourage them to make supers or godlings...so, meh.

You don't have to min-max in Rifts, you can max-max depending on your race + class combination.

In GURPS, you would never consider a party where some characters are 100 point characters and others are 800 point characters, but the equivalent happens all the time in Rifts. That's part of its charm, I think.

--flatline

rebis wrote:When it comes to Min-maxing, when is enough enough?
It seems like in my game, Min-maxing always seems to happen each time I allow players to play more “powerful” character and by “powerful” I mean allowing them to roll normal by the book characters and I also gave each player one extra minor and started them at 9th level. Each player picked every physical skill they could that allows bonuses and picked every power that gave combat bonuses…so now I have to deal with a Invulnerable Symbiote with Extraordinary P.P. and Superhuman P.S., a Alien with Defensive Immunity, Super Natural P.S., Radar and Extraordinary Speed. a Godling with Invulnerable, Super Natural P.S. and a Wizard who has a special set of spell from Blade Magic. All the characters beside the Wizard have a strike around +10 and Parry/Dodge +13 to 15. My villains can’t keep up with the heroes and I can’t even uses villains from villains unlimited and other books. Does this sort of thing happen in your game with your players?

I have had problems with this in the past, depending on the campaign I sometimes like to give the PC's more power so they can go up against tougher opfor. I have just always made it clear that any additions we make can be changed back or just scaled down if they are too disruptive. That one disclaimer solves all problems.

flatline wrote:In GURPS, you would never consider a party where some characters are 100 point characters and others are 800 point characters, but the equivalent happens all the time in Rifts. That's part of its charm, I think.

--flatline

You, Sir, are correct!

yeah, part of the great thing about the game is being a non-magic, non-psychic human and having to deal with...uh...gods. Or at least they're gods to you. Makes things pretty interesting, deadly and rewarding when you win.

The thing is in rifts pretty much anyone can use a powerful rifle and hitting is relatively easy to do (just needing an 8+ after bonuses as I read it - and it seemed to just be 5+ in the old book). Also just about anyone can use power armour if they are really soft compared to say, maybe dragon hatchling party members.

You don't really have a 100 vs 800 point thing, because in other games that'd restrict what gear they could use. Rifts doesn't really cover wide point discrepancies as such - it just doesn't have them hard coded into the system as much.

I just tell them to make the character they really want to play, within the bounds of the rules.
And they start at level one.

The kind of "effiency" that really rubs me the wrong way as a player and as a GM are the people who want "the thing" that will solve every problem every time, out damage everyone or have ultimate survivability...then have it in a form that grants unlimited use...and THEN they play their character like a stat block, ignoring all the roleplaying (even going as far as to sit there and play vdeo games when its not their turn...), and when you finally do engage them in the actual game, they just threaten everyone because they're invincible.

The actual powergaming min-max thing doesn't really bother me nearly as much as the way its abused.

Noon wrote:People don't necessarily make characters that fit your game concept when they don't know what your game concept is.

They dont necessarily do so when they do know what the concept is either.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Noon wrote:People don't necessarily make characters that fit your game concept when they don't know what your game concept is.

They dont necessarily do so when they do know what the concept is either.

And?

Alrik Vas wrote:The kind of "effiency" that really rubs me the wrong way as a player and as a GM are the people who want "the thing" that will solve every problem every time, out damage everyone or have ultimate survivability...then have it in a form that grants unlimited use...and THEN they play their character like a stat block, ignoring all the roleplaying (even going as far as to sit there and play vdeo games when its not their turn...), and when you finally do engage them in the actual game, they just threaten everyone because they're invincible.

The actual powergaming min-max thing doesn't really bother me nearly as much as the way its abused.

I have to say I agree with you. A GM I played under (HU game) made up his home-brewed version of a modern day sith. Including a sword that would do 100-150 points of SDC in one hit. And a permanent form of sixth sense that gave high permanent bonuses. It was not a matter of if we would go first in combat, we couldn't. It wasn't a matter of if we could parry or dodge, we couldn't. And it wasn't a matter of if we would take damage, it was if we could get away after the first hit. We started doing everything we could to bump up armor, after which several weeks he started severely limiting the armor. (I'm still convinced he overpowered the class, he's still convinced he didn't.)

Most people responded by playing the home-brewed jedi to get equal footing. I (despising being forced to play something I didn't want) instead scoured the books and came up with a Fredulian who was visiting Earth to learn about their culture. With wingless flight as the minor power of choice. It could take the hits, splatter them against walls and ceilings as simos, and simply sunbathe (I chose visible light as the "food" source) to regenerate afterwards. That's pretty powerful.

But everyone complemented me on how I played it out of combat (though I had to meditate with a rock before a game to get in character, lol) and I don't think I abused it as I would enjoy the role-play parts of the game. I loved that character and I keep hoping I can eventually dust it off again.

I think the furthest i've ever gone was to make a 400mdc, runesword-wielding, martial arts character with major psionics in Rifts. He was still heavily equipment-dependent, though. He was a total Anarchist too, so his personality could be extremely unpredictable, yet he still had a very strong streak of humanity. He was strong and effective as hell and there were points back in the old days i took on multiple PC's of equal level without much difficulty, but in the end I mostly got compliments on the character and how i played him.

I as well wish I had a chance to dust that guy off.

rebis wrote:When it comes to Min-maxing, when is enough enough?
It seems like in my game, Min-maxing always seems to happen each time I allow players to play more “powerful” character and by “powerful” I mean allowing them to roll normal by the book characters and I also gave each player one extra minor and started them at 9th level. Each player picked every physical skill they could that allows bonuses and picked every power that gave combat bonuses…so now I have to deal with a Invulnerable Symbiote with Extraordinary P.P. and Superhuman P.S., a Alien with Defensive Immunity, Super Natural P.S., Radar and Extraordinary Speed. a Godling with Invulnerable, Super Natural P.S. and a Wizard who has a special set of spell from Blade Magic. All the characters beside the Wizard have a strike around +10 and Parry/Dodge +13 to 15. My villains can’t keep up with the heroes and I can’t even uses villains from villains unlimited and other books. Does this sort of thing happen in your game with your players?

Well consider this.

It is possible to have a Strike bonus of +10, and a Parry/Dodge bonus at +13-15 at first level without the bonus power, while being able to hurt supernatural and even invulnerable characters.

So you tack on 8 extra levels and give an extra power and all you're seeing is something that is possible starting at level one.

Is that actually min/maxing then?

Another way to think about it is this; Magnetism. This one power often lends itself to being a "win" button in most situations, because the world represented is laced in metal objects. To put this into perspective, I had a player complain when his guy with Magnetism, who wasn't alone, and his power still functioned, ran into an elite enemy force that wore non-magnetic exo-skeletons (I think I was literally using the stats of the Gladius), even though they were in a building surrounded by metal, and they had metal weapons he could grip.

So my question is, why are you complaining? Just do better; you're in control, so stop throwing The Hobgoblin at Thor and up your game.

I mean, the simplest option is to not stat your villains out by the book, and instead just given them stat-lines like, "Strike +15, Parry/Dodge +11, 300SDC(MDC), Supernatural PS 40, Fly on fire wings @400mph, Fire Attack @500ft, 6d6 damage." Boom - villain created. Call him "Firestrong" or something. Just assume he's got between a 75% and 90% chance to succeed on any skill he attempts and give him a basic background like, "Mike Strong was a dock worker in Miami who did drug-running on the side. He was a wheelman typically, either boating or flying the drugs he shipped from Cuba to the States". Now you know what he's good at; lifting objects, driving a boat, and flying a plane, as well as evading capture.

This singular villain has a 60% chance to parry or dodge the strike bonus you've listed, and a 45% chance to hit the heroes when they attempt to parry. He's tough enough that they aren't going to beat him in less than a round, and he's fast enough to escape. He's moderately dangerous, and this took all of 5 minutes worth of work, so if they do beat this super-drug running dock-worker, you shouldn't feel bad because the effort wasn't there.

Meanwhile, you can focus on other elements of the story.

Dog_O_War wrote:you're in control, so stop throwing The Hobgoblin at Thor and up your game.

Well put.

The Dark Elf wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

rebis wrote:When it comes to Min-maxing, when is enough enough?
It seems like in my game, Min-maxing always seems to happen each time I allow players to play more “powerful” character and by “powerful” I mean allowing them to roll normal by the book characters and I also gave each player one extra minor and started them at 9th level. Each player picked every physical skill they could that allows bonuses and picked every power that gave combat bonuses…so now I have to deal with a Invulnerable Symbiote with Extraordinary P.P. and Superhuman P.S., a Alien with Defensive Immunity, Super Natural P.S., Radar and Extraordinary Speed. a Godling with Invulnerable, Super Natural P.S. and a Wizard who has a special set of spell from Blade Magic. All the characters beside the Wizard have a strike around +10 and Parry/Dodge +13 to 15. My villains can’t keep up with the heroes and I can’t even uses villains from villains unlimited and other books. Does this sort of thing happen in your game with your players?

No.
I start my players at level 1 as a rule, and don't hand out free powers.

Totally this.....

Agreed. Why not just start simple and limit all the potential for such behavior?

If, as a GM, you don't want powerhouse players, it is at once easy and terribly hard to tell people they can't have X when they're whole character concept is predicated on it. Easy because it'll remove your headache, hard because it'll give you a new one.

I try to compromise with my players.

All bargaining/compromise hinges on the capacity to walk away. If you're not prepared to walk, you're just bluffing.

Okay, so it's really us just feeling feelings or something then, i don't give a crap. Really, neither of us are ever going to walk away because we enjoy the game and want to play. That's why we work things out instead of bargaining hard, people get butthurt too easily anyway.

Noon wrote:All bargaining/compromise hinges on the capacity to walk away. If you're not prepared to walk, you're just bluffing.

Pretty much.

As a rule, in the groups that I've been in with any RPG, the GM decides what he wants to run, and we decide what we want to play within the bounds that he sets before we roll anything up.

GM: "I'm going to run a low-powered adventure. You can be any normal human, starting level 1. Only use stuff from the RMB."
Player: "I rolled up a True Atlantean Cosmo-Knight Martial Artist."
GM: "You weren't listening were you? Try again."

If players complain about it, the GM usually says, "Fine one of YOU run something, then."
Usually, that settles the matter- most people would rather play than run.
Sometimes, somebody else DOES want to run something. In which case, it comes down to group consensus which adventure they want to play.
Sometimes GMs don't get to run the adventure they want to, but usually players are the ones to compromise, since it's the GM that does most of the work.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:All bargaining/compromise hinges on the capacity to walk away. If you're not prepared to walk, you're just bluffing.

Pretty much.

As a rule, in the groups that I've been in with any RPG, the GM decides what he wants to run, and we decide what we want to play within the bounds that he sets before we roll anything up.

GM: "I'm going to run a low-powered adventure. You can be any normal human, starting level 1. Only use stuff from the RMB."
Player: "I rolled up a True Atlantean Cosmo-Knight Martial Artist."
GM: "You weren't listening were you? Try again."

If players complain about it, the GM usually says, "Fine one of YOU run something, then."
Usually, that settles the matter- most people would rather play than run.
Sometimes, somebody else DOES want to run something. In which case, it comes down to group consensus which adventure they want to play.
Sometimes GMs don't get to run the adventure they want to, but usually players are the ones to compromise, since it's the GM that does most of the work.

Quite true in my experience (usually as a GM). Was in a group that fired a GM once. Of course that meant I wound up GMing, at least until the guy learned how not to be a knob. Only took two years, which is pretty good since most people who become knobs stay that way.

That is indeed a rare thing. Glad it worked out. Sorry it took two years.

Zachary The First wrote:I had so many more issues at my gaming table before I adopted the idea of setting game parameters and agreeing to a social contract of sorts before we start playing.

Examples before the game starts are always good. "OK, guys, I'm thinking this will have a feel more like the original Main Book. Keep it to these three books, limit your starting weapons to something under 20k, and think more Vagabond, Rogue Scholar, and Coalition Grunt than Godling, Sea Titan, and Mega-Juicer". Just making sure everyone is on the same page before the game starts really alleviates so many issues.

Out of curiosity, what kinds of weapons did they start with when given a 20k cap?

--flatline

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:All bargaining/compromise hinges on the capacity to walk away. If you're not prepared to walk, you're just bluffing.

Pretty much.

As a rule, in the groups that I've been in with any RPG, the GM decides what he wants to run, and we decide what we want to play within the bounds that he sets before we roll anything up.

GM: "I'm going to run a low-powered adventure. You can be any normal human, starting level 1. Only use stuff from the RMB."
Player: "I rolled up a True Atlantean Cosmo-Knight Martial Artist."
GM: "You weren't listening were you? Try again."

If players complain about it, the GM usually says, "Fine one of YOU run something, then."
Usually, that settles the matter- most people would rather play than run.
Sometimes, somebody else DOES want to run something. In which case, it comes down to group consensus which adventure they want to play.
Sometimes GMs don't get to run the adventure they want to, but usually players are the ones to compromise, since it's the GM that does most of the work.

No gaming > bad gaming.

If you either don't like running a game with a atlantean cosmo knight in it (or even if you would enjoy it right at the moment), that'd just be a bad game. It's an advantage to not compromise on the matter and if it comes to it, not game in such a situation.

A problem with RPG's is that if a musician doesn't have a band, she/he can still play their instrument alone - but you can't really play an RPG alone, terribly much. I think that's why people put up with bad gaming - because their is no solo alternative and they are really keen to engage roleplay stuff. Just some thoughts.

flatline wrote:

Zachary The First wrote:I had so many more issues at my gaming table before I adopted the idea of setting game parameters and agreeing to a social contract of sorts before we start playing.

Examples before the game starts are always good. "OK, guys, I'm thinking this will have a feel more like the original Main Book. Keep it to these three books, limit your starting weapons to something under 20k, and think more Vagabond, Rogue Scholar, and Coalition Grunt than Godling, Sea Titan, and Mega-Juicer". Just making sure everyone is on the same page before the game starts really alleviates so many issues.

Out of curiosity, what kinds of weapons did they start with when given a 20k cap?

Ones at less than 20k, I'm guessing.

Noon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:All bargaining/compromise hinges on the capacity to walk away. If you're not prepared to walk, you're just bluffing.

Pretty much.

As a rule, in the groups that I've been in with any RPG, the GM decides what he wants to run, and we decide what we want to play within the bounds that he sets before we roll anything up.

GM: "I'm going to run a low-powered adventure. You can be any normal human, starting level 1. Only use stuff from the RMB."
Player: "I rolled up a True Atlantean Cosmo-Knight Martial Artist."
GM: "You weren't listening were you? Try again."

If players complain about it, the GM usually says, "Fine one of YOU run something, then."
Usually, that settles the matter- most people would rather play than run.
Sometimes, somebody else DOES want to run something. In which case, it comes down to group consensus which adventure they want to play.
Sometimes GMs don't get to run the adventure they want to, but usually players are the ones to compromise, since it's the GM that does most of the work.

No gaming > bad gaming.

If you either don't like running a game with a atlantean cosmo knight in it (or even if you would enjoy it right at the moment), that'd just be a bad game. It's an advantage to not compromise on the matter and if it comes to it, not game in such a situation.

A problem with RPG's is that if a musician doesn't have a band, she/he can still play their instrument alone - but you can't really play an RPG alone, terribly much. I think that's why people put up with bad gaming - because their is no solo alternative and they are really keen to engage roleplay stuff. Just some thoughts.

Not sure what your point is there.

Noon wrote:

flatline wrote:

Zachary The First wrote:I had so many more issues at my gaming table before I adopted the idea of setting game parameters and agreeing to a social contract of sorts before we start playing.

Examples before the game starts are always good. "OK, guys, I'm thinking this will have a feel more like the original Main Book. Keep it to these three books, limit your starting weapons to something under 20k, and think more Vagabond, Rogue Scholar, and Coalition Grunt than Godling, Sea Titan, and Mega-Juicer". Just making sure everyone is on the same page before the game starts really alleviates so many issues.

Out of curiosity, what kinds of weapons did they start with when given a 20k cap?

Ones at less than 20k, I'm guessing.

That cap rules out the majority of energy rifles and a fair amount of energy pistols. I'm just curious what his players settled on.

--flatline

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:All bargaining/compromise hinges on the capacity to walk away. If you're not prepared to walk, you're just bluffing.

Pretty much.

As a rule, in the groups that I've been in with any RPG, the GM decides what he wants to run, and we decide what we want to play within the bounds that he sets before we roll anything up.

GM: "I'm going to run a low-powered adventure. You can be any normal human, starting level 1. Only use stuff from the RMB."
Player: "I rolled up a True Atlantean Cosmo-Knight Martial Artist."
GM: "You weren't listening were you? Try again."

If players complain about it, the GM usually says, "Fine one of YOU run something, then."
Usually, that settles the matter- most people would rather play than run.
Sometimes, somebody else DOES want to run something. In which case, it comes down to group consensus which adventure they want to play.
Sometimes GMs don't get to run the adventure they want to, but usually players are the ones to compromise, since it's the GM that does most of the work.

No gaming > bad gaming.

If you either don't like running a game with a atlantean cosmo knight in it (or even if you would enjoy it right at the moment), that'd just be a bad game. It's an advantage to not compromise on the matter and if it comes to it, not game in such a situation.

A problem with RPG's is that if a musician doesn't have a band, she/he can still play their instrument alone - but you can't really play an RPG alone, terribly much. I think that's why people put up with bad gaming - because their is no solo alternative and they are really keen to engage roleplay stuff. Just some thoughts.

Not sure what your point is there.

Just talking about the 'usually' in there and in regard to where the GM might feel he aught to compromise - not to something he finds fun, but compromising to something that actually makes all of play bad for him. Just noting it, really.

I think he's just saying, "If you don't like it, don't play in the game."

Rather than my point of view, "Fight for what you want and before things are settled, be satisfied." Sometimes it means you move on, but most of the time it means you get to enjoy the game.

Helpful hints for dealing with "the toughest characeters ever". 1 no strike bonuses vs ar. 2 badguys are five to ten levels higher. 3 they are always outnumbered. 4 go from one battle right into the next ( well mr +25 autododge who ate a few enemy critical hits and is down to a mere 200sdc.) The gunfire has caught the attention of other patrols, or they radioed for backup.

1) almost completely your fault

2) fine they have a +10 in combat great. don't make it about combat. Attack the things they have, they love. Make missions involve skills and now how hard you hit things. Oh they have every physical skill? what about demolitions? what about the easy to read an understand instructions for dismantling a bomb,... in french? Don't play their game. Don't play the combat or physical buff game. Make it about skills, role playing, anything but combat.

3) Discuss with them what you want out of a game, what kind of game you want to run

I'll put forward a vote towards when the players source of fun is primarily about combat, you don't try for a power struggle of taking away their fun so as to maybe let your own fun take the stage. Either you can find a compromise between what you all want or sometimes your ideas of fun are just not that compatable (I know this is tough for when you want to get your RP on and there's very few choices of RP groups - it makes one inclined to game with people who are utterly incompatable with ones own play (and possibly try and make them 'see the light' or some other dysfunction))

Yeah, i agree with that view Noon. You just have to make your own fun, can't force people to be the players you want them to.

However, I've noticed that "most" players are willing to interact on a less power gaming note if you engage them that way.

I knew a player who refused to take any weapon that did less than 1d4x10. He scoffed at my lowly L-20's 6d6, even after I showed him that 1d4x10 is almost exactly equivalent to 7d6 so that on average, his weapons were only doing about 4 more MD per shot than mine were.

Some people are immune to math...

--flatline

That isn't so much min-maxing in of itself though. Though maybe so, as the averages work out like you say, yet it's much more likely to get max damage with 1d4x10 than it is with 6d6, though it's also more likely to get minimum damage.

Alrik Vas wrote:That isn't so much min-maxing in of itself though. Though maybe so, as the averages work out like you say, yet it's much more likely to get max damage with 1d4x10 than it is with 6d6, though it's also more likely to get minimum damage.

That is correct, two distributions can be wildly different yet still have the same expected value. Depending on circumstances, this can have a significant effect on game play or virtually no effect at all.

Perhaps I'll write a simple simulator to explore this and start another thread for it.

--flatline

flatline wrote:I knew a player who refused to take any weapon that did less than 1d4x10. He scoffed at my lowly L-20's 6d6, even after I showed him that 1d4x10 is almost exactly equivalent to 7d6 so that on average, his weapons were only doing about 4 more MD per shot than mine were.

Some people are immune to math...

--flatline

Wouldn't that show you're both equally min maxing as much as each other?

Noon wrote:

flatline wrote:I knew a player who refused to take any weapon that did less than 1d4x10. He scoffed at my lowly L-20's 6d6, even after I showed him that 1d4x10 is almost exactly equivalent to 7d6 so that on average, his weapons were only doing about 4 more MD per shot than mine were.

Some people are immune to math...

--flatline

Wouldn't that show you're both equally min maxing as much as each other?

It's only min/maxing if you give up something in order to maximize something else. Giving something up for no benefit is just dumb (unless it's important to the character concept).

-flatline

or just AOE weapons,... Chemical, Radioactive, Shrapnel, Sonic. People always forget about the mundane stuff...
Or hell a 5 person sniper team quarter mile or more away
Or demolitions blowing up houses, cars, buildings etc

The bigger the bonuses the more resourceful those who want them dead have to be.
Yes you can dodge my +5 attack. Can you dodge the plague?

You're not letting them play the numbers game if as GM you just tap into your unlimited resources, it's just blocking them. You can block anything with unlimited resources.

I spoke with a new DM the other day who was literally showing off his 20th level guardian (D&D) he'd made up as GM and how it'd stop the players killing the king (evil campaign). And I said to him, do you want the players to even have a chance at killing the king, or do you want it to not be allowed? You can't just pull out the most powerful thing you can find and think gameplay will happen - it wont be gameplay, it'll just be 'you are not allowed to do this' hidden under a veneer of being a game. Not allowing the killing of the king is fine, but traditional RPG's are not designed that as GM you can pull out whatever and there will still be gameplay.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Noon wrote:People don't necessarily make characters that fit your game concept when they don't know what your game concept is.

They dont necessarily do so when they do know what the concept is either.

It's the game itself. Rifts encapsulates so many different genres that people want to often play drastically different things: from Shonen style perky hero types and Duke Nukem corniness to Dungeons and Dragons style wizards and elves (I've let myself run rampant on the online games for sure).