If you're the DM and you have a problem, tell them to cut that shit out. If they or the rest have issue with it, they can adapt or leave. If you're not the DM, raise the objection with the DM / group at large. If they don't care, you're the odd one out, and now it's your turn to be social: adapt or leave.
>>44870819 >tfw family I used to stay with had guns just lying on the nightstand/living room table It's shit like this that makes it so fucking hard for gunfags to get taken seriously. >>44870837 All of this. Also, OPs filename kinda indicates a solution already; Liberal application of BAN FAGGOTBAIT SPLATS.
>>44870819 You ask them why they're trying to turn imaginary adventure time into a competition and suggest they find a better outlet, like beating up little kids or having staring contests with strangers on the bus.
I'm torn on this subject. On one hand I've seen what min-maxers do to games. The DM has to scale everything to them, making it more difficult for other players who haven't min-maxed to contribute to the party. On the other hand, I really do my best not to tell others how to have fun. I realize that different people have fun and enjoy roleplaying games in different ways, whether that is writing a novella about their character or pushing the rules to their absolute limit just to see how far they can go.
>>44871074 Same reason you probably don't want to play a SF3 match against an Evo champ if you're just a casual player. The minmaxer is inflating the power of the game and the other players or GM might not be ok with that.
If I throw a party and bust out some Rock Band the asshole who forces us to play Hanger 18 on the highest mode all night is getting kicked the fuck out.
>>44871105 >seems condescending Well, I'd probably put it nicer than that.
>>44871133 >Same reason you probably don't want to play a SF3 match against an Evo champ if you're just a casual player. RPGs don't require the practice and training of being a pro-gamer. If one player learned the rules well enough to make an effective character, why should I punish them? If they've actually 'inflated the power of the game' then clearly I'm playing a shitty system and should find something else. Like, if I say "OK guys, we're playing DnD3.5, make a level 6 character tier 3 and 4 classes only" and one guy makes a tricked-out Warblade, and the other guy makes a Bard2/Barbarian1/Warlock3, it's not the Warblade that's the problem in the group.
>>44870819 2 options really. 1) Find the thing their class/build sucks at and throw plenty of it at the party. Either they take some hits and risk death or they let the others play (and as long as they do that and rp to some degree I dont give a fuck what they do). 2) Tell/ask them not to. Im an adult, I play with adults, I will give them the chance to be reasonable. Usually I would do this before going with option 1.
>>44871347 This. Honestly, you should be doing this anyways. Everyone deserves a chance to shine and you can't be ultra-competent all the time.
For example I once played a Drow Samurai in an AD&D game. When he was competent, he was ultra competent. Free duel wielding, bonuses to hit, Elf bonuses, Drow Bonuses. If it was night or he was in a dungeon, he was a total beast.
Conversely though, if it was caught during the day he was pretty much helpless. His Thac0 dropped to 20, he was dazzled constantly. We got ambushed by a pack of giant wasps who's nest we startled while traveling and he was barely able to assist the party. Honestly, he had to get saved a few times. He also wore a full face ornamental mask, because most communities look down on Drow. Generally with the party backing him, it wasn't too bad. But it caused complications, it caused problems for the party that they had to roleplay and work their way out of. Also, if his Liege Lord ever required anything of him, he literally had to drop everything and do his best to fulfill that desire. Thankfully that only came up a few times, but when it did it was still a complication, though at the end it also benefited the party as well when they assisted. Kind of a double edge sword.
Eventually the party started working toward their advantage, like the Wizard picked up Darkness and started dropping that on my Drow and whatever he was engaged with at the time.
Look, every bit of slack, every bit of worthless slapdickery that the other players bring to the table is more that these guys have to pick up. D&D combat, or combat in any system, is a group affair. If everyone else can't carry their weight, then they need to get their shit together, unfuck themselves, and learn to carry their goddamn weight.
As someone who can competently build a character, I'm always happy to help someone build an effective character. But if it's some broken concept that just can't mechanically work, then I'll look at them like they're a bug and tell them, "Get the fuck out." It's not even a minmaxing thing at that point. At that point, they're telling me they don't want to be part of the team. They're telling me they want me to carry their worthless ass through combat. They're telling me they want to be special little snowflakes rather than part of the group. And I won't fucking stand for it.
>>44871680 Now there's some things you're saying I don't agree with
Not being able to carry your weight out of choice is fair game to be sternly talked to, but genuinely not understanding how to build a character or deck or whatever else out of not understanding the finer mechanics of the game yet still trying to do so is fair, everyone starts as a noob at everything, that's something I had to understand when I was younger.
Best example I got is me: in MTG, I build minimalist and straight to the point aggro decks. Cheap creatures and spells that are very much vulnerable to counter spell and removal, but it's very fast and if I haven't won By turn 4 or 5, i lost.
Another example I got is my current cleric in D&D 5e. I got his stats balanced out, his worst stat is a 10 in charisma at lvl 2, the way I want to play him is for him to be a blaster cleric using necromancy spells, but I'm not familiar with 5e at all, so I'm going to be asking my GM about what I can go look for to help me do this
>>44871793 get gud scrub. If you die like a bitch to shit tier mobs on the first adventure the only opportunity for roleplay you get is writing backgrounds and imitating the sounds of choking on your own blood.
>genuinely not understanding how to build a character or deck or whatever else out of not understanding the finer mechanics of the game yet still trying to do so is fair, everyone starts as a noob at everything
Like I said, I'm always willing to offer help to people who don't quite get it. I'm not a top-tier minmaxer, not by any means, but I'm quite competent at building characters who will at least do what they're supposed to do within the level range games usually reach. People who play with me don't get that as an excuse; I'll take the time to work with someone on the character chassis and explaining how it works, how its tricks work, etc.
(I'd offer advice on your cleric, but I haven't even looked at 5th edition! I'm afraid I'm the total newbie in that arena.)
The best way to learn is through the mistakes and past experiences of others. I think minmaxing without offering to help others at least build a decent character is at best arrogant and assholish, and that's not something I support at all. If someone wants to be a strong team player and have a character which can actually help the team, I'll have their back.
>>44871793 Why are you implying that being good at building an effective character makes you worse at roleplaying?
And what kind of shitty systems are people playing where this is even a concern?
If you really ARE playing a game that's 'about the roleplay' then it should be impossible to 'minmax' because the game rules should be about roleplaying, rather than combat effectiveness or combat effectiveness or social effectiveness.
>>44870819 okay min maxers can be bad but, having an optimized character carry extra weight isn't a necessarily bad thing. if anything it makes your job easier at creating a "deadly" encounter. >How many areas of play do they cover? do they hyper excel at one area or are they omni purpose? If they only affect one area of gameplay, how important is that area? Does the problem child run around with dc 30 dominate monsters? well maybe they're going to run into some extra undead. emphasize other areas. >are they over shadowing another party member? Not in a general sense, but directly overshadowing. Does he easily out DPS the other DPS? Does he out tank the tank, out control the other controller? this is when it can be a big issue >are they wielding their powers too liberally? Do they jump into the spot light and end encounters before the other players can make their big play? the answer is probably yes. But, secret OP characters are like DMPCs who can save the day without you having to use such a forbidden technique. >how do the other players feel about the OP character this is the most important aspect. Do THEY like having a mad dog at their side who they can sick on an ole NPC who crosses them? do THEY enjoy having superman on their team? if yes then don't do anything. if not then now is the time to step in.
Remember the only rule a min can't exploit is the rule of cool. Try this give players arbitrary bonuses for doing things. The MinMaxed fighter may not care too much about the ability to reroll a perform check and will probably ignore it, but the party Bard would really like it. Oh you saved the magic school? and the head master teaches the party some tricks giving them the ability to cast mage hand 1/day. 28str barbarian doesn't give two shits, but the rogue likes the sound of picking someones pocket at 30feet away. Get into a head on rules fight with a min maxer is a losing battle for the rest of the party. work around the problem.
There are people who pride themselves on roleplaying abilities and cannot into math or mathematical analysis. Or who just don't feel like putting in the work. Some of them cannot believe that there are people out there who, like them, pride themselves on their roleplaying abilities, or at least try, but unlike them, can do the mathematical analysis, and put in the work to get a character who is mechanically strong.
As for the latter, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Would you care to elaborate? Is this one of those 'rules-lite' RPGs you're talking about? In a lot of RPGs, combat is very mathematically deterministic, insofar as yes, there's randomness, but it's easy to make the numbers do what you want with a bit of effort and good design, and sometimes you can even push people off of the RNG. (And to be honest, outside of a theoretical exercise, actually doing so is kind of a jerkish thing to do. And evidence of poor mechanical design of the RPG.)
I don't suppose that speaking to your players like they were grown-ass adults is an option, is it? That's what I would try first.
Different groups have different levels of what bullshit is acceptable. Generally if you ask someone nicely to tone it down a bit they're more than happy to. The trick is to not come off like a tyrant, there's a huge difference between "Hey, you're making the game less fun for the other players, can you dial it back a few notches?" and "LOLS I TAKE UR SHEET HEES NPC NOW LOLOLOLOL! ALSO I CAN'T STOP SUCKING DICKS!"
>>44871074 >I want to make my character like this >no-no, you HAVE to take the skills that give you more points, like this! Let's scrap your idea and you can play one of my characters >See, isn't the game much more fun when you win every time?
>>44872830 >>I don't suppose that speaking to your players like they were grown-ass adults is an option, is it? That's what I would try first.
This combined with being a non-shit DM does wonders. My groups major min-maxer was defanged by our DM by throwing enough PLOT at him that he was forced to adjust his character build plan a few times over the course of the campaign. We're lvl 9 now and he's gone from optimized NUKE THE FUCKER IN ONE ROUND to a fairly well rounded character.
>>44872604 >using MMO terms in an RPG there's nothing wrong with using terms across different game genres. We should encourage the advance in design of all games. They're perfectly fine for a combat-focused game.
>>44872612 >As for the latter, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Would you care to elaborate? Is this one of those 'rules-lite' RPGs you're talking about?
Fate Core is a 'rules medium' RPG but it's still night impossible to minmax because you'll never get any attribute particularly high no matter how hard you try. In DnD4e optimising makes you more effective, but it doesn't make you RIDICULOUSLY more effective. The difference between someone who minmaxed and someone who just picked what looked interesting and in-character doesn't break the game. Polaris is a 'hippy dippy rules-light narrative game' that's actually incredibly constrained and controlled as a system, and again, breaking the game is impossible.
If a player is able to make a ludicrously effective character, that is the fault of the system, not the player.
>>44873021 You need to actively gimp yourself to suck in 4e, but it is possible to make a nigh useless character. (Full Charisma Fighter with 8 Strength.) But only monsters in human disguise would think this a good idea.
Let me spell this out once more for you idiots: minmaxing gives you literally zero advantage with a decent DM. Zero. None at all.
Everything in your game should be scaled to the power level of the party. Good at DPS? Monsters with more health show up. Great at diplomacy? Diplomatic situations turn more problematic. Able to create infinite golems at will? Have fun taking that flying castle.
The only, and absolutely the ONLY thing you are beating is your fellow players. In a fucking social game about teamwork and having fun together.
This is, of course, on the assumption that the minmaxers are a minority in the party. I wouldn't ask a whole group to downgrade their characters because of one player. Then again, this shouldn't come up in the first place as anyone with a shred of decency wouldn't minmax in the first place for the aforementioned reasons.
>>44873488 This min-max issue is only a thing in games where a player can get far ahead of his group in terms of power that they can't keep up without min-maxing just as much.
And any DM that does what you said is not a good DM in my book. If one guy is a Superman and the rest are scientists it is your job to make superman protect the scientists. Give him the struggle to fight for the entire group if the rest doesn't want to fight. If they do want to fight but are overshadowed by one player then I think either the system is bad or they misunderstand how it works and you should let the min-max man HELP them work their mechanical aspects to be on even grounds.
And in any fight you can have several different ways to win and enemies of different power levels. Challenge the min-maxer and the rest of the group as two different parties. You can do so many things.
Obligatory > D&D having rules for working together outside of 4E And don't even say we're not talking D&D. We're all talking D&D.
>>44873634 Of course we're talking D&D, this is /tg/ after all.
I completely agree D&D is a bad system. Unfortunately, it's also the only system most of us can consistently find games in, so it'll have to do. Now, I think we can all agree that there are some OP or broken options in there, regardless of edition. There's also a load of options that aren't. Saying "up your character to the power level of the minmaxer" sounds unfair to me, because it invalidates all but a few broken builds. I'd rather have everyone be on an equal level with characters with fun concepts of their choosing, rather than with six identical power-builds because they'll be completely overshadowed if they don't.
I completely disagree with you on the scaling of encounters, though. "The party casually moonwalks into the guarded fortress and easily kills everyone inside" doesn't make for fun games, nor does "the party dies to the first pair of mooks they encounter". I'd say any DM worth his salt thinks "I want this to be an easy/difficult/impossible encounter" and determines the number and level of enemies/traps/difficulties/whatever, instead of the other way around.
The exception, of course, being games where you agreed to imbalance beforehand. If one of the players literally plays superman and all the others play supporting roles, that's fine. If one player turns out to be vastly more powerful than the others and everyone is fine with it, no problem at all, but if that were so this tread wouldn't be here.
>>44873488 Wow, really? You make a lot of terribad assumptions. I can totally agree that the game is about teamwork and having fun together, and in line with that I'm super-leery about gaming with people who aren't already good friends. That said, pushing the system to the limits is its own kind of fun, especially if you can bounce around ideas with a group. Also, pushing the envelope with power levels lets you explore different kinds of encounters. Without an optimized group, an Aboleth is a bad matchup at levels far higher than its challenge rating would indicate. With an optimized group, it's a thing you can play around with a lot earlier. Or at all, depending on how far up the level chain your group's willing to go.
I think there's a lot of anger here at minmaxers and optimisers. I'm not sure why; it's like so many people think that it's badwrongfun. You should all try it as a team effort to play the game at a higher power level. Don't worry, you can still roleplay too! ROLL STRONK characters don't change how you play them through paper voodoo!
>>44873751 Sure, we've had some fun one-off games where we built the most insanely overpowered characters possible. But I definitely wouldn't like to play like that all the time.
There's no shame in taking something that's powerful over something that isn't. There's always going to be some differences in power between players. However, the amount of hoops some people are willing to jump through to be 'better' than other players is just disturbing. There's a point where non-power-builds can't keep up anymore.
Again, encounters are scaled to your power rather than the average power of your level. You're not 'beating' your DM with a power-build, only the people you play with.
I guess I just want everyone to match the power level of the group. If it's high and everyone's fine with it, power to you. If it's low, don't go and minmax.
Let me give the following example: suppose an RPG has two ranged DPS classes: archer and gunslinger. The classes have the exact same goals and focus, but the gunslinger has a build which allows it to do twice the normal damage through a combination of powers. If you're playing with minmaxers and a new player wants to play an archer, you're basically telling him "lol no play a gunslinger with these powers or be completely overshadowed". Doesn't sit right with me.
>>44873745 I was going to respond on this properly, but I am instead going to just step down and not say much more on this subject. Since we are talking D&D (and definitely heavily leaned at 3.PF as well) there's just so many other issues that come up and min-maxing is basically "pick one of the best classes, don't have shit stats and don't pick the worst spells". The gap in 3.PF between classes are so stupid that I understand its impossible to make encounters for them where people don't feel useless.
I've been playing 4E into 5E myself and I don't feel either of those editions had any issues with people being completely outclassing others and the party was always happy about someone doing something no matter how small the addition to a fight was.
A large part of the problem (since we're practically talking D&D) is that the rules were designed either by people who only cared about rule of cool (pre-3e), or people who treated it like a different kind of game (3e with CCGs or 4e with MMOs and such). A huge part of previous min-maxing (in D&D at least), was the fact that the level inflation bloat came right off of that shit, BECMI-2e go for the coolest shit for your archetype when you can, 3e, make sure your deck is tournament legal and avoid trap cards, 4e, make sure you're as close to an optimal MMO build as possible. Unfortunately, thanks to the same shit 4chan shares with Tumblr and Facebook, 3&4 were heavily influenced by theorycrafting (looks great on paper, but no DM, even one who was fucking dense would allow) in forums and shit was huge, to the point that pun-pun and errata had to happen.
Now how to deal with it, play to weaknesses, house rule the fuck out of your game (particularly to tricks that make min-maxing a huge advantage), and don't be a shitty passive aggressive DM, or you'll have to play nothing but Cook's 3e for eternity.
>>44874753 >acts like minmaxing isn't a problem in games like Shadowrun, GURPS, 40k, or any rpg Also, anon, in 4e D&D, the difference between an fully optimized character and a basic one was about 2-3 points of attack and damage at the same level. You needed an entire group to minmax for 4e to begin breaking down, not a single player. >bitch talking about games he never played.
>>44873488 If the DM is running a game with character build mechanics (and by no means do they have to run games using such rules), then the decisions made during character building have to mean something. Otherwise the DM is simply wasting the players' time.
>>44874870 >Min maxing are those niggers that make a full party with no intelligence and absurd physical stats. If that's minmaxing, then the folks at minmaxboards are no minmaxers.
>>44870819 I had a nice solution to the problem. A lighter. We had a character generation day where it was trial by fire. We were really relaxed about what you used but I in particular was anti minmaxer so if a sheet got vetoed by the gm for that campaign I would burn it with the gm's permission to help drive the point home.
>>44875124 I was stating where D&D (as just about everybody else was going with it) had its problems on the topic at hand. There's a reason I brought up 4e's Errata, remember the first thing that got hit by the Errata was basically an I win power.
>I'm super autistic and I can't take it when another character can do something better than I can so I want the GM to kill that character and burn their sheet >I'm also really fucking stupid and I think minmaxing = being good at absolutely everything
How to deal with minmaxers: give them an encounter that targets their min.
But you faggots hate everybody that isn't you so you act like a massive sperg, or at least say that's how you would act and pretend that's something to be proud of, rather than admit that maybe, just maybe, you made a shitty character.
>>44875573 >minmaxer is better at tanking than tank >include effects that negate tanking abilities >tank is screwed over even harder than minmaxer "Encounters that target their min" doesn't work because it creates EVEN MORE imbalance. Besides, their min is usually something kinda specific and I don't want to be doing the same specific thing over and over again until some autistic asshat gets the message.
>>44871074 > Playing the character everyone else needs as opposed to the character you actually want to play > Being that guy in a gurps game that makes an ann frank assassin hacker savant omega killer You sure sound like fun
>>44870819 You could stop being a shit GM and write campaigns that include variety. With variety beyond 'let's kill stuff!' a min-maxer will get to shine in a couple of specific circumstances and spend the rest of the time being useless because they're only good at a couple of things.
>>44872942 >We're lvl 9 now and he's gone from optimized NUKE THE FUCKER IN ONE ROUND to a fairly well rounded character.
I've always thought the well-rounded character was a better min-maxed character. Doing whatever it is you want your character to do exceptionally well is the "max" part. Covering for your imbalances is the "min" part. A player in my group one time played a mounted charge build. Except this was an aquatic campaign and he picked a flying mount that was too big to fit in ships and couldn't swim. He got the max part, he dealt a lot of damage on a charge. However despite being a single-classed druid he had nothing to do 2/3rds of the time. And as we all know, Druids do in fact have a decent spell list and there's no reason why he couldn't accomplish anything outside of a charge except poor planning.
>>44873026 >GM had the local mercenary guild look at said retard character with tons of funny as their best friend, charging outragously to keep his wealth safe, and take him out to drink every day. >Players swagger into town, thinking they're gonna hit the jackpot >Retard rich character's safe is better secured that the crown jewels by a small army of merry mercenaries who'll peel the skin from their own face before they go back to raiding orcish camps instead of drinking for free in service of an easy to manipulate rich guy
The answer is to stop playing shitty systems where it's possible for one character to easily outclass the others.
Why do people play games that have shitty systems? Just switch to something else. You can even keep the setting of the previous game, just change the rules and modify the setting as appropriate where you need to.
>>44880113 >It's the DM's world, you're just playing in it.
If we're talking about DnD, then this is explicitly false by the DMG in 5e.
The days of the DM being the ruler of the table are long gone, and good riddance. A game is for the benefit of all players (including the GM). And I say this as a foreverGM - I'm only playing DnD5e because it's my chance to take a break.
>>44877891 >Why aren't you ignoring genre conceits? >Why aren't you psychically aware real-life concepts like heavy infantry are worthless? >Why are you looking at prestige classes like Dwarven Defender and thinking they might be cool? >Why are you following the logic of niche protection as suggested by the structure of the PHB classes? >Why didn't you spend hours spreadsheeting relative power and advantage for your fortnightly hobby evening? This is why people buy into the Stormwind fallacy: they only have a limited amount of time to devote to the hobby, and they can either spend it on dull tables or thinking about cool dragon fights. In reality, some spergs spend much more time, or can process rules much more quickly and so end up with much more background AND crunch proficiency, but for the majority the trends apply.
>>44880227 >5e I mean I'm sure it's a fine game, but you're talking to a gorgnard here.
Also let me just clarify: I didn't mean to imply that the DM should be an iron fisted god to the players, but when they are playing the system, it's good to know that the DM can remind them that the system belongs to him.
Personally, I would gladly let my players go and rob some noble, and become stinking rich mostly because we're playing a Sandbox campaign with a great war brewing, and they might need it to protect what they have/believe in. The kind of conflict where one group of 4 characters having awesome gear is not going to make a lick of difference if they don't use it well, or actually invest), but when a player is clearly manipulating something that should be there for his benefit to supercharge their chances? They need to remember that the game isn't about them getting what they want. It's about them earning what they want.
>>44880325 >it's good to know that the DM can remind them that the system belongs to him. No. >the game isn't about them getting what they want.. You're right, it's about telling a story. Together. As a group.
>>44880431 >You're right, it's about telling a story. Together. As a group. Did I say anything to imply that isn't also true? What kind of story, is the one where the characters just achieve whatever they want to achieve and don't have to earn it?
I mean I see what you mean, and there is infact a lot of ways to play D&D. You can play it like Everbody's John, even. But the general idea is to have a worthwhile adventure. That implies limitations you need to overcome.
Maybe your idea of it is different from mine, and that's fine. That's why I said it's good to know you CAN do these things. Because of that, you can play it however you want. You can use the powers, or you don't. You have a problem with them manipulating the game? Do the players have a problem with one of them manipulating the game? You can put a stop to it. No one has a problem with it? You don't need to put a stop to it.
It's kind of weird, but it feels like you're projecting a shitty DM of yours onto me mate. I'm just talking about options here, and the way my group likes to play, not how it must be played no matter what.
>>44882691 >Fate Core Fun fact, when someone puts their +4 into magic, they may expect to use it for goddamn near everything. I don't run Fate anymore. Every single time, it crashes and burns faster than a motorcycle on napalm.
It's roleplaying. You have created a role. If your role sucks ass in combat because it doesn't work within the confines of the world, it's part of your character's role to die if they get too involved in combat.
It's like saying that it's unfair for characters to be too good with charisma-based skills because other characters can't be as witty and conniving in social exchanges. Tough shit.
>>44870819 Wow. you give the little rabbit to the african American kid, but you give the gayest biggest dildo to the knee pad wearing homosexual. >REAL SUBTLE >Does the white kid have a gay voice also?
>>44884885 Eh. When everyone plays literally the same (literally, the fighter maneuvers are the same statted out as spells) it's kinda easy to say it's shit. But in actuality it's pretty good if you like fancy names for attacks and such that boil down to "I do twice normal damage for one hit once a battle".
>>44885083 Things being written the same makes them consistent, not identical. Unless you're telling me your 4e fighter was throwing fireballs and lightning. You also seem to be ignoring the actual core class features that make the classes play so differently - even among Defenders, a Fighter plays totally differently to a Paladin, who plays differently to a Swordmage.
>>44889484 Different Anon, and you're right, but there is an element of truth to what they're saying. In my experience, the worst part of min-maxers isn't even that they are good. With a good DM, every character gets something they get to do. What really brakes it, is when it's obvious that the min-maxers are playing the system, because it just pulls you out and makes you think about the game mechanics as opposed to the story the game is there to tell.
There's nothing wrong with thinking about game mechanics. Most RPG combat is meant to be fun (it was born out of war games after all) and there's nothing wrong in keeping that level of fun. Thinking totally 'in character' is appropriate for some RPGs and play styles, but not all of them.
>>44871680 I agree and disagree with this to an extent. On one hand you should try to create a character that's at least mechanically sound and put enough thought into their build so they're not an unplayable mess. On the other hand, you shouldn't be afraid to experiment just because a certain build is "optimized". Stats are only a small part of it, sometimes unconventional roleplaying will lead you to creating characters that don't fit particular molds and have stats that wouldn't be the most useful for them but leads to unique/interesting characters. Also, intentionally trying to break the game or make a character that is completely overpowered yet technically sound compared to the completely solid and average players is certainly a dick move.
>>44891391 Different Anon, and I'd say 4E is really good at what it does. But it's like 2009's Star Trek in that. It's really good, but it's not good the way it's supposed to be. It's not good the way its title promises. It's something good, but it's something completely different from what you'd want it to be.
That makes it very, very disappointing, even if in an enjoyable way.
>>44891476 I recommend you try something else out for a session or two. Not to stop playing 4e! 4e is great! Keep playing 4e. But because it's bad to play only one game ever, just like it's bad to only eat at one restaurant ever or only read one book.
>>44891476 4e is the game that 3e wanted to be. It takes the best parts of late 3e and makes them into a cohesive ruleset. If you don't like 4e, all it means is that you didn't like what 3e was trying to be either.
>>44891874 Incidentally, I don't like what 3e was trying to be. I kind of like the broken, messy yet palpable nonsense it became though. Wouldn't say it's a good system, but it's great, if you and the players work out some of the kinks, make it your own and are on the same page.
Conversely, 4e runs so smooth, that I can't really see it doing anything other than what it was designed for.
>>44891953 I actually agree with 3e on that point - it can be really fun to run a gonzo game with all the weird subsystems like Incarnum and the wacky prestige classes. or to limit players to 'tier 3 and 4' classes and actually enjoy a semi-balanced campaign.
As for running 4e - I suppose you can see its descendant in Strike, which is basically 'DnD4e without the DnD part'. No d20, almost no modifiers, very few levels, no escalating numbers... but still tactical grid-based combat with (reskinnable, and reskinning is encouraged) classes and roles. Attached to a lightweight non-combat system.
>>44870819 Play equally to the "min" parts of their character.
You want to be super killy? That's fine. How are you going to handle not getting ripped off by every merchant? Oh, kill them? Congratulations, the first one gets you an adventurer after you. The second gets you an inquisitor. The third gets a specific team. The fourth gets you a magical strike team that tracks your astral signature. The fifth gets you a magical doppleganger with a supporting magical strike team.
Y'all fucking with the economy of the Kingdom, y'all going to get wrecked.
Same with diplomancy. Oh, you snake eyed this dude out of his shit with your smooth talking? His wife fucking points out how much of a retard he was and he comes back at you. It was a noble? Prepare to be framed for crimes against the state, start at 3 merchants killed wanted level.
TL;DR Nothing happens in a vacuum so be prepared for the consequences of being completely crippled in one or more areas.
I'll probably get ostracized for saying this, but I can't role-play to save my life but I still enjoy playing the games as games. I also like to design board games and role-play systems, and am very interested in what makes the games tick, but I still can't get into character or do any of the drama-related stuff.
>>44890175 >Thinking totally 'in character' is appropriate for some RPGs and play styles, but not all of them. Then they are not ROLE PLAYING games. They are another kind of games, but not role playing ones.
>>44870905 I once worked in a bookstore just besides a sex shop. The old lady (she was chill as fuck) was forced to move the shop, so she got her whole family to help. Her 8 year old daughter was carrying big cardboard boxes full of rubber dicks and vibrators. She didn't seem to be moved by it at all.
I've had to deal with this. I took the direct approach and just talked with him, explained that his method of play marginalized the other players (since he would min/max for combat then force every encounter into combat). I respectfully requested that he not go so overboard with the power level of the characters he made.
He then got pissy about how I was "asking him to cripple his characters just because nobody else could build theirs well" (in actuality they just came up with a character concept / theme they liked as their first step, rather than a powerful combination of abilities like he did), and he flat out refused to change.
We no longer game with the guy, and I've completely cut ties with him since he's one of the most fucking toxic, selfish players I've ever dealt with. I'm ashamed of the fact that I ever called him my friend.
>>44897718 My only regret is not ditching him sooner. He shit up so many games that the entire group was starting to destabilize because nobody wanted to play with him. Couldn't even play other games with the dude, he'd outright cheat if he thought he could get away with it, trying to stealth-draw cards in MtG when nobody was looking and shit.
Gareth, if you're reading this, fuck you. You still owe me the 200 fucking dollars you got charged to my credit card, you fat balding fuck.
>>44897804 ...anyway, to tie this all back into the topic at hand, here's my advice:
confront the min/maxer about it directly. Be polite but firm in asking that they make a character more in line with the general group level of power.
If they refuse, uninvite them to the group. If they ABSOLUTELY NEED to be stupid strong right out of the starting gates and they don't care about the impact it has on the rest of the group, then they aren't looking for a tabletop experience. They're looking for a custom videogame on easy where they're the star.
>>44870819 It's not min-maxing that's the problem, it's when min-maxers shove min-maxing down the other players' throats. If I wanna play a two-weapon dwarf fighter/avenging executioner, I'm gonna fucking do it, no matter how much the codzilla says it's "unoptimal".
>>44870819 sometimes i think min maxers are a myth, because who in their right mind would focus on playing the system the whole time when its like 1/4 of the game and only their to facilitate cool things happening
if you feel like you need to make the most beast character ever then your dm must be a monster
>>44898479 >What if the most powerful options are in the corebook? >2 DAYS later Thanks for reminding me I have no life. Anyways, seems to be generally the druid or Sorclock cheese. Even better if you use Undying Light patron. CHA STACKING FOR DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYS.
>>44899046 Since they don't actually have a choice in where their stats go, they'll likely need to use suboptimal builds. In addition, the lower hit dice requires them to be more careful about getting hit in combat.
>>44899098 Well, personally, it'd make me minmax even harder so I can survive. For example, play a dwarven druid, who gets to use animal stats for his physical stats anyway, and use animal companions instead of himself too.
So I think you probably would have the opposite of the desired effect for a lot of people.
>>44872313 Listen to that edgy faggot he responded to though, you really think that child can actually interact with others competently by himself, let alone assuming the role of something else? No way.
>>44899274 >I forgot what the Sorclock breaker is, care to remind me? As I said, CHA stack/add CHA to damage cheese out the ass since UDL and Golden/Red Dragon sorc let you milk that shit dry.There is AFAIR also something about milking your pact for sorc points or something but I'm not that advanced.
>>44899306 >>44899571 Something just came to me. >Fighter uses Magic Initiate to get Eldritch Blast and Hex >16 beams of d10+1d6 damage, average total 144 damage per round on all hits, giving a safe 77 damage per round That can't possibly trump sorclock cheese, though?
>>44899910 >You don't get to cast EB for every attack, you know that, right? I should hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me if casting a cantrip was considered an 'Attack' to some DMs in regards to say, a Cleric, which is why it came up in my mind.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.