Need help fighting the dreaded MinMaxer.

[Kalzazz]

If P and Q are not on the menu, then in the aforementioned collaborative process the DM should stop the player when the player goes and designs a character around P and Q and help them revise the character back toward what is actually desired

Just because everyone read and agreed to the same prospectus doesn't mean everyone involved actually took away the same vision of it (balrogs winged/wingless?)

If I recall, haven't you often told the story of how your Vorkosigan game revealed that yourself and some of your players had very different takes on what Barrayar meant?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by whswhs

As a GURPS writer, I'm aware that crunch outsells fluff, big time. If I submit a list of possible book proposals, the crunchy ones end up in the top rank and the fluffy ones end up further down—because the people who make decisions follow the sales statistics, and it's easier to justify a crunchy book as likely to sell.

For example, I'm rather proud of Worminghall, which is over 90% fluff, with a little modest crunch in the redesigned magic system to support the medieval worldview. But it isn't a big seller. I have two or three other "magical city" concepts that could be turned into books—but they wouldn't be in high demand. And that's why my last three books were a new system of magical abilities, a treatment of supersenses, and a guide to learning and teaching. I'm proud of those books, too, and they were interesting to write . . . but I also recognize that working in that end of the gaming spectrum will result in a higher return on time invested.

But also, I'd note that it's a specific kind of crunch. In Enhanced Senses, for example, there were a lot of pages of abilities with stats. There were a few pages that analyzed, extended, or modified existing rules, often in text boxes. There were only a coupld of pages of new fundamental crunch—things like advantages, disadvantages, skills, perks, quirks, and techniques. A new GURPS crunch book may get away with one new advantage; two is pushing it. In other words, crunch is carefully prevented from causing system bloat; instead it shows more ways to build things using already existing concepts.

Interesting, on a purely personal note I prefer crunch books that introduce lot's of new crunch. But ultimately a good book is a good book. (I like worminghall a lot by the way).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

If P and Q are not on the menu, then in the aforementioned collaborative process the DM should stop the player when the player goes and designs a character around P and Q and help them revise the character back toward what is actually desired

Just because everyone read and agreed to the same prospectus doesn't mean everyone involved actually took away the same vision of it (balrogs winged/wingless?)

If I recall, haven't you often told the story of how your Vorkosigan game revealed that yourself and some of your players had very different takes on what Barrayar meant?

Yes, certainly. But that wasn't something that was visible on their character sheets or the traits they took. Those made perfect sense!

Just because a method isn't infallible doesn't make it useless.

And of course that clash is a signal to pause and redesign. The point is that "okay, you can have P and Q" isn't a valid answer, not if P and Q are incompatible with things that are essential.

[afnord]

Every action has a reaction. If the GM allows unbalanced characters then it is his responsibility to keep them in check. Like I say to my players "anyone who shows up with a walking swordskill is going to get into trouble".

It's the rule of escalation. When the players get bigger guns the bad guys show up with better armor.

Or the next foe has a cosmic reverse missile power.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by afnord

Every action has a reaction. If the GM allows unbalanced characters then it is his responsibility to keep them in check. Like I say to my players "anyone who shows up with a walking swordskill is going to get into trouble".

It's the rule of escalation. When the players get bigger guns the bad guys show up with better armor.

Or the next foe has a cosmic reverse missile power.

This is not necessarily a problem if everyone is on board. DF, for example, is full of characters who are walking swordskill... but everyone else is equivalently combat-oriented, so you can simply throw ridiculously nasty challenges at them.

But if you're running GURPS Game of Thrones and someone shows up with Broadsword-30 and Weapon Master and Danger Sense and Hard to Kill, then either he gets devoured by the politics he's absolutely not equipped to handle, or he turns every scene into a fight scene that he can totally dominate, and if the game "devolves" into a DF campaign, the rest of the party isn't prepared for it and a challenge that is sufficient to interest our sword master is an unfair TPK to everyone else.

[afnord]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

This is not necessarily a problem if everyone is on board. DF, for example, is full of characters who are walking swordskill... but everyone else is equivalently combat-oriented, so you can simply throw ridiculously nasty challenges at them.

But if you're running GURPS Game of Thrones and someone shows up with Broadsword-30 and Weapon Master and Danger Sense and Hard to Kill, then either he gets devoured by the politics he's absolutely not equipped to handle, or he turns every scene into a fight scene that he can totally dominate, and if the game "devolves" into a DF campaign, the rest of the party isn't prepared for it and a challenge that is sufficient to interest our sword master is an unfair TPK to everyone else.

Well there GM responsibilty comes in as well, dont punish the other players for the sins of a one guy. One player made a sword master that had become a hermit/monk and only fought in a self defense with a walking stick, no problem despite of having ridiculous skill, he balanced himself out.

Then at another instance a player brought a zwei hander unkillable violent maniac. unfortunately he had very low will and met a mind wizard.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by afnord

Well there GM responsibilty comes in as well, dont punish the other players for the sins of a one guy. One player made a sword master that had become a hermit/monk and only fought in a self defense with a walking stick, no problem despite of having ridiculous skill, he balanced himself out.

Then at another instance a player brought a zwei hander unkillable violent maniac. unfortunately he had very low will and met a mind wizard.

Don't punish anyone at all. The guy who walks into a Game of Thrones game with a DF character (or the guy who walks into DF with a Game of Thrones character) doesn't need a spanking, he needs to be informed about what the game is. Either he made a mistake and just adjusts his character ("Oh, well, but I still want to play a knight." "Sure, he just needs to fit into how the setting is going to work."), or the GM made a mistake and needs to adjust the game ("Oh, you guys want something a little less ponderously political and with a little more swash in its buckle? I can change things up."), or there's an incompatibility and the player really shouldn't waste his time here ("I really, really, really want to play DF!" "Well okay, but this isn't a DF game and it'll probably bore you to tears. But I know a DF group you can play with...")

[Kalzazz]

Or if the players are okay with it, there's nothing wrong with a character who spends 95% of their time as at best ambulatory set dressing but is useful the 5% of time they are relevant

I've played characters before who were due to hyper specialization utterly useless the majority of the time, but due to forewarning by the DM was not a problem

The key is for the DM and player to be mutually in tune with what is going on

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Don't punish anyone at all. The guy who walks into a Game of Thrones game with a DF character (or the guy who walks into DF with a Game of Thrones character) doesn't need a spanking, he needs to be informed about what the game is. Either he made a mistake and just adjusts his character ("Oh, well, but I still want to play a knight." "Sure, he just needs to fit into how the setting is going to work."), or the GM made a mistake and needs to adjust the game ("Oh, you guys want something a little less ponderously political and with a little more swash in its buckle? I can change things up."), or there's an incompatibility and the player really shouldn't waste his time here ("I really, really, really want to play DF!" "Well okay, but this isn't a DF game and it'll probably bore you to tears. But I know a DF group you can play with...")

I have seen stories that suggest that some players feel entitled to join any game, and to play the character they had already decided to play, without regard for the game's intent; that the situation is sometimes not honest misunderstanding, but lack of will to cooperate with the GM or accept the campaign premise. I'm not sure if I've encountered such a thing personally. But the measures that would work with honest intent on both sides may not be effective if such a case should actually arise.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I have seen stories that suggest that some players feel entitled to join any game, and to play the character they had already decided to play, without regard for the game's intent; that the situation is sometimes not honest misunderstanding, but lack of will to cooperate with the GM or accept the campaign premise. I'm not sure if I've encountered such a thing personally. But the measures that would work with honest intent on both sides may not be effective if such a case should actually arise.

It's always clear, eventually, if someone intends to work with you. Someone who wants to work with you will ask questions, answer yours honestly, and seeks to fit with the rest of the group. Those who don't tend to be evasive, or just keep coming back to the same points, or clearly aren't listening. If you're willing to talk with someone, work with him on his character, then his real intent becomes transparent pretty quickly.

I worded my phrasing as politely as I would put it in real life: If they clearly aren't a good match for the session, then I will tell them so to prevent both of us from wasting our time. If they don't understand, then I will more clearly iterate that they are not invited to the game. I don't subscribe to the geek fallacy that exclusion is a dreadful sin. If someone won't fit, someone won't fit.