[Passages] Chargen Limits - Mechanical or Social?

[Justin D. Jacobson]

Well, this is my first actual post here about a game I'm working on. Passages has actually been in development for over a year now. You can learn more about the game by following the hyperlink, including my design diaries. In short, Passages is an rpg of Victorian-Era, literary-based, high adventure. The mechanics are a rules-light iteration of d20 in the same vein as True 20 but with vastly different specific choices made to achieve "lightness." For starters (and of particular relevance to this thread), chargen is point-buy as opposed to class-based.

Chargen amounts to: Each characters starts with baseline stats. Attributes (i.e., Strength, Dexterity, etc.) use an independent point-assignment. BAB, BDB, skills, hit points, and feats (now "advantages" to incorporate class abilities) are purchased from a single pool of points. Theoretically, a player could spend all of his points on BAB, making the character far and away the most lethal character in the game world in lieu of any sort of depth (even for a martial-oriented character). There are no mechanical restrictions on how points are expended in character creation.

My question is this: From a design standpoint, is it "acceptable" for chargen power limits to be social rather than mechanical. (I know "acceptable" isn't quite the word I'm looking for, but the mental thesaurus isn't coming up with anything more suitable right now.) By "social" I mean that the tone of the rules, the sample "iconic" PCs, the GM advice, the introductory adventure, indeed the other mechanics clearly reflect that min-maxing isn't meaningful in Passages. In playtesting to date, these social restrictions have been sufficient. No one's really tried to min-max a combat beast (or an etiquette beast for that matter--it's equally possible). I'm concerned, however, that because playtesters are a self-selecting class the results might be misleading.

Is it "better" for an rpg to include mechanical restrictions in chargen?

[Tommi Brander]

Have you playtested either method, this being Playtesting forum and all?

I'd say that even if social restrains are used, they need to be very explicitly mentioned in the book/PDF. Otherwise it turns into GM acceptance, which can be easily influenced in ways that are not desirable.

[Bill Masek]

Justin,

The D20 system is very gamist in nature.  The goal of play is to win, to acquire resources and optimize those resources to enable future victories.  Character creation is often the most important optimization point in a gamist game, including D20.  A large part of the fun of these games is taking limited resources and trying to maximize your chances for future victory.

From a design standpoint, is it "acceptable" for chargen power limits to be social rather than mechanical.

I would strongly recommend against it.  I see two possible ways the term a lack of ?chargen power limits? could defined and a social solution would not work for either.

1.  Unlimited game resources.  This is very bad in a gamist game.  Give yourself an infinite amount of resources and you automatically win.  If you let the group choose a finite amount of resources ?lets play a 20 point game? this will solve this problem fine.  But you can not trust each player to select a reasonable amount of resources on their own, as they will tend to one up each other, each trying to create the ?coolest? or ?most powerful? character.

2.  One or two strategies which are purely dominate to all others.  If these strategies are vastly better then all others, then everyone can and should use them.  This effectively removes all other strategic possibilities vastly reducing the entertainment value of your game.  A social solution will do nothing to counter this problem.  You can not make a game based upon optimizing resources and simply tell people not to.  It undermines the purpose of the game itself.


There are games where ?power limits? are more social.  In My Life With Master the players each choose a way in which are are more and a way in which they are less then human.  They also choose how influential the main villain is and how powerful the force of reason which opposes him are.  It is possible to make a character in MLWM which always activates his more then human feature and never his less then human.  They can make a very weak Master who is easily toppled.

MLWM works well using social restrictions because it is not about victory.  Winning a given conflict can be just as devastating as loosing it.  Effectiveness is not the goal.  Victory is not the goal.  The only point is to make a cool story.


You need mechanical limits in your D20 game.  If you want to build a game where they are not necessary read up on Narativisim and Simulationisim and check out MLWM.

Best,
        Bill

[Justin D. Jacobson]

Justin,

The D20 system is very gamist in nature.  The goal of play is to win, to acquire resources and optimize those resources to enable future victories.  Character creation is often the most important optimization point in a gamist game, including D20.  A large part of the fun of these games is taking limited resources and trying to maximize your chances for future victory.

I think that's incorrect. The d20 system isn't inherently gamist. D&D is, but there's nothing about rolling a d20 and comparing it to a target number that demands absolute gamism.

I would strongly recommend against it.  I see two possible ways the term a lack of ?chargen power limits? could defined and a social solution would not work for either.

1.  Unlimited game resources.  This is very bad in a gamist game.  Give yourself an infinite amount of resources and you automatically win.  If you let the group choose a finite amount of resources ?lets play a 20 point game? this will solve this problem fine.  But you can not trust each player to select a reasonable amount of resources on their own, as they will tend to one up each other, each trying to create the ?coolest? or ?most powerful? character.

Passages does employ a point-buy limit.

2.  One or two strategies which are purely dominate to all others.  If these strategies are vastly better then all others, then everyone can and should use them.  This effectively removes all other strategic possibilities vastly reducing the entertainment value of your game.  A social solution will do nothing to counter this problem.  You can not make a game based upon optimizing resources and simply tell people not to.  It undermines the purpose of the game itself.

This is the crux of the issue. If the game is about slaying monsters and taking their stuff, I agree with you. However, can this be mitigated if the game is about more varied encounters: high tea at the manor, investigating a crime scene, negotiating with the Queen of Hearts, and--oh yeah--killing morlocks by the dozen? I suspect that there will be an inclination to combat min-maxing because of the system's roots (essentially the assumption you made at the beginning of the post), but the GM can dissuade that by not catering to it.

Thanks for your insight.

[Bill Masek]

Justin,

The d20 system isn't inherently gamist. D&D is, but there's nothing about rolling a d20 and comparing it to a target number that demands absolute gamism.

The D20 system is Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition with some of the flavor stripped out.  You still have attack bonuses, saves, HP, AC, rolls for hit/damage, an elegant feat system and a slapped on skill system to cover for all non-combat activities.  Unless you massively rework the game, approximately 95% of the games complexity lies in its combat system.  Its built and balanced around heavy combat.

Then there is the progression system.  Characters build up and grow more powerful as they progress.  They do not simply change.  They do not degrade.  They get more powerful.  You build your characters.  This process of building and optimizing means it can have the problems I outlined in my last post.

This is not to say that you need to build your game around combat.  Nor does it say that your game can not use D20s.  If you really wanted I suppose that you could scrap 95% of the open source D20 rules and rebuild it into a Simulationist or even Narativist game.  But it would take a massive retuning.  You would have to gut so much it would no longer really resemble The D20 System.

I strongly recommend that you create a new system from scratch if you want a non-gamist game.  D20 does not work well for experiencing a tea party with the fair folk and it is even worse at exploring the ethical ramifications of the forbidden love between a stable hand and a princess.

If the game is about slaying monsters and taking their stuff, I agree with you. However, can this be mitigated if the game is about more varied encounters: high tea at the manor, investigating a crime scene, negotiating with the Queen of Hearts, and--oh yeah--killing morlocks by the dozen?

Is the game about winning conflicts (either against another character or the world), accumulating resources and using those resources to perpetuate future victories?  If the answer is yes, then you have a gamist game with all the problems that I brought up in the first post.  These resources do not need to be money and magic items, they could be information, political clout, etc.


So the real question is this:  Do you want to build a gamist game?  If not, then do not use D20.  If so then make sure D20 is really the system you want to use.  It is not very good at non-combat and terrible for hard core simulation or thematic exploration.

Best,
        Bill

[Justin D. Jacobson]

The D20 system is Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition with some of the flavor stripped out.  You still have attack bonuses, saves, HP, AC, rolls for hit/damage, an elegant feat system and a slapped on skill system to cover for all non-combat activities.  Unless you massively rework the game, approximately 95% of the games complexity lies in its combat system.  Its built and balanced around heavy combat.

Then there is the progression system.  Characters build up and grow more powerful as they progress.  They do not simply change.  They do not degrade.  They get more powerful.  You build your characters.  This process of building and optimizing means it can have the problems I outlined in my last post.

This is not to say that you need to build your game around combat.  Nor does it say that your game can not use D20s.  If you really wanted I suppose that you could scrap 95% of the open source D20 rules and rebuild it into a Simulationist or even Narativist game.  But it would take a massive retuning.  You would have to gut so much it would no longer really resemble The D20 System.

Well, I wouldn't say "massively reworked", but that's exactly what I've tried to accomplish with Passages. I've stripped down the combat system and reworked the feat system greatly. It's definitively d20 in origin, but these assumptions you make about d20 in general simply aren't true with my system. The playtest results I've gotten to date haven't borne out your assumption about d20 as pure gamism.

As a tangent, I had submitted the setting for the GR True 20 setting search and ran a Passages adventure using the True 20 ruleset at Gen Con last year. I don't think there's any question that your statements should ring equally true with True 20. While it's not a perfect comparision (since I used pregens), the four-hour sessions included exactly one combat of any substance, and the system worked quite nicely with it.

I strongly recommend that you create a new system from scratch if you want a non-gamist game.  D20 does not work well for experiencing a tea party with the fair folk and it is even worse at exploring the ethical ramifications of the forbidden love between a stable hand and a princess.

I'm not looking to go quite that far to the other end of the spectrum either.

Is the game about winning conflicts (either against another character or the world), accumulating resources and using those resources to perpetuate future victories?  If the answer is yes, then you have a gamist game with all the problems that I brought up in the first post.  These resources do not need to be money and magic items, they could be information, political clout, etc.

This is an important point. The answer to the first sentence is yes, and I recognize that the Passages system is principally gamist in nature. However, I disagree with your conclusion. If the GM keeps the currency of success varied, the gain from min-maxing will be diminished, theoretically to the point of losing its value and eliminating the incentive to do so. That's my hypothesis anyway. Let's take a concrete example. Fred makes a combat machine using the open-ended chargen rules. This guy can gut the Knights of the Round Table in seconds and suffer nary a scratch. If the climax of the adventure requires carefully navigating a grand ball, the character's min-maxing will not serve him well. Indeed, he might find himself at a loss as he's unable to accomplish tasks that other, more well-rounded characters are able to.

My problem is that the incentive (adventure focus) occurs after the event (chargen). I acknowledge that this could lead to dissatisfaction on the part of the player. My question is whether or not this phenomenon is fatal or an acceptable cost. The reason why I ask is that instituting mechanical chargen limitations comes with its own cost. Essentially I'm trying to weigh these two costs to decide if I can leave out the mechanical limitations. Playtests to date suggest that I can. I'm posing this question to a larger and different audience because I'm concerned that the playtest results might be skewed by viewpoints of the self-selective process of becoming a playtester.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

[Bill Masek]

Justin,

Well, I wouldn't say "massively reworked", but that's exactly what I've tried to accomplish with Passages. I've stripped down the combat system and reworked the feat system greatly. It's definitively d20 in origin, but these assumptions you make about d20 in general simply aren't true with my system.

I never commented about your system.  I was talking about the D20 system.  Since I have never seen your system I can not comment about how your revision to the D20 rules work.

That said, if you want a D20 system that works as well for non-combat as D&D 3e does for combat then I promise it will take a huge amount of effort.  Not just stripping out combat, but adding complexity to non-combat.  The skill list has a decent selection, but the mechanics involved are far too simplistic for a primary system in a gamist game.  The feats that aid skills, which could counter this to some extent, are poorly built and uninteresting.  You would need to add significant complexity to the skill system and rework feats to interact with the skill system.  If the skill system becomes the main focus the attribute system becomes redundant and should probably be removed in which case.... but I digress.  If you have changed D20 so that it is no longer D20 then answering questions about D20 will not be very useful.  If you were to provide a full version of your rules we would be better able to advise you.

the Passages system is principally gamist in nature. However, I disagree with your conclusion. If the GM keeps the currency of success varied, the gain from min-maxing will be diminished, theoretically to the point of losing its value and eliminating the incentive to do so.

So let us stop wasting time talking about D20 and talk about gamist games.  In Gamist games, MinMaxing is not a bad thing.  In fact, it is the point of the game.  Problems do not arise from people trying to optimize.  It comes from systems where there are a small number of purely dominate strategies which are superior to all others.  If there are a plethora of strategies, all of which are strategically viable then you are good.

You can not create a pure dominance strategy and really on social restrictions to prevent players from adopting it.  If combat class 3 can always defeat everything (even if there are other ways) then everyone should always pick combat class 3.  If instead social build 214 can talk its way through every encounter then everyone should take social build 214.  It is up to you as the game designer to insure balance in a gamist game.

My problem is that the incentive (adventure focus) occurs after the event (chargen).

Perhaps your question is this:  "I have a game where there is a fair number of viable strategies which require synergy between different character types.  However, I am afraid that the players will be predisposed to a specific situation and will all optimize all of their characters to be able to always overcome that situation but be completely ineffective in all others.  What should I do?"

If that is your question, then the thing that you do NOT want to do is to use the games mechanics to force the players to take a specific strategy.  I recommend do two things.  First, in the rules, simply explain how your game is different and there is more then one situation which may occur, what the situations are, etc.  Second, recommend that the players play a short plot arch (say 1-3 sessions) after which the real campaign begins with new characters.  This will give the players the chance to try out their single situation characters, get their asses handed to them repeatedly and learn that they need to incorporate other situations into their initial strategic decisions.  Then they will have more effective characters for when the real game begins.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

You are welcome.  I hope this helps.

Best,
       Bill

[Justin D. Jacobson]

If that is your question, then the thing that you do NOT want to do is to use the games mechanics to force the players to take a specific strategy.  I recommend do two things.  First, in the rules, simply explain how your game is different and there is more then one situation which may occur, what the situations are, etc.  Second, recommend that the players play a short plot arch (say 1-3 sessions) after which the real campaign begins with new characters.  This will give the players the chance to try out their single situation characters, get their asses handed to them repeatedly and learn that they need to incorporate other situations into their initial strategic decisions.  Then they will have more effective characters for when the real game begins.

Your first suggestion is one that I already incorporated. The impetus for this thread was essentially my hand-wringing over whether that was enough. Your second suggestion is a great idea--exactly the kind I was look for. I know because I'm presently slapping myself on the forehead for not having thought of it. I will look to incorporate that.

[Tommi Brander]

Justin,
I think it is a merit for a system if using it fully (min-max) provides positive results in play. The rules are there to be used.
Creating a system with potential for powergaming but social enforcements for not doing that is bad. Some people still min-max, others do not. These two groups, when mixed, do not work well together.

[Justin D. Jacobson]

Justin,
I think it is a merit for a system if using it fully (min-max) provides positive results in play. The rules are there to be used.

I agree with the sentiment generally, but it's founded on an assumption, likely ingrained by D&D, that min-maxing is accomplished by hyper-specilization--particularly in combat. Can we dissuade min-maxing of that time by eliminating the benefit traditionally gained by it? In other words, if "positive results in play" are achieved by more broadly defined characters, then the result of "min-maxing" will be broadly defined characters.

Creating a system with potential for powergaming but social enforcements for not doing that is bad. Some people still min-max, others do not. These two groups, when mixed, do not work well together.

This is certainly a problem, but interestingly it seems to be a greater problem in games that have mechanical limits such as D&D. Would that problem be exacerbated by removing mechanical limits and enforcing social ones? Perhaps. My theory relies on the GM enforcing the style of play generally agreed upon by the players at commencement.

[Tommi Brander]

Can we dissuade min-maxing of that time by eliminating the benefit traditionally gained by it?

The traditional benefits are varied. There is being cool, having actual effect in the game (for the more scarred gamers), and just the sheer joy of mastering the system. At least.
Which of those can you eliminate and how?

Also, any sufficiently complex system, whether it is about combat or something else, can be optimised. All point-buy systems I have seen are complex enough for this.

[Justin D. Jacobson]

The traditional benefits are varied. There is being cool, having actual effect in the game (for the more scarred gamers), and just the sheer joy of mastering the system. At least.
Which of those can you eliminate and how?

We're talking past each other here. You're talking about benefits to the player; I'm talking about benefits to the character. I have no problem with people trying to "min-max" if the result of that endeavor is not a combat beast. Being cool, having actual effect in the game, and joy of mastering the system are essentially the social restrictions I was contemplating but not clear-headed enough to give a name to.

[CommonDialog]

We're talking past each other here. You're talking about benefits to the player; I'm talking about benefits to the character. I have no problem with people trying to "min-max" if the result of that endeavor is not a combat beast. Being cool, having actual effect in the game, and joy of mastering the system are essentially the social restrictions I was contemplating but not clear-headed enough to give a name to.

Justin,

I'm interested to read your system because I tend to like to play social/political games over hack n' slash and so I'm interested to see your modifications.

I wanted to respond first to the basic question of whether point-buy limitations are to be done socially or mechanically and then I wanted to address what I see as an issue that has not been addressed in the threads. 

Overall, I think that all systems are susceptible to min-maxing of some sort and my general feeling is that this should be accepted as part and parcel of any gamist roleplay and really of sim and narrative play as well (to some degree.)  In general, I think you should strive for balance and then not worry about it.  Some players will enjoy min-maxing and there's really no reason to not allow that in your game.  If you have to enforce rules, I think they need to be done in the mechanics though.  I've been in too many situations where the group's powergamer is also the group bully (for lack of a better term) which causes all social mechanics to breakdown.  Especially if the powergamer can bully the GM.  Putting some balance into the rules will limit powergaming and allow everyone to have more fun.

Do be careful not to limit things too much.  I look at Shadowrun's latest ruleset as the ultimate in artifically limited systems.  You can only spend so many points on attributes.  Skills can only be at a certain limit (4 and then only one of those) and so on and so on.  It makes me think their system is hopelessly broken and they're just covering it up.

Still, I've played in too many games where the GM favors a style of play (say they like combat over political games) so the players are forced to create a certain type of character whether they like it or not.

So with that being said, I was curious why you're anti-combat monster.  It seems that all of the examples you give of specializing and what you're really trying to avoid is the creation of combat monstering and I am uncertain why that is.  As the designer of a ruleset, to remove an entire option for player development seems like asking for trouble.  Especially when playing a fighter is easier for newbies (both to roleplaying and to your system.)

Looking over your examples of the need for a combat moster to sneaking into a party as the final objective.  I have several problems with the example.  #1  Why is the only resolution for the situation sneaking into the party?  #2  Why would the GM create this as an obstacle if he/she has a party of fighters?  #3  What's wrong with the fighter trying to sneak in, failing his roll(s) and then drawing his sword and hacking away?  It seems like a good chance for comic relief.

I really like the fact you're taking the D20 and making it more social and less combat oriented, however, it seems like preventing combat min-maxing may not be the wisest alternative.

[Justin D. Jacobson]

I'm interested to read your system because I tend to like to play social/political games over hack n' slash and so I'm interested to see your modifications.

I'd be happy to shoot you a copy. Drop me a PM with your e-mail address. (I had to put the finishing touches on hold while I got Helios Rising out the door for Gen Con, but I should have the manuscript finished next week some time.)

I wanted to respond first to the basic question of whether point-buy limitations are to be done socially or mechanically and then I wanted to address what I see as an issue that has not been addressed in the threads. 

Overall, I think that all systems are susceptible to min-maxing of some sort and my general feeling is that this should be accepted as part and parcel of any gamist roleplay and really of sim and narrative play as well (to some degree.)  In general, I think you should strive for balance and then not worry about it.  Some players will enjoy min-maxing and there's really no reason to not allow that in your game.  If you have to enforce rules, I think they need to be done in the mechanics though.  I've been in too many situations where the group's powergamer is also the group bully (for lack of a better term) which causes all social mechanics to breakdown.  Especially if the powergamer can bully the GM.  Putting some balance into the rules will limit powergaming and allow everyone to have more fun.

Do be careful not to limit things too much.  I look at Shadowrun's latest ruleset as the ultimate in artifically limited systems.  You can only spend so many points on attributes.  Skills can only be at a certain limit (4 and then only one of those) and so on and so on.  It makes me think their system is hopelessly broken and they're just covering it up.

That's what I ultimately decided on: broad limitations. The limitations are designed more for versimilitude than game balance.

Still, I've played in too many games where the GM favors a style of play (say they like combat over political games) so the players are forced to create a certain type of character whether they like it or not.

So with that being said, I was curious why you're anti-combat monster.  It seems that all of the examples you give of specializing and what you're really trying to avoid is the creation of combat monstering and I am uncertain why that is.  As the designer of a ruleset, to remove an entire option for player development seems like asking for trouble.  Especially when playing a fighter is easier for newbies (both to roleplaying and to your system.)

Looking over your examples of the need for a combat moster to sneaking into a party as the final objective.  I have several problems with the example.  #1  Why is the only resolution for the situation sneaking into the party?  #2  Why would the GM create this as an obstacle if he/she has a party of fighters?  #3  What's wrong with the fighter trying to sneak in, failing his roll(s) and then drawing his sword and hacking away?  It seems like a good chance for comic relief.

I really like the fact you're taking the D20 and making it more social and less combat oriented, however, it seems like preventing combat min-maxing may not be the wisest alternative.

Combat min-maxing was just an example because it's the most common form of min-maxing--particularly in the d20 milieu.

[Ron Edwards]

Justin, please provide an account of actual playtesting - what happened, what people did, which rules got utilized the most enthusiastically, and any number of similar details. Without that, not only is the thread not suitable for the forum, but it's not going to be maximally helpful to you.

Best, Ron