Defaults and SA expenditure

[Darren Hill]

Say you have Sword and Shield proficiency at 7, and choose to increase Greatsword which defaults to S&S at -2.
So for 5 SA points, you now have Greatsword 6.
But then you decide to increase S&S to 8, for a further 7 SA.
This now gves you a Greatsword proficiency at 6, but you already have that - you paid for it. Have those points been wasted (apart from their contribution to Insight)?

Unless there is some knock-on effect for increasing defaults, I can't see my players increasing defaults when they could just spend 2-3 points extra and increase both the default (and every other default) and their highest proficiency too.

Another point: being something of a minimaxer myself, I notice the advancement system for stats incorporates a pet peeve of mine: advancement costs which bear no relation to the cost during character design.
I can easily see players saying: "I'll put these two stats at two because I can raise them for only two points apiece, which allows me to get this stat at 7 rather than 5." Another character who put those two low stats at 3 because it was in character, and another stat at 5 which he planned to raise in play, would have to spend 23 SA points to achieve the same end.
This is a massive disparity.
I think my first house rule will be to declare that stats can never be increased for less than 7 SA points, or maybe 10.

Am I alone in thinking this might be a problem?

[Lance D. Allen]

I certainly disagree with your solution, though you're of course free to do it as you wish.

And honestly, I don't think it's a problem. The best way to equalize attribute improvement is to make them justify it. If they spent the entire session avoiding using their 2 Soc because it WAS a 2, then I'd not allow them to improve it. If they bothered to try to get into social situations, regardless of their ineptitude (and better yet, roleplayed it well) then I'd allow them to improve it. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[toli]

Unless there is some knock-on effect for increasing defaults, I can't see my players increasing defaults when they could just spend 2-3 points extra and increase both the default (and every other default) and their highest proficiency too.

Early on that is certainly true.  You should concentrate on your main weapon.  However, remember that the max default level is 6.  After that you would have to put points directly into that proficiency to increase it.

NT

[Darren Hill]

Unless there is some knock-on effect for increasing defaults, I can't see my players increasing defaults when they could just spend 2-3 points extra and increase both the default (and every other default) and their highest proficiency too.

Early on that is certainly true.  You should concentrate on your main weapon.  However, remember that the max default level is 6.  After that you would have to put points directly into that proficiency to increase it.

NT

I wasn't aware of that - it makes all the difference. Thanks.

[Darren Hill]

I certainly disagree with your solution, though you're of course free to do it as you wish.

And honestly, I don't think it's a problem. The best way to equalize attribute improvement is to make them justify it. If they spent the entire session avoiding using their 2 Soc because it WAS a 2, then I'd not allow them to improve it. If they bothered to try to get into social situations, regardless of their ineptitude (and better yet, roleplayed it well) then I'd allow them to improve it. Your mileage may vary, of course.

But then I'm rewarding people who can both roleplay and minimax, and penalising people who can roleplay but can't minimax. As I have both in my group, I'm not comfortable with that.

[arxhon]

Is it that they can't min/max, or that they won't min/max? If the second, then you have no problem. If the first, then it really depends.

Min/maxing is a problem in any game. IT really depends on how you handle it to begin with. You could always do what i used to do about 12 years ago: kill the offensive character and tell the player that you don't like munchkin play.

Generally, i try to keep min/maxing to a minimum in my games by addressing areas where the min/maxed character can't bring their uber-stat to bear. Got a combat monster/ That won't help much when your enemy is a noble close to the Duke, with a lot of allies. Far better to start some kind of smear campaign. Your mileage may vary.


Let me tell you, the players in my game went for a lot of physical stats, and generally had low Per. Take a flip through the skills section and check out how many skills use Per to roll with. ;-) I didn't have to even try to "punish" the players....making those First Aid rolls is pretty rough.

[Darren Hill]

Is it that they can't min/max, or that they won't min/max? If the second, then you have no problem. If the first, then it really depends.

Neither on their own would be a problem - it's that half the group will and half won't, leading to the minimaxers ending up with better characters just because they are better at juggling numbers.

Min/maxing is a problem in any game. IT really depends on how you handle it to begin with. You could always do what i used to do about 12 years ago: kill the offensive character and tell the player that you don't like munchkin play.

I don't like killing characters arbitrarily.
Minmaxing is only a problem if the game system provides clear advantages for doing so, which with TROS -in the case of stat advancement cost - is the case, it appears to me.

As it happens, the most ruthless minimaxer is actually one of the best roleplayers. He's not a munchkin.

Generally, i try to keep min/maxing to a minimum in my games by addressing areas where the min/maxed character can't bring their uber-stat to bear. Got a combat monster/ That won't help much when your enemy is a noble close to the Duke, with a lot of allies. Far better to start some kind of smear campaign. Your mileage may vary.


Let me tell you, the players in my game went for a lot of physical stats, and generally had low Per. Take a flip through the skills section and check out how many skills use Per to roll with. ;-) I didn't have to even try to "punish" the players....making those First Aid rolls is pretty rough.

But wouldn't this encourage them to buy up those low stats? Since they took them at a low level to capitalise on the cheap advancement cost, this is what they intended to do anyway.
By far a better solution IMO is to make sure the problem doesn't arise in the first place, with a cost system that doesn't encourage it.

[kenjib]

You've already got the cost scale, so all you need to do is come up with suitable new numbers for the priorities chart values A-F and test it out to see how it works in practice.  Sounds like an easy fix.  What do you think?

[Lance D. Allen]

So, question..

If the "worst" minmaxer is the best roleplayer.. Does his minmaxing create play that is detrimental to the game? Does it ruin your enjoyment, or the enjoyment of other players? Or is it mainly a personal issue that you have?

I used to have a player who knew the Shadowrun system so well that he totally warped the intent of the rules to create a character, while perfectly legal, that most GMs would flatly deny. I loved it. He was easily one of the best roleplayers I knew, and so I let him play it, because I knew he'd make the game more interesting with the new character... and he did.

To me, the play is the thing. The characters' stats, abilities, etc. Are only support. So long as the minmaxing does not detract from play, then *I* have zero issues with it.

You may be different, but if you differ this much from me, then probably any opinions I give on the subject will not be applicable to your situation. Hope you find a workable solution.

[Darren Hill]

So, question..

If the "worst" minmaxer is the best roleplayer.. Does his minmaxing create play that is detrimental to the game? Does it ruin your enjoyment, or the enjoyment of other players? Or is it mainly a personal issue that you have?

He's not the best roleplayer, but he's up there. But I know from an out-of-game discussion with other players after a champions game that efficient, minimaxed character design can be resented when it leads to a noticeably better character - regardless of whether it affects play or not.

But there is also a personal issue. If characters are built with points, then I would like those points to have equal value wherever they are spent. If the cost of buying a stat during character design is not proportional to the cost of buying a stat during character advancement, then this cannot be met.

To me, the play is the thing. The characters' stats, abilities, etc. Are only support. So long as the minmaxing does not detract from play, then *I* have zero issues with it.

You may be different, but if you differ this much from me, then probably any opinions I give on the subject will not be applicable to your situation. Hope you find a workable solution.

I agree that the play is the thing, but for me, symmetry in the character design and advancement system is a different thing - maybe not as important, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth aiming for.

[Darren Hill]

You've already got the cost scale, so all you need to do is come up with suitable new numbers for the priorities chart values A-F and test it out to see how it works in practice.  Sounds like an easy fix.  What do you think?

Would I need to change the priorities? What did you have in mind?
The main reason for assessing a flat cost in character advancement (for stats 1-4 anyway) was so that I don't need to fiddle with stat poi nts gained for a given priority.
My reasoning: Since there's no miniaxing reason to put a stat lower than 4 (with a flat advancement cost), the main reason to do so should be in building a character.

I have thought about giving a few extra stat points across the board (equal at each point), to account for the likelihood that under the official system, characters might have boosted a few low stats before too long and thus have higher totals. I'm thinking in the ballpark of 2-4 points.