For the last ten or so game sessions, a few of my players of been munchkining and min/maxing badly. They know that that is a pet peeve of mine but they are doing it anyway. I have tried to explain that if they keep doing that, it makes it hard to design encounters to be challenging without having to do the same thing myself.
Any advice???
Thanks,
David
If that's how they want to play then that's how they want to play. You say this is just for the last 10 sessions or so. What happened back then?
If its 1? Pull him aside? If its multiple? Triple the CR using templates and class levels and minmax yourself. Optimize encounters. Ramp up the challenge so that the others start to talk to the Min/Maxers. Barring that? Well played Rakshasas/high level cr creatures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reward others for non-munchkining behaviour. The Munchkin is in it for some perceived reward - being the best, getting the most phat lewt, doing the most damage... whichever. When normal, reasonable characters get rewarded for being normal and reasonable (usually this happens in RP encounters), the Munchkin may alter its behaviour. For the wrong reason, but it's a start.
|
Limit the books and put specific rules on builds.
For my part, I set up the following rules for my current campaign:
*No slumbering hex (witch) or alchemical allocation (alchemist)
*All stats must be no higher than 16 or lower than 10 pre-racial bonuses
(so no starting with a 20 by dumping a stat or two to 7)
*No Gunslingers or Summoners (the former was actually for flavor more than munchkin-ness).
That at least offset what I "didn't want to deal with" as a GM. From there, well, they are going to build as they want, as long as they all play from a similar power level everything should be relatively fine. It's somewhat hard to just say "build your character badly"; most players prefer to have a character who does their job well and such, whether you think of that as "Munchkin" or not.
Beyond that, don't feel too attached to NPCs, especially at low levels; the wizard will end a lot of fights (even boss fights) with color spray and sleep. Higher levels this ceases to be as much of an issue; as monsters start getting higher SR and CMDs. So early let them win, challenge them when they are a little less squsihy and ready to take it :).
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it. I have tried to explain how I feel but it is going on deaf ears apparently.
I do not want to punish the rest of the group because of one character. I try very hard to balance the encounter for the group and CR, but when you have a 4th level character who can bump his AC to 32 during an encounter it makes it pretty hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the last ten or so game sessions, a few of my players of been munchkining and min/maxing badly. They know that that is a pet peeve of mine but they are doing it anyway. I have tried to explain that if they keep doing that, it makes it hard to design encounters to be challenging without having to do the same thing myself.
Any advice???
Thanks,
David
What's their response when you spoke with them? Some players have different views of what minmax is, and you could be running into this.
This is most definitely a player issue, so talking is key.
It's best when the group's playstyle is in agreement, too. Make sure to know the feelings of the other players as well. Is this the sort of game they want, or are they aggravated as well? If it's been adversely affecting the other players, then you have more ammo in your pocket, so to speak, and it also becomes more important to hold a conversation.
If it isn't something the rest of the players want, and it's causing you issues as a DM, you might take them aside and remind them: "the more time I have to spend developing and focusing encounters around you guys is less time I have for everyone else at the table."
...which is absolutely true, and just reminds them that their actions affect others at the table. It also puts the ball in their court, and gives them an opportunity to resolve it.
It sounds as though you may need to engage in a little social engineering, then. VRMH has some solid advice.
Reward the behavior you want to see at the table.
Also, it sounds as though it may be time to bring other players into the conversation. It's their game, too.
EDIT: You guys are fast. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
munchkining and min/maxing badly
If all players are minmaxer or munchkins, there is no problem, but if there is only one player you get some trouble, because he is better than the rest of the group.
I have tried to explain that if they keep doing that, it makes it hard to design encounters to be challenging without having to do the same thing myself.
Any advice???
Go for a detective or social campaigne and/or take encounters that don´t need a DC.
Because taking foes with i higher CR / more foes only give them the feeling, that they must minmax to deal with the foes.
(--> i.e. arms race in the Cold War)
So it's 1 and not a few? That's easy enough. You've warned him. Sounds like it's time to have a caster baddy show up for the party. In the great triumvirate of AC/saves/CMD, if you can't attack one you go after another. If you can't do any of those go after skill checks with intimidate and bluff. Intimidating someone is a set DC they can't really game and their sense motive is likely to be low making them a gullible character. You can then in-game, and very justifiably, have a bad guy tell them the mcguffin is over there in that dragon lair.
For typical Min/Max, it means being weak in something to boost something else. Play into those weaknesses. For example, if the players have minmaxed for combat, have more social or skill stuff in the game that require them to fall back on their nerfed stats.
MinMax usually exists because campaigns get focused too much in a particular narrow scope of activities. Broaden the base so everything has utility and that will discourage chronic minmax. Just be aware that nothing will totally eliminate it.
|
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it. I have tried to explain how I feel but it is going on deaf ears apparently.
I do not want to punish the rest of the group because of one character. I try very hard to balance the encounter for the group and CR, but when you have a 4th level character who can bump his AC to 32 during an encounter it makes it pretty hard.
So ignore the monk. If he has maxed his AC his damage is likely not that great, assuming you are not using rolled stats and he "got lucky". Have characters move around him or target touch AC. Make sure he isn't abusing action by using multiple Ki powers or Style feats that require Swift Actions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it. I have tried to explain how I feel but it is going on deaf ears apparently.
I do not want to punish the rest of the group because of one character. I try very hard to balance the encounter for the group and CR, but when you have a 4th level character who can bump his AC to 32 during an encounter it makes it pretty hard.
Make an NPC use the same build and tactics he uses with an advanced template.
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it. I have tried to explain how I feel but it is going on deaf ears apparently.
I do not want to punish the rest of the group because of one character. I try very hard to balance the encounter for the group and CR, but when you have a 4th level character who can bump his AC to 32 during an encounter it makes it pretty hard.
1) What is your definition of munchkining?
2) How is his AC going up to 32?
3) he can't possibly be doing any worthwhile damage.
4) 4th level? Drop him with a colour spray or sleep.
I was about to ask the same things :)
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it. I have tried to explain how I feel but it is going on deaf ears apparently.
I do not want to punish the rest of the group because of one character. I try very hard to balance the encounter for the group and CR, but when you have a 4th level character who can bump his AC to 32 during an encounter it makes it pretty hard.
1) What is your definition of munchkining?
2) How is his AC going up to 32?
3) he can't possibly be doing any worthwhile damage.
4) 4th level? Drop him with a colour spray or sleep.
1) It's kinda like what is obscene. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
2) I have asked that same question. But he swears it has something to do with buffs, fighting defensively, and some monk stuff. I have told everyone that I am going to audit all the characters, I just hate doing that.3) True, he misses somewhat but he does some elemental fist thing that adds damage to his strikes.
4) Yeah, sounds like a good idea.
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it. I have tried to explain how I feel but it is going on deaf ears apparently.
I do not want to punish the rest of the group because of one character. I try very hard to balance the encounter for the group and CR, but when you have a 4th level character who can bump his AC to 32 during an encounter it makes it pretty hard.
He's had a knee jerk reaction. His last character died and he decided to make certain that his next one doesn't. He might not think of it that way, but that seems to me what's happened.
Firstly, don't do anything that "punishes" him. The aim is to bring him more in line with everyone else, not to pick on one player. That said, there's nothing wrong with split-challenge encounters: include a creature just for him, and the rest of the encounter for everyone else.
More thoughts later...
|
|
2) I have asked that same question. But he swears it has something to do with buffs, fighting defensively, and some monk stuff. I have told everyone that I am going to audit all the characters, I just hate doing that.
If he is Qinggong, he should have Barkskin up. Fighting Defensive will boos his AC, but lower his to hit. Make sure he is accounting for that. Monk stuff at level 4 depends on having a high wisdom and using a Ki point to boost his AC for a round at the cost of a Swift action. Make sure that he is not using multiple swift actions per round, and make sure that his Ki Pool actually has enough points to cover everything he is doing. A level 4 monk has a very small ki pool.
3) True, he misses somewhat but he does some elemental fist thing that adds damage to his strikes.
Elemental Fist is useable once per day per monk level, and no more than once per round. Also it has to hit to work like stunning fist, if you miss, you lose the attempt.
|
You make sure the encounters you use effect the min as well as the max.
Also, if he is 4th level with 32 AC, you need to audit. Not saying it can't be done, but I am saying it is more likely he is stacking things that don't stack or reading rules incorrectly.
If he won't adjust to the group, forget to invite him to the next session...
2) I have asked that same question. But he swears it has something to do with buffs, fighting defensively, and some monk stuff. I have told everyone that I am going to audit all the characters, I just hate doing that.If he is Qinggong, he should have Barkskin up. Fighting Defensive will boos his AC, but lower his to hit. Make sure he is accounting for that. Monk stuff at level 4 depends on having a high wisdom and using a Ki point to boost his AC for a round at the cost of a Swift action. Make sure that he is not using multiple swift actions per round, and make sure that his Ki Pool actually has enough points to cover everything he is doing. A level 4 monk has a very small ki pool.
Elemental Fist is useable once per day per monk level, and no more than once per round. Also it has to hit to work like stunning fist, if you miss, you lose the attempt.
3) True, he misses somewhat but he does some elemental fist thing that adds damage to his strikes.
Ahhh, That is one problem then. He is attacking, waiting to see if he hits, then saying if he is using the elemental first. I will watch that more closely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, you asked him how his ac is 32 and he didnt then explain in detail where the numbers are coming from? Theres your problem right there, you are the dm. If you are not aware of something it doesnt exist, no matter what is present on the character sheet.
Personally, I have adopted a policy of line item approval for anything out of the core rules, in which the players have to explain to me what they are trying to accomplish with each item. Now I dont veto alot, but it means I know where and how the players get their abilities from.
In addition, it isnt ok for someone to have deaf ears to the dm. This is one of those social moments where you need to establish yourself. Regardless of play style, you as the dm put alot of work into something that is supposed to be fun for you and your friends. If a player is refusing to work with you in regards to their character, they shouldn't be at your table.
|
|
Also, if a monk is being a worry on both AC and damage, you may want to look at your stat/money allocation. That would imply a high Str, Dex, and Wis, as well as generous magic items.
Even with all of that, you'd have to be INSANELY generous to reach a 32; fighting defensive with barkskin and AC adjustment and a wizard that casts barkskin should get you into the 28 range... but honestly a high AC character that can do no damage is not a problem. And if he elemental fists, even if he calls it wrong... it's d6 (3.5) extra damage 4 times per day (and it's just 1 attack, not even all attacks per round).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Throw up a couple of swarms. Game over man... GAME OVER.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it. I have tried to explain how I feel but it is going on deaf ears apparently.
I do not want to punish the rest of the group because of one character. I try very hard to balance the encounter for the group and CR, but when you have a 4th level character who can bump his AC to 32 during an encounter it makes it pretty hard.
1) What is your definition of munchkining?
2) How is his AC going up to 32?
3) he can't possibly be doing any worthwhile damage.
4) 4th level? Drop him with a colour spray or sleep.1) It's kinda like what is obscene. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
2) I have asked that same question. But he swears it has something to do with buffs, fighting defensively, and some monk stuff. I have told everyone that I am going to audit all the characters, I just hate doing that.
3) True, he misses somewhat but he does some elemental fist thing that adds damage to his strikes.
4) Yeah, sounds like a good idea.
1.The problem here is that the term munchkin varies by person. You might want to sit down and think about it so your player knows what your definition is, or at least has no more excuses.
2. Do what you have to do. By chance did you have him roll for for abilities, or did you use point buy? If so what did you use?
4.He is a monk. He will most likely make the save.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Err, forgive my abrasiveness, but if you aren't doing character audits, and don't know exactly what he's using to get to 32AC at level 4, you aren't doing your job as DM.
"He swears it has something to do with buffs, fighting defensively, and some monk stuff."
Unacceptable. Your inaction in character build audits and inattentiveness to the ruleset have allowed him to accomplish the very thing you hate and define as munchkining.
To his credit, and as a career monk player, I can say that you can indeed build a monk to 32AC at level 4 legally, but your to-hit and damage suffer greatly.
"He does some elemental fist thing that adds damage to his strikes."
Again, this makes me question whether you have enough knowledge in the DM seat to know whether something is legal or min/maxed and munchkin.
That being said, and my personal opinion aside, if he is detracting from the fun of the other players, and making you work harder as a DM to overcome the "obstacle" of his character, then you tailor future encounters to bring the monk down to the level of the other players.
There are plenty of suggestions above to do this. My recommendation is having a monster with decent targeted DR and a wicked strength/CMB come up against this "Turtle Monk".
Is it punishing the monk? Hell no it isn't. It's giving a munchkin the lesson that every build has a weakness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
disjunction them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ;)
|
|
I'm also curious to what is stats are and if you use point buy or rolling to generate them. If it's point buy he would need to max DEX and WIS to get his AC, which will mean his STR and CON will suffer. IT seems like he does have trouble hitting, but if his CON is only a 10, then he will have few hitpoints if you do hit and he will be weak to fortitude saves.
I'd really just like to look at the character sheet to see what is going on. He is likely either min-maxed to boost AC at the exclusion of all else or he is making a rules mistake.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Waitwaitwait. So in the OP, we're told that the players already know you don't like minmaxing. And we're told later that the issue started with a new PC created after his old one died, which means that the old PC wasn't an issue.
So if I'm following this right, the player was used to building PCs of a certain power level, but he deliberately built a weaker character just to accommodate your preferences, and then that character died, so he built a stronger PC to replace it, and you're upset with the player?
The social contract goes both ways. Don't ask people to make weaker PCs and then kill them. By having made the first PC your way, he was showing trust. When you killed that PC, you betrayed that trust and showed him that his minmaxing was necessary to survive.
The player already tried to be accommodating, and you blew it up in his face. Now it's your turn to be accommodating and let him enjoy his impenetrable defenses (minus any errors, of course). If you run the game from here forward in such a way that he feels he can trust you again, then perhaps he'll ease off the throttle a bit (perhaps ceasing to fight defensively or use Combat Expertise, or neglecting defensive gear for a while). But not until he trusts you again.
Best of luck.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. There's not enough data to support this player was "used to building PC's of a certain power level" and "made a weaker character to be accomodating".
|
|
Let's see if I can min-max this, 20 point buy, and get the 32:
Aasmir Drunken Master Monk of the Sacrd Mountains +Wis/Dex
Str: 7
Int: 10
Wis: 18 (20 with magic item)
Dex: 19 (20 after level up, 22 with magic item)
Con: 14
Chr: 7
My trait lets me combat experitse for -1 less to my attack bonus.
I bought an Agile Amulet of Mighty fist, a wand of mage armor for the party's mage, a +1 ring of protection, a headband of Wisdom, and a Belt of dex +2
Feats: 1) Combat Expertise, Weapon Finessee
2) Dodge
3) Crane Style 1
I always fight defensivly with combat expertise; and when in dangerous area ask for mage armor.
So base AC: 21 (Wis + Dex bonuses), +1 (Combat Expertise), +3 (Fighting Defensively) +2 (Standing still, Sacred Mountain) +1 (Ring of Protection) +1 (Monk Level), and, 9 times (plus drunken ki) per day (Ki Pool) can be +4 extra. That's a 33.
And I'm still hitting at +7/+7 for d8+6. Soon I'll also pick up trip and knock people down well too.
Yeah, guess it is possible. Who said monks are weak? :).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
pitch black dart thread
here are some darts
you are in a pitch black room
there is possibly a dart board in here
hit the bullseye
|
|
Not bad Thalin, but if you had to play that character from level 1 it would be hell before you got the Agile AoMF. +2/+2 for 1d6-1 is not good at all at level 1, and even at level 4 +7/+7 for d8-1 isn't that much better.
While we all plan monk builds that rely on Agile or Guided AoMF, depending on the game and GM, it's not guaranteed that you may get one.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You're making a lot of assumptions here. There's not enough data to support this player was "used to building PC's of a certain power level" and "made a weaker character to be accomodating".
I definitely could be wrong, but I don't think my inferences are much of a stretch:
The OP specifically said that his players already know he doesn't like min-maxing. I think it's reasonable to conclude that they either talked about it beforehand or have some previous gaming experience together. Otherwise, how would they know his preference?
The OP also said (in a later post) that in 26 sessions, it wasn't until 10 sessions ago that there was a problem. So either everyone just happened to make PCs that fit his preferences by accident, or they used the aforementioned knowledge of his dislike of minmaxing to inform their decisions and intentionally built within his expectations.
From there, if the players were informed (either through experience or discussion) of the no-minmaxing preference, that sort of implies that they needed to be aware so that they didn't inadvertantly build stronger PCs than the GM wanted. After all, if the norm for a group is already in line with the GM's expectations, why would they talk about minmaxing enough for everyone to know where the GM draws the line?
So yes, I'm making inferences, but no, I don't think they're unreasonable ones based on the information given. I could of course be wrong, though, so if there's something in particular that you think I missed in one of his posts (or an inference I made that you think is pushing it), by all means, point it out. After all, this is the Advice forum, and good advice needs to be well-informed. :)
|
Sounds like standard crane stance antics. It's legal, it's good, but it's not munchkin. His to-hit will be subpar. His damage will be subpar. All he has is a bunch of defenses (AC, saves, and CMD). Additionally, he has to set himself up to have his AC. It should be MUCH lower before his first turn. If he can position himself to "tank" for the party and protect them from attackers, his character will work out amazingly. If not, the monsters take a couple of swings, see that they can't hit, but that he isn't a damage threat, and move around him to other targets.
Honestly, the best thing to do is probably to just keep playing as if there isn't a problem. I doubt this character can really make that big of an impact on well designed encounters. Otherwise, could you give examples of how this character is a problem in encounters (social or combat)?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am with Jiggy on this, though not necessarily on the "you betrayed that trust" (at least not knowingly).
The timeline, from the OP's posts is :
- Sessions 1 to 15 : all goes well, no munchkinism, player's PC (not munchkinized) succeeds at surviving.
- Session 16 : player's PC (non munchkinized) dies
- Session 17 to 26 : player's new PC is munchkinized and succeeds at surviving
- Now : GM is angry at having a munchkinized PC at the table and posts for advice on the boards
If you punish him through the game, or even worse kill his new character, how do you think this player will react ?
Does anyone really believe that the same cause (dead character) will end in a different result (back to non-munchkinism) ?
Or will it only reinforce the player's conviction that he did not munchkin his new character (the Monk) enough ?
Or even worse, he will end up believing that the GM hates him, picks on him and delights in killing his characters.
My advice is the same as Jiggy : talk with the player and find out how you can reignite his trust in both the game system and how you GM it.
It would be interesting to know how his first PC died, so that we can refine the arguments.
You can also ask him in which circumstances it would be okay for him that his character dies (if ever). You might be surprised by the results. Maybe he wants to die a hero, or maybe he is quite okay with his character dying if it is the logical result of bad decisions on his part.
You really need to be both crystal clear on your respective expectations on this obviously sensitive topic.
And then you give him your word that his PC will not die any lesser way.
A PC is EVERYTHING a player brings to the table. Do not dismiss it cheaply.
Nor is there any contract, social or otherwise, that says a Player Character is immune to death. If there was... why play? Just call in and say, "I win".
"Mr. DM, I know you don't like character X, so I'll play character Y but you have to Promise not to kill my character, ok?"
Or I suppose it could go this way...
"Mr. Player I can't stand when people make characters like X, so could you play a character like Y if I Promise, cross my heart, not to kill your character?
Seriously?
Not killing a character isn't part of the contract, but if my character died because of the limitations put in by the GM I'd certainly be working around those next time. Say they don't like iron will then I get hit by hold person and miss my will save by 1...well I'd probably be upset that I lost because of the limitations implemented by my GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nor is there any contract, social or otherwise, that says a Player Character is immune to death. If there was... why play? Just call in and say, "I win".
"Mr. DM, I know you don't like character X, so I'll play character Y but you have to Promise not to kill my character, ok?"
Or I suppose it could go this way...
"Mr. Player I can't stand when people make characters like X, so could you play a character like Y if I Promise, cross my heart, not to kill your character?
Seriously?
In most cases you'd be correct, but when the limitation requested by the GM is specifically to make a weaker PC than they otherwise would have, that kind of changes things. If he was going to make a PC at a certain power level, but the GM wanted a lower power level, that kind of implies that the higher power level would not be necessary to survive.
Now, I will add a caveat: if the death is a situation where the player feels that it's legitimate (i.e., they took a risk that they knew could end badly, or they know they made a serious mistake, or it was clearly part of the plot and therefore unavoidable, or whatever), then no foul.
But since the player's response to dying was to build not just a stronger PC, but a defense-oriented one? That tells me that (at least in the player's perspective) the death was the result of nothing more than having honored the GM's preference for no minmaxing. If a PC dies specifically because the player agreed to the GM's preference, that's different than dying in a way that wouldn't have been affected by that preference.
Do you see the difference?
|
|
If I were to actually play it from 1, I'd probably have Improved Trip online @ 3 (and take AOOs tripping before then), and get Crane online by 5. If no agile amulet showed up I might just focus on combat maneuvers and be amazing at those instead (probably a better call for a monk anyway).
But yeah, thinking through does make sense; a turtle monk is survivable, and I'd be frustrated if my "fun" character died early too. You sound like you may be a "GM vs Player" type; if you're going to ask for non min-max, you need to be gentle too. You can sit down as a group and discuss this if you need to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I super strongly not recommend escalating the power level. The single most effective tactic I've ever seen for getting a munchkin to stop munchkining is to let them be overpowered for a bit.. Boredom is an internal motivator and is by far more effective than any outside motivators in both curing, and more importantly maintaining a desire not to be a munchkin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you're making a LOT of assumptions. First and foremost is that a non-munchkin PC is a death magnet. It's not. I've survived plenty of deadly encounters with non-optimized characters. It's all about finding a solution to the problem at hand.
How did asking a player not to be a munchkin become a game limitation? If you're of the opinion that DPR and Action Economy are the end all, and that the game has a "win" and a "lose" scenario, then that would be all well and good.
But this game is not, let me repeat NOT designed around absolute optimization. The CR is designed around an averagely rolled Warrior, Mage, Thief, and Cleric concept, perhaps with 1 or 2 more added in. The adventure paths say how many characters of what level are intended.
The game is not designed around a level-dipping combat monkey who takes 2 levels of Ranger, 2 levels of Monk, 2 levels of Sorceror, and 10 levels of Dragon Disciple, has 7 natural/unarmed attacks per round plus quickened empowered spells to ensure that he is the Epitome of All Things. (And yes, this IS possible. This is what I believe the OP means when he defines munchkin or min/max.)
The DM's responsiblity is to adjust that experience up or down depending on the players and their relative strengths. He has many tools at his disposal, first and foremost of which is the evaluation of how play goes with this Uber Monk. Is it too easy? Give the monsters Giant, Advanced, or Undead templates. Raise the CR, HD, and DC of the monsters. Put 16 goblins in play instead of 10. Make it happen, make it challenging, make it fun. If you've killed a player, you made it too hard (assuming the PC didn't do something stupid or roll a 1 on his Acrobatics check to span a 1000 foot deep canyon...) But you're still in charge of making sure he doesn't go outside your agreed-upon definition of munchkin, as well as throttling back your death machine so your players still have fun.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Role play driven plot development