Rule 0 - The DM has the final say or Rule 1 - The Goal is for everyone to have fun.
If it's a good DM then he'll determine what kind of group he has and how they want to play or at the start of the campaign pow-wow with his group to figure out what they want in and out of play. If the majority doesn't want min/max cheese then you all need to discuss what exactly is cheesy.
For my group it's stuff that doesn't fit within the location of the campaign, the use of traits for anything other than background, Certain class/builds that are OP and ruin encounters, dumping stats but playing your character as if they're not, etc...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no simple rule. The whole point of min/maxing is to get as much as you can from following the rules. It's fair to enforce the principle that if something requires a really far-fetched interpretation of the rules, it's not allowed. That won't stop all powergaming though, since there are plenty of unambiguous powerful options.
There is however a fairly simple solution: communication. Talk to your players about what kind of things you think are going too far. Talk to the entire group and find a consensus about what's good and what's too much.
Be open to your players arguing that X is not really all that overpowered or cheesy. They might be right. I've often seen a GM take a stand on some power that in the eyes of many people is perfectly normal and balanced, but somehow the GM doesn't like it. Bonus points if the GM uses "realism" as an argument.
With one of my best friends, I've noticed that if I talk enthusiastically about how cool a particular power is, he'll be convinced that it's OP. It doesn't really matter what power I'm talking about; he thinks it's cheesy just because I talk about it in a certain way.
I think if you can establish a consensus with your group, you'll be happier than if you publish a 20-page list of combinations and things you consider cheesy and wrong.
Cheesing and power gaming is entirely subjective. In short, no, you're impressions of your gaming group would lead me to believe that your gaming group doesn't share your perspective.
Just talk to your players and explain your expectations.
Power gaming isn't really an issue unless other players aren't having fun because of it.
Is there a simple rule that prevents min-maxing and power gaming? Maybe some suggestion in the SRD that deals with this. Inevitably in my games, one player ends up creating a cheesy min-maxed silly character.
What house rules on char creation can completely kill off all cheese 100%?
Be clear and upfront with your players about the expected power level of the game you want to run. You need to use examples. Be specific. What one person sees as cheese another person sees as a reasonable option. Examples of things I have seen called cheese that I find perfectly reasonable; clustered shots, step up, summoner class, lore warden archetype, fleet (yes, really), empyreal bloodline, Orc bloodline, +2 headband of intellect, adamantine, charm person.
So talk to your players about it. That is the best way to have a game at the power level you want with everyone on board rather than trying to buck your house rule at every turn.
Stick to the 15 point buy.
Strongly consider the PFS average hits per level and definitely consider banning any Archetypes that the PFS has banned.
Scrap the Leadership feat.
Do not open the magic store, but rather force players to use the RAW in acquiring items (the 75% availability and settlement limits actually help to keep things quite reasonable).
Keep a very close handle on PC wealth. Take it away when it gets way out of hand, turn the faucet on when they fall behind.
Read and apply the DM's Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters.
Read the FAQ, figure out how the various exploits are really supposed to work, RTFM and get on top of the rules.
That should just about do it.
First, define what you think is cheesy/min-max.
Share your definition.
Everyone's idea of these concepts is different, so unless you inform your players, you can't expect them to know where you draw the line.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see min-maxing as a problem in it self, I always want to play a character that is usefull, but it's a problem when it goes too far.
The problem with power-gaming and crazy min-maxing isn't that a player is able to overcome most or all obstacles with ease. The DM can always bump the CR up. The problem is that when you do so, to challange the party, the less powerfull characters will have a hard time. Either power-gamer play easy mode, and act as the overlord, or the less min-maxed play hard mode.
This is at least what I see the problem as and I will give advice accoringly.
Agreed.
Advice your palyers to not do it, for the sake of the group and everyones fun.
Agreed. This is the most mature option.
Put hard to hard. Most min-maxed characters still have a few weaknesses, find it out and challange that player with it. Preferably something someone else can solve. But do not "target" the min-maxed character, it will come of as revenge which isn't good.
This sounds a bit contradictory.
Give more rewards to the weaker characters, aka reward the party with items that are better fitted for the weaker. In my group we have given the rogue about 20k gp worth of stuff in magic items. The rest have about an avarage of 10k. I my self have about 6k. I'm okay with it since I still out match the rogue in every aspect.
If the power-gamer isn't okay with this, it's a player problem. The argument "I want to have the most powerfull character at the table" isn't a valid one. Neither is "It's not fair to give them more stuff just because I'm a better optimiser".
I think this is rather unfair. Suppose that you think that Alice is 120% min-maxed, Bob is the schmuck who can't optimize if his life depended on it and has an only 80% effective character, and Carol, Dave, Eve, Francis, Gerald, Herbert, Imelda and Jean-Pierre are "normal" players with 100% effective characters.
So Bob gets +20% treasure and Alice -20%.
Dave and Eve meanwhile think this whole personalized treasure is silly.
(Remember that you considered them all "normal" players! :P )
My point: Deciding who is a min-maxer, who isn't, and who is a half-min-maxer is really quite subjective. By giving less treasure you're punishing someone for how you feel about them.
You also assume that someone min-maxes because the person wants to be the most powerful member of the group. That's not always the case. Personally I do tend to min-max, because I'm focused on beating the monsters, and on taking some interesting character concept that's mechanically inferior, and working to make it good enough to run with the normal crowd.
I think this is rather unfair. Suppose that you think that Alice is 120% min-maxed, Bob is the schmuck who can't optimize if his life depended on it and has an only 80% effective character, and Carol, Dave, Eve, Francis, Gerald, Herbert, Imelda and Jean-Pierre are "normal" players with 100% effective...
I don't think it's done before the game, at least that's not how we do it. It's rather that if I as GM notice some character is lagging behind - whether it's because it's a weak class or bad player tactics or the rest of the group is more min-maxed - I tend to give them rewards and loot that fit that character very well.
This is done as a reaction to seeing how things actually play out, not as a preventative measure (though of course it reduces the risk of it happening again).
How loot is divided however should probably be determined before the game as a social contract between the players. In our game everyone is friends and can usually manage to get along, so they tend to just decide who the item would benefit the most.
Also, at least all of my players prefer it this way; I'd say that makes it inherently fair, even if it's uneven.
|
|
@Gaberlunzie: that's fair enough for me :)
How treasure is divided shouldn't be up to the GM alone, it's something all players need to be happy with.
The problem with the GM trying to tailor treasure based on "setting back the min/maxer" is that it's rather subjective. If I was the min-maxer in question and I noticed the GM was intentionally leaving me out, I'd eventually have to ask him the following:
"If you don't want me at the table, why didn't you just tell me honestly?"
How treasure is divided I don't think the GM should have a say in at all, honestly. That's up to the players to decide; I as a GM will just have to adjust. :)
I generally try not to "set back the min/maxer"; it's usually better to help others get up to speed. If someone is acting like a munchkin or cheesing in a way that is disruptive to the game or breaks the campaign parameters, then as you say it should be dealt with through talking with the player.
One of the best ways to reduce min/maxing is to just use the Core Rule book, and allow no multi-classing. Or better yet, just allow Fighter, Mage, Rogue, and Cleric as the only allowable classes.
RAW is for steak. RAI is for games.
The whole issue is bogus, as previously noted. Back in 3.0, I realized our 'dm' was intimidated by my greater experience (I've been running longer than he has been alive) and so picked the class and race he considered weakest. I found out later he now considered that combination to NOW be the most powerful!
The real problem is perception, he was a weak 'dm' with poor skills at running. No inexperienced GM should just keep inviting people in. My last game at that table had 12 or 13 players and 3 fights in nearly 8 hours. I spent the last fight protecting the 'plushie casters' and he still got peeved when I dealt with a pair of tumbling Rogues. Truth is, I had built that toon for just that role for 9 levels and must admit to being so happy when I got to finally do what I did so well. Heck, I thought he set up a Spotlight moment for me!
A L10 Halfling Fighter in a party with 2 Wizards, 3 Sorcerers and a Druid (all 9 to 12 levels) and I was too unbalancing! I 'rebuilt' the toon as a Human to show him just how nasty I could have been and he still hasn't forgiven me.
In closing, do a self check to make sure you aren't the problem. Is he really trying to cheese or are you just not as sharp as he is? Does he min-max or avoid under optimizing? Nobody builds a pure character of any real power, there are always holes in the armor. Even the most powerful combination (Dwarf Cleric, preferably a war god) can be dropped by playing to weaknesses.
If all else fails, post his toon here so we can crib...er, steal...um advise you!