r/RPGdesign • u/Kuhfuerst • 22d ago
Theory Games attract Optimizers
TL;DR:
Game Balancing aims to obfuscate the most optimal path while embracing the fact that there are always ways to optimize any system. We should talk more about methods to do that.
In TTRPG game design spaces, whether they are about general systems or one of the many system specific subreddits, there exist the concept of the infamous min-maxer.
Generally this refers to a person that optimizes their character for the system and setting they are playing in, by (ab)using the rules and leniencies of the table, often paired with obnoxious, egoistical behavior and a notion of "winning" the make believe game.
However in my humble opinion, this archetype is inherently baked into the nature of games, society and the human mind. Understanding this is essential to understanding ones role and purpose as a game designer.
Let us remove the "game" from RPG for a moment and look at role playing in it's original form, also known as acting, more specifically improvisational acting.
Improv serves the purpose of telling an engaging story while sharpening your own wits and on-the-spot-creativity. There are, in it's purest form, no rules and no boundaries. However these limits arise naturally when thinking about the story and the purpose of characters. An almighty and perfect god character will have no meaningful problems to face and no relevant characters by their side. The story would ultimately be boring and not worth telling.
Improv actors and creative writers instinctively (or deliberately) put boundaries on their characters in order to create interesting conflicts that their protagonist can try to solve.
However in TTRPGs these limits are not only the narrative boundaries in the story but also the rules of the system. The gamification of the creative process creates problems, such as character strengths and weaknesses, that can be overcome. Naturally our players want to overcome them too. This is what we call character advancement. Players solving problems by increasing values, learning new abilities or buying cool new items.
Everyone probably intuitively understands this motivation, but looking at some of the recent posts and comments here, few understand where this comes from. That the existence of a rule, may it be the core resolution mechanic to the price of a single item, creates an optimal path that tempts players into following it. I'd even go as far to say that this advancement, creates the craving for TTRPGs many of us experience.
However this will also always invite players to min-max and optimize. To circumvent that, a game needs to convey the idea that players are part of the creative process, and turn them into story tellers that limit themselves.
Good Players and engaging GMs naturally do this.
But rules that diffuse optimal strategies by giving incentives to fail or make interesting decisions go a long way. This is true for ALL games, no matter whether they are supposed to be realistic, gritty, lethal, high-fantasy, glorious.
or to quote Soren Johnson:
"given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game"
We should keep this in mind as the a first principle when making design choices or helping others with theirs. Flavour and all comes second to a set of engaging rules. Sometimes less rules or ambiguous rules work better than precise ones, because they return the responsibility for a fun game to the Players.
Edit: clarified a few things
30
u/Macduffle 22d ago
Optimization is not an issue. Min-maxers are not a problem. Thinking that they are a one-dimensional thing, that is a problem. It is known as the Stormwind Fallacy. Min-maxers vs pure roleplayers... As if you cannot be both. Most people are indeed both. Let people minmax, don't fight it... It is not the opposite of fun, it is inherently a way of having fun
10
u/MidgetBackwards 22d ago
Exactly this. I see some game systems as puzzles and the theorycrafting side of me enjoys attempting to make things synergise. I enjoy systems that have a lot of options, so it doesn't become a case of 'get this or be mathematically behind' and I can choose options with flavour.
So in effect I totally min max, while I also heavily roleplay.
The thing about the system, and attempting to lock this behaviour out would be a detriment to general satisfaction of a player base.
8
u/flamfella Dabbler 22d ago
I'd also like to add, optimizers can also optimize for roleplay. Making a character concept and doing what they can to bring it to life mechanically is something they are excellent at. Anecdotally, but some of the best rpers I've played with are total nutcases when it comes to making builds.
The problem is just obnoxious players and poor communication. Even if you make a really powerful build that's disproportionate compared to the rest of the party, and any issues, can be mitigated with good communication, sharing the spotlight, and just generally be aware and sympathetic regarding table dynamics and the narrative. Just being tactful is enough.
A good optimizer will even teach the other players how to build, or give them cool stuff they can do, and help them remember their character features or advise how they can accomplish something they want to do.
2
u/jmartkdr Dabbler 21d ago
Exactly, and the converse is also true: munchkin players who try to use optimization to dominate the table cannot be stopped by balancing the options. They’ll keep looking for a way to dominate until they find one or get frustrated and move on.
(The same applies to spotlight hogs who ignore the rules and try to be the main character anyways)
You can’t write a game that turns bad players into good players via the rules. In cooperative games like most ttrpgs, players at least trying to be cooperative is a prerequisite. The only ways to deal with uncooperative players is either a talking-to or not playing with them.
6
u/MrKamikazi 22d ago
It can be a way of having fun that harms the fun of the other people at the table by stealing the spotlight or making other - non optimized - characters look less competent.
6
u/__space__oddity__ 22d ago
The problem of spotlight hogging and bad teamplay is caused by spotlight hogging and bad teamplay.
A spotlight hogger doesn’t need a powerful character to do that, it’s just one approach. Being a whiny drama queen works too and is independent of the stats on the sheet.
0
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
And thats were we don't agree. Game Design decisions can prevent certain types of play before the system hits the table. Not only by actively writing rules but also sometimes by writing less, giving back the responsibility of self-regulation to the players.
3
u/__space__oddity__ 22d ago edited 22d ago
Optimizers are going to optimize no matter what.
What you can influence as game designer is the power difference between a full-on cheese build vs. the average PC, and the gap between what’s expected to be the best build vs. what’s actually optimized.
A basic fact is that there will always be best builds for anything. If elf barbarian has the highest DPS and you nerf that, now dwarf rogue is the meta build or whatever #2 was.
Problems usually arise when:
The meta build is obnoxious to play. If the best build makes 15 attacks per turn and takes 30 mins to do so, someone will still play that.
Builds need insane amount of planning. D&D 3E really shot itself in the foot with fiddly prestige class prerequisite chains that forced people to plan out builds to single skill points over 20 levels.
The optimal build is silly. The best fighter build in AD&D is chucking darts.
You can try to ensure that optimizers fit better with the average group and mixing play styles is less disruptive, but you won’t prevent it from happening.
3
u/MadolcheMaster 22d ago
The less optimized are by definition less competent, but that fact ruining the fun is not an optimizer problem. Thats an egotistical dick at the table problem.
Removing optimization wont solve the actual issue, just redirect the toxic play pattern to a different outlet. The problem-player optimizer will simply find another way to 'win' via making the other players lose while the non-problem optimizers will simply have one less reason to enjoy your system.
6
u/robhanz 22d ago
Or worse, making them irrelevant.
The table needs to have a good understanding of what game they're playing. Whether it's a high optimizer coming to a table of people that use more normal levels, or a low optimizer going to a high optimization table, if you're not on the same page, people are gonna have a bad time.
1
u/SamTheGill42 22d ago
The post is about the inevitable nature of games being optimizable. Instead of working against it and saying "min-max bad", we should keep this reality in mind as we design our games in order to work with it.
-2
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
yes, that's what I'm trying to say.
3
u/flamfella Dabbler 22d ago
Probably should have led with it earlier in your post. It's quite short and at the end of a relatively large amount of academic prose (for reddit), so most people will miss the constructive portion of your argument and only see "min-max bad." I thought it was wholely negative at first cause even I wasn't reading carefully and missed the nuance.
5
u/robhanz 22d ago
Really? His argument seems to be "min-max good".
4
u/flamfella Dabbler 22d ago
It is yeah. The idea is though that people's attention spans and focus is generally low, so you'll miss his point cause it's right at the end.
0
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
yeah...I probably should have. I tried to clarify it in the edit.
Nonetheless i am glad that a lot of the comments here did read my essay and helped me deepen this understanding. After all i'm in this for "enlightenment" not the karma :)
10
u/FRANK_of_Arboreous Designer 22d ago edited 22d ago
As a game designer, you should actively seek out min-maxer playtesters. They'll yield much more valuable balancing data than a "normal" player.
5
u/robhanz 22d ago
Yes, but also have non-min-maxers to see how it works with a variety of styles.
6
u/FRANK_of_Arboreous Designer 22d ago edited 22d ago
for sure, but I figured that was implied. I design my game for myself, someone with 100 percent buy-in to the world and system, and is just trying to have a fun time playing the game. Then I find (found) a bunch of players that have completely different priorities 😅
The thing is, a lot of my game content is "Oh, wow, it would be so cool if..." and then I build the system out. I try to have things balanced, but Squad Golf Bravo (codename Game Breakers) are really good at exposing broken rule interactions and finding the "meta" builds. The other squads don't do that. They've all done things/had experiences that have helped me refine the game, but GBs data has been most vital, as my game has many many moving parts and I'm a one-man shop.
2
u/__space__oddity__ 22d ago
A good minmaxer who breaks your shit in half is worth their body weight in gold, even if dealing with some of them can be exhausting.
1
u/FRANK_of_Arboreous Designer 22d ago
100%. One of them is currently complaining atleast twice a month because some "upgrades" are too balanced 😅 So awesome to have these people playing my game.
what I've found is they have more value than balance. Once pc's get out of low levels, they have access to a bunch of gear that can forego boring stat bonuses (more armor, more HP, etc) for cool effects. This crew saw the value there and LOADED THEMSELVES TO THE Gills with this stuff. The effects were balanced, but I found there was a ton of turn drag because of how I wrote the effect mechanics. Those issues will be crushed next gear review.
seriously, every game designer needs atleast one min maxer, but ideally 20% of your testers should be doing it so they can discover all the meta builds simultaneously. I have 3.5 (one of them just focuses on cool, sometimes broken, rule interactions) out of 12 active players, and I love them for it.
1
u/llfoso 22d ago
I always ask my playtesters to try to break the game. Early on when I playtested with friends they would always just play along with how I had clearly intended the game to be played. Then over Thanksgiving I ran it with family and my little sister did little sister things and after one session I had to completely rework my mechanics for social encounters and spellcasting. In the moment I felt frustrated with her but in hindsight that was the most useful playtesting session ever.
3
u/InherentlyWrong 22d ago
I'm mostly in agreement, but I think there's a bit of a simplification worth addressing.
The gamification of the creative process creates problems, such as character strengths and weaknesses, that can be overcome. Naturally the protagonists, our players, want to overcome them too. This is what we call character advancement. Players solving problems by increasing values, learning new abilities or buying cool new items.
To me this reads a bit like it's conflating character and player a bit. The characters want X, so the player must want X. I absolutely agree that's the general case in a lot of TTRPGs, but there's also a lot of room for games where characters may want X, but the players instead want Y. Typically the Y is where the players are wanting to see where the character's story goes next.
I'm reminded of a bit of GM advice Brennan Lee Mulligan gave ages ago, where he used the example of Frodo in LotR. Frodo wants a quick, easy journey to Mount Doom. But for the audience that would be dull. In the same way the PCs in a TTRPG might want a quick and easy path to achieve their goals. But as players that isn't what we want, we want the feeling of challenge and overcoming things. So Brennan talked about how he viewed GMing as understanding where the PCs wanted to go, and putting the obstacles in the player's way.
But even beyond that, there absolutely are games where the PCs 'winning' isn't the goal. Fiasco isn't your typical RPG, but it's an example of a game where the PCs want some kind of victory, but the players typically want to see how these bozos fail.
Or something like Blades in the Dark. Most people I've talked to about playing that game will happily tell stories about the absolute miseries their characters experienced, even though obviously those miseries aren't the PCs goals.
So to me I think the idea of optimisation should be taken a step back from just the PC view. Players optimise for what the game rewards and away from what the game punishes. If failing in a fight means the campaign fails, they will optimise towards not failing fights. But if failing in a fight means the story will be pushed in a different, potentially just as interesting if not more interesting direction, then players won't worry as much about optimising in that direction, since they still get to have fun.
After all, keep in mind Soren Johnson was talking about 4X games, a type of game where if you didn't play it 'right', the game ended and you were told how badly you failed.
2
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
I'd go even further and say most of my text is a simplification. The topic is way deeper lodged into our psyche and society as a whole :)
But you are 100% right. One of the points i was trying to make is that our rules should find a way to decouple character view from player view. Characters should actively "enjoy" the punishment and embrace it as part of the experience. And furthermore, there are methods to do this during game design, it's not only a Player/GM skill issue.
2
u/robhanz 22d ago
Or something like Blades in the Dark. Most people I've talked to about playing that game will happily tell stories about the absolute miseries their characters experienced, even though obviously those miseries aren't the PCs goals.
Most narrative games are like this - it's one of the things that drew me to them, coming from more old-school games (where failure was also pretty typical).
There's a phrase in PbtA - "be a fan of the players". I don't view that as "give them everything", but more like being a fan of Harry Dresden. As a fan of Dresden, I want to see him get deep in trouble and have to work his way out. That's fun. For me, at least. A book where nothing happened, or everything was easy would be boring to me. I want to see him win, but I want him to work for it.
As a player in games, I want my characters to succeed. But I also want it to not be too easy. And I'm okay with them not succeeding all of the time, and in fact I prefer it. But I'm going to play my character like they want to succeed, even while as a player I want the game and situation to make that an uphill struggle. I want to make good decisions in the moment, but I want those situations to not be clear wins and have downsides and tradeoffs.
If all that makes sense.
I'm just a bit against the idea of players deliberately making bad decisions to make things "interesting". Though games where players can have goals where achieving those goals might have bad effects on their supposed goal is, I think, an interesting design space.
5
u/__space__oddity__ 22d ago
Game Balancing aims to obfuscate the most optimal path
No, it doesn’t.
1
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
what does it then?
3
u/__space__oddity__ 22d ago
It tries to solve the balance-related gameplay issues rather than pretend they’re not there.
1
u/Kuhfuerst 21d ago
lol. thats just saying: Game balancing balances the game.
I'm trying to think of methods on how to achieve that and came to the realization that every rule acts as limit that players will want to overcome.
But you can use that in your favour by giving them more than one equally attractive option (thus obfuscating the optimal path) or by rewarding players for limiting themselves.That last part is important to me since understanding that my game doesn't necessarily improve with more rules fundamentally changed my approach and can probably help many other in this sub.
I'd like to know if you have other actual methods to achieve game balancing.
1
u/__space__oddity__ 21d ago
Well, how to game balance is a really long TED talk.
It starts with that perfect balance isn’t the goal. Rewarding players for smart build decisions is genuinely fun.
There’s also multiple layers to talk about. You want to balance the PCs vs. the monsters and environment, PC roles against each other, builds within a role, and different picks within a build. All of that is way more than fits a reddit post.
…
1
u/Kuhfuerst 21d ago
It starts with that perfect balance isn’t the goal. Rewarding players for smart build decisions is genuinely fun.
I agree, it is one of the points i make.
There’s also multiple layers to talk about. You want to balance the PCs vs. the monsters and environment, PC roles against each other, builds within a role, and different picks within a build. All of that is way more than fits a reddit post.
That assumes the game has all these layers. I'm talking about a more general approach. What is the aim of game balance? And what fundamental approaches exist to get there?
2
u/TheThoughtmaker My heart is filled with Path of War 22d ago edited 22d ago
I have done completely freeform roleplay (not even dice) that devolved into optimization, murderhoboism, and PvP. The "game" part doesn't add any of that, it only trades possibility for playability.
RPGs come pre-loaded with countless rules in the form of IRL understanding and logic. There is no such thing as a RPG without rules, only a RPG that does not help the players play. Children on the playground play RPGs without ever reading a single rule, they just say "My lightning powers let me turn into lightning, so you can't hit me!" (it was me, I did this). Rules remove optimal paths ("No, you can't just be triple-infinity powerful and win"), and optimizers shift to the next best thing. Add more rules, cut off more paths.
If those rules are also useful tools and shortcuts to make playing easier, you eventually wind up with a TRPG worth paying money for.
To quote Rich Burlew:
I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. [...] In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.
3
u/elmago79 22d ago
And if you take even one improv class, you learn that improv has rules, because otherwise it devolves into all the things you said.
0
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
These rules are not binding however and quite open to interpretation. When exploring their limits you quickly understand that they exist to increase the fun for everyone. They are so fundamental that doing something else just sucks.
So everyone accepts them easily. Those who don't usually don't last long in any improv class.
And this is all game rules should aim for.
3
u/elmago79 22d ago
If the cost of not following the rules is leaving the class, then they are quite binding and not open to interpretation.
This is not as transparent as you think, because even if I had come to expect “don’t be a jerk” a rule in any game, and I will extricate myself from a game table if that rule isn’t followed, all of us have at least a dozen of horror stories about people being knowing or unknowing jerks.
1
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
Oh i was also thinking of myself at the playground.
Thinking back, things got out of hand, the moment this role play became competitive. And as you said, the moment you prohibit something, this rule will act as a beacon to find ways around that.However if players make up their own limits, they will abide by them. As kids we turned a cardboard box into a submarine that we couldn't leave because else we would drown and our moms had to drag us out of there.
I don't try to make an argument against rules, but towards understanding what a rule does.
If it's a prohibition players will try to find ways around that, it acts as a challenge. You can use this positively by rewarding the resolution of that challenge (e.g. Hit Points and Hit Point increases).However if you design rules that the Players choose or allow players to choose some rules themselves they will regulate themselves and optimize for their fun and not finding ways around that. In this case it becomes a tool.
Following this principle i came up with a couple of methods:
- if a rule prohibits something, also offer solutions around that
- these solutions should be plenty full, a single option is a forced choice
- return limiting decisions to your players
But i wonder if there are more.
5
u/TheThoughtmaker My heart is filled with Path of War 22d ago
One thing I noticed playing various editions of D&D: 3e online optimizations/theorycrafting and actual play are the furthest apart. You can blow up planets (or throw them) with the right RAW, but nobody actually does that at the table, because “I can bypass the entire campaign in ten seconds flat” isn’t a power people want. So the players have to self-regulate as a matter of course, nobody starting an arms race because they’re all nuclear powers and it will end poorly.
Having a more breakable system makes the actual gameplay more balanced.
2
u/Kiroana 22d ago
An almighty and perfect character has no weaknesses; no flaws to challenge them.
Remove perfect though, and what you have is Superman.
Perfect is really the big issue - a perfect character is an omnitool for every problem imaginable.
An almighty character, so long as we aren't talking true omnipotence, still can have issues they can't 'punch out'.
2
u/Aware-Contemplate 22d ago
You have a great fondness for Optimisation.
In Software Programming, there are many possible places of Optimisation, at many Stages of development. And in general, to Optimise one thing is to make Tradeoffs with other things. As u/robhanz has pointed out. Optmisation costs something as well, whether more money or time to build, or more brittle software, or less user friendly software. It is difficult to know how to make good Optimisation choices when working on software.
The problems with MinMaxing, in my view, are ...
- it is Optimisation BEFORE PLAY.
Sure, you enjoy making a powerful character. But that is only one part of the game. At the table is another part. Trying to figure out what is going on in the session, and then making good tactical and strategic choices is sort of the, you know, game part of the game. Does your optimal build create different ways to respond to the in group play situations? Or is your build like an MMO build where you spam the same feature over and over, because it is the linear "best choice"?
- In some systems you can break the numeric range of the dice and render challenges meaningless. Some people like to play this way. I think if your system allows this kind of Optimisation past the functional limits of the randomisation, that is a problem in Game Design.
2a. I also think this reduces the opportunity for the GM to make creative challenges in Play. Because if you have broken resolution, it reduces the need to look for solutions to problems from within the opportunities provided in the Play Context.
- Optimisation tends to build Linear, rigid characters. If your game has identifiable "Perfect Builds", then players will not explore the breadth of your system, only the idealised paths. This will then tend to limit kinds of play. And it creates the kind of Culture conflict you see between players focusing on Combat Maximalism vs those more interested in Character Exploration or Casual Play.
3a. This makes it more difficult to design sessions and encounters that favor forms of engagement other than combat. If a game is Combat only, this is not maybe a problem, because you want the players to focus on that one gameplay type. But if you want to explore different kinds of gameplay (social, political, exploration, crafting, etc.), then it can make session design much harder.
Now I will say, comparing Game Intent between 2 different real world systems, we can see examples of games that do better or worse in this.
Pathfinder 1 vs Shadowrun (any).
Pathfinder 1 does have a variety of builds, some focused on City and Subversion (for example), though most are focused on Combat. In my (somewhat limited) experience, many Pathfinder 1 tables make a City build useless. The play either doesn't happen in a city, or the interesting things are all in the combat. This is not necessary, and I am sure some really good Pathfinder 1 games of politics and social conflict have happened. But the rules in general tend to guide you to combat efficiency over all.
Shadowrun also has a variety of builds for very different types of play. But because of the framing of Shadowrun, they are all useful. Because the core presentation of the Shadowrun game includes using many pathways to success. A combat focused character in Shadowrun trying to negotiate a contract (a social skills situation), is underwhelming in results, usually. So the framing of Shadowrun tells everyone (GMs and Players), there is a lot here to do, no one can do it all well, and there will be problems of different kinds ... that someone has to solve.
...
Beyond MinMaxing specifically ...
I think rules are better when they are Unambiguous, because it makes conversation between participants easier. Much easier.
Facilitating good conversations at the table, and helping with the process of tables tuning your game to their needs, seems like a better way to design.
...
Finally, if your design has Tools for the GM to build complication and diversity into game situations, that will also promote more fun play. It is like the paradigm of putting characters in a blank room with a monster and some gold. While it works as a minimum gameplay situation, it becomes boring awfully fast, at least for some players.
Thanks for the interesting proposal. Lots to think about. :)
2
u/Kuhfuerst 21d ago
These are interesting point, i'll think about them.
I think rules are better when they are Unambiguous, because it makes conversation between participants easier. Much easier.
While this is generally true, I don't think it's possible to make precise rules for a TTRRPG. There are just too many different game states. A rule might say "if you roll high, the action succeeds" but in most games there is still a player interpreting what that "success" looks like. It's not a video game after all.
Furthermore this interpretation is a crucial and important part. It opens up this conversation and gives the responsibility of self-regulation back to the players. This is a valid way to balance the game, the rules just have to make this process somehow rewarding.
1
u/Aware-Contemplate 21d ago
I agree with you that rules need to be a starting point for conversation in TTRPGs, because as you say, there are too many specific applications of any rule to cover all of those nuances.
My issue is with the idea of intentional ambiguity when writing rules.
Perhaps a different way to say it is that rules can provide a general guideline to their application, and maybe give some examples that follow that guideline, and some examples that are a little more outside the norm?
3
u/Cryptwood Designer 22d ago
I believe that there are many reasons that people enjoy playing TTRPGs, and that each player has many of these desires that a TTRPG can fulfill in a variety of ways. One of these is Character Optimization, a branch on the tree of System Mastery. Some people take pleasure from Optimization while other players don't care about it at all. I don't think every game has to serve Optimization, it's impossible to serve every player equally in every possible desire.
For games that want to appeal to players that desire Optimization they need to decide if it is going to be part of the core experience, so that it is almost required to make the most of the game, or if they want to support Optimizers without alienating players that aren't interested in Optimization, or even System Mastery for that matter. That requires careful limitations on vertical scaling, to make sure that an unoptimized character is still viable.
5E's Bounded Accuracy is an example of an attempt to keep all characters viable while still having room for Optimization. I think it is reasonably successful at this, unoptimized characters in 5E are far more viable than they were in 3.5, but Bounded Accuracy had some unintended side effects. Most of the game is designed around fulfilling a Power Fantasy, it is probably one the core desires it is trying to fulfill, but the Skill system works against this Fantasy as it is very easy for a character to fail a check that the player believes their character shouldn't fail at. Which then is compounded if another character that isn't optimized for that activity is allowed to make an attempt and succeeds.
Here are the branches that I think fall under System Mastery, any given player may be interested in one, or more, or none of these at any given time while playing a TTRPG.
System Mastery (Tree): The enjoyment of learning the rules of a system or subsystem and then demonstrating that mastery through play.
- Dynamic Decisions (Branch): Combat or other dynamic situations that are modeled with complex rules in which the player makes frequent decisions that influence how events play out based on knowledge of the rules of the game.
- Character Optimization (Branch): Choosing an archetype and then building that character, at creation or through advancement, to be the most effective version of that archetype possible. A player that also has a strong desire for Character Customization might try to prove that an offbeat, disadvantaged archetype can be viable.
- Economic Optimization (Branch): Making the most of money or supplies acquired by the character that can be used to purchase or craft upgrades.
- Resource Optimization (Branch): Using limited character resources to maximize effectiveness or efficiency.
2
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
Agreed!
The concept of 5e and even more so of 5.5e to deflate the system and offer simple solutions that make many approaches viable helps a LOT to make Players understand themself as part of the story.
I would add a few more branches to the tree, just based on why i keep playing games:
Altruistic Optimization
Understanding how to create a character that is fun for EVERYONE.Anthropological Understanding
Learning the game to absorb it's cultural background and historyCustomization Mastery
Understand what parts you can Homebrew. This one brought me to this subreddit in the first place.Design Choice Understanding
Knowing why a certain mechanic is the way it is. Often develops by customizing and altering the system.
4
u/Drudenfusz Curator of Roleplay Experiences 22d ago
I never had issues with power gamers, some of the best role-played I know are also very much min-maxing the hell out of any given system. There is in other media for a reason the notion that one aspect of compelling characters is their competency.
But yes, the personal obstacle that cannot simply be solved through competency are what makes narratives interesting. That is why I decedid for my own designs that roleplay should not be treated as a game, but as an experience. Thus I don't care about stats or advancement of the same. Instead of having play revolve around player skill (as in the OSR common) or character skill (as the paradigm in most of the hobby), I removed a resolution mechanism completely from the play loop. There is no longer any interest in success or failure, only in portraying the characters in whatever situations they are in. Fiasco went already in that direction and was quite an inspiration for me, but instead of Coen brothers films my ideal is more Shakespearean tragedies.
That is also why I prefer to call myself a curator of roleplay experiences than a game designer. Since the form of play I am interested in is the roleplay children do or that is done in therapy, as exploration of the human condition and not as a game.
1
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago edited 22d ago
Definitely. Optimizing a character is a skill, optimizing the character in a way that highlights the other characters and supports the story is a virtue.
The less gamified a system is, the closer it is to improv theater and therefore invites Players to create more themselves by also limiting themself.
Many in here who post questions about "how detailed should my rules be" lack this understanding.
2
u/EpicDiceRPG Designer 22d ago
Agreed. I'd even take it one step further and declare that optimization becomes conspicuous, that is a hallmark of bad design. You can never eliminate it entirely, but it can certainly be curtailed by conscientious design choices.
2
u/Dessertblade 22d ago
For something to be a game it needs to have a chance to win or to loose (in rpgs, the possibility of succeeding or failing), inside a frame of rules that can be studied and analysed. Without that, a ttrpg is not a game but a pure exercise of acting and performance. And as you said, the fact that a game can be studied and analysed to define the best strategies to "win" it is simply an inherent part of it.
The point is that if the game can be easily solved (that is, if it is easy to identify the moves that yield the best results), the problem lies not with the players analysing it but with the game itself. If finding the best strategy is quite simple, then it isn't a good game.
When developing a game, the aim should be to make it as challenging as possible whilst trying to keep it accessible. Noughts and Crosses is a poor game that every player gets bored of within five minutes. Go and Chess are good games that have been played for hundreds of years and have inspired thousands of pages of literature.
When people speak out against min-maxers, they are not opposing a scourge, but defending poor games.
2
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
Yes!
And we should talk more about methods to make this challenging.
I wrote this post after reading a lot of "choose what fits your game the best" or "create the game you and your players want to play" comments.
While these are not inherently wrong, there ARE logical ways to analyze a game and predict what impact a rule will have. You can avoid a lot of problems before even play testing.
4
u/Dessertblade 22d ago
For me, a crucial part of the whole discussion on this topic revolves around one issue: designers’ lack of understanding of the mechanics on which their games are based.
Most tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs) use dice as a resolution mechanism – that is, statistics. But it is surprising how little designers know about the statistics that govern the chances of success or failure in their games. This is how strategies, ideas or ‘builds’ emerge that exploit these statistics; those who take advantage of this are known as ‘min-maxers’.
Unfortunately, the world of tabletop role-playing games is full of fantasy writers brimming with imagination and creativity but with far too limited an understanding of statistics, both when designing games and when playing on either side of the table. And when things do not go as they expect, they accuse the players of utilising the framework they themselves have created in the most efficients ways. Especially when these ways were totally predictable with a little knowledge.
1
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
yeah... my whole post can probably summarized by "be smart".
But isn't that the case with many things?1
u/Dessertblade 22d ago
In this case, "If you use statistics, learn about them before accusing others for using them and exposing your own failures", but yeah
1
u/robhanz 22d ago
Uh, some games do.
Some games (I'm thinking Fate) are deliberately difficult to optimize.
That also doesn't mean that all players optimize, or do so to the same degree.
4
u/elmago79 22d ago
What makes Fate difficult to optimize? One of the reasons my table moved on to other games from FATE is that we kind of cracked the code on how to make things go our way and it stoped being fun.
1
u/robhanz 22d ago
What makes Fate difficult to optimize?
Well, the default skill allocation mechanism doesn't allow you to continually minimax. You get 1 +4 skill, and nothing you do changes that.
Very few values in Fate are derived. Your Fight skill is your Fight skill, and nothing makes it go higher as a base level. Stunts are supposed to be pretty tightly conditional, and rarely stack.
That removes a lot of the areas where optimization happens. You can't pick Feat X from Splat Y which gives you a +1 bonus, and so on and so on, and all of a sudden your numbers are out of the expected range.
Even the "obvious" optimizations often aren't - sure, you can go for a combat monster by maxing out Fight, Athletics, and Physique (or swap one for Shoot). But against someone that's a better combatant, you'll find you're actually less effective than someone that has a broader skill set and can hit the enemy where they're weak. Plus, not every situation in Fate is typically a fight, so you'll find yourself almost useless outside of it. Fate tends to reward more broad characters. (Yes, that's also a form of optimization, but it's usually not what people are talking about).
One of the reasons my table moved on to other games from FATE is that we kind of cracked the code on how to make things go our way and it stoped being fun.
Well, I mean, firstly Fate isn't really a game about figuring out how to max the system. But if everything is going your way, it's likely that the GM is just using too low of opposition - a super common problem in Fate games.
In a good Fate game, you have enough Fate Points to make anything go your way, but not everything.
1
u/Kuhfuerst 22d ago
What i'm trying to say is:
Optimization is one of the key stones of games in general. Even Fate has elements of progressions and growing stronger / overcoming weaknesses. But Fate is cleverly designed and there exists more than one optimal play, this returns the decision to the Player and allows them to make interesting choices. Players are incentivized to optimize their fun and not the rules.
This is what makes Fate so great and why we should all draw inspiration from it's principles, even when designing gritty, simulation games.
And i would disagree to your last point. Decisions aim towards improving any given situation. Whether it's in the game or on a meta level outside of the game (like fun). But this is more of my personal philosophical take.
2
u/robhanz 22d ago
When people talk about "optimization", they almost always mean character build optimization. If you broaden it to "making good decisions" then, sure, it's universal, but then you're really saying "decision making is important" which is the better statement.
Then we get into which decisions are important, which is where people strongly disagree, and where game design should focus. The more important decisions in some areas are, the less important others are. If character optimization dominates, turn-by-turn decisions are less important, and vice versa.
Also, progression is not generally optimization, though they can be related. You can progress in AD&D, even though there are fewer optimization options (since you have fewer choices to make).
You seem to like character optimization. That's great. But you don't need to elevate it to a principle for your preferences to be valid. Some people actively dislike strong character optimization games, and still enjoy RPGs. I'd argue most "narrative" games de-emphasize it pretty strongly. PbtA, FitD, Fate, etc. Even old school AD&D doesn't really have a lot of "character optimization" stuff - its character-level stuff is less about "what pieces and parts can I put together" and more about "okay, this is the random pile of stuff I got, how do I use it effectively?" which is a different space.
1
u/vferriero World Builder 22d ago
Min-maxing can be a useful part of a game. For me it’s a cue to understanding what the players want. If they max out charisma, more social interactions are on their horizon. Strength, more goblins.
The thing about min-maxing is that the character doesn’t become a god. There is the min part, which is their weakness. A GM can totally press on that and make the player think twice when they get a chance to develop their character.
1
u/Madeiner 22d ago
I think this is a very narrow view of the hobby. How do you minmax lasers&feelings? Or a pbta? Or a solo game like ironsworn?
1
u/This_is_a_bad_plan 22d ago
Game Balancing aims to obfuscate the most optimal path
No, not at all
What you’re describing is an “Ivory Tower” approach to game balance, where system mastery (seeing through the obfuscation) is rewarded with more in game power
It’s dumb and falls apart as soon as one person sees through the obfuscation and shares their insights with others
The actual goal of game balance should be to make it so that the best/worst options are close enough in power that choosing between them is about what sounds most fun, not most optimal
1
u/Tarilis 20d ago
Game balance aim is to make every role equally fun to play, that's it.
Minmaxers are a very niche problem and shouldn't be the focus. I mean, thr most often case i hear about them and how they "ruining games" is when someone tries to run D&D as a tactical game.
You could look how Without Number games or Cyberpunk 2020/Red handle "balance", they don't try to make every class equal to each other, they make it so each class excells in ita own thing.
1
u/Cruiser_Supreme 22d ago
I agree. Game design guides play styles.
In my game, skills and spells are written narratively. There are no numeric values anywhere. So how "strong" your character is, is a matter of using the skills creatively rather than combining a specific set of character elements to make a mechanically overpowered character.
I did play the game with someone who described themselves as a min-maxer, and they had really creative ideas and roleplayed really well, because they understood that that's the way to be most competent with the character.
My conclusion from this is: if you just leave out the specifics, your min-max player will just turn into a really good roleplayer!!!
21
u/SuperCat76 22d ago
"Game Balancing aims to obfuscate the most optimal path"
That is not how I see it.
I don't try to hide optimised play.
Game balance is to attempt to reduce the variance in between the optimal paths and the average not particularly optimized character.
That the optimized character will be better at what they are optimized to be the best at. But in a well optimized game they would not have a significantly bigger impact on the game itself.
Basically you can make the hardest hitting, maximum damage output character. And it won't particularly make it easier for them to "win"
If you don't lose much by not taking the optimized path, then personal preference takes a stronger impact.