Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Haru]

I want to take a swing at those people because I often find such people trying to justify their characters' mechanical lack with "roleplay" and trying to tar other people whose characters actually function well mechanically with terms like "min-maxer", "powergamer" or "munchkin" and often these terms are used derogatorily.

It all depends on what you mean by "mechanical lack". In a game where swords do +3 damage and fencing weapons +2, is a fencer mechanically lacking? Even if I am playing a master fencer, with everything that accompanies that, not a bumbling idiot who just likes to fence?

The difference between roleplay characters and minmax characters usually is the fact, that minmax characters usually don't have any way to really affect them. Fate doesn't really have that issue, I think, so I would not talk about a minmaxed fate character. You can vary in degree of competence, but that's something else entirely.

For example, if a fate character has the aspect "hot-tempered", and the player doesn't play on it, and the GM never compels, he might as well not have it. On the other hand, in another game, a player might take the trait "hot-tempered" for a few more points to build his character, but then play him as the most peaceful and calm person around. That's something that irks me. Other examples of "Gold-allergy" or "addicted to the moon" or similar nonsense just to gather more building points is just something that bothers me.

On the other hand, if I don't take traits like that, I don't get the most effective character, because those points go straight towards effectiveness. So is my character "mechanically lacking", because I didn't plaster on a bunch of stuff that I did not consider fitting his character?

Or to come back to fate, is, for example, a wizard lacking, if he takes a stunt instead of refinement? What if it is a knowledge stunt about comic books?

Both, the character I play and the character I build should fit together, in my opinion. minmaxed characters often don't, because they focused more on getting the highest numbers than being an intriguing character. On the other hand, I can also do the best cake baker in a game of sword and sorcery, and even if he is minmaxed to bake cakes, he is not going to be of any use most of the time. But I can make a roleplay baker as well, and he would be just as useless.

In short:
Creating an effective character and minmaxing are not the same thing. Nor are roleplaying and ineffective characters.

Munchkin is a term I would give to a minmaxer who in the process of building the most powerful character he can is also breaking the rules.

[Mrmdubois]

I'm starting to think there should be another stickied thread for conversations like this.  Sanctaphrax's stickied Law thread seemed to clear that problem right up.

[Vairelome]

It all depends on what you mean by "mechanical lack". In a game where swords do +3 damage and fencing weapons +2, is a fencer mechanically lacking? Even if I am playing a master fencer, with everything that accompanies that, not a bumbling idiot who just likes to fence?

Context is everything.  If "master fencer" is a prestige class that in total, makes your character an effective melee combatant, then your character is effective and that is good.  If "master fencer" is a poorly designed prestige class, with abilities that have no particular synergy but seem "kinda fencing-related," then it's a poor choice that is probably ineffective.  "This is a cool concept and I can totally make it effective" is AWESOME.  "This is a cool concept but it's going to suck and be a net drain on the party" is NOT.  (Yes, this is a continuum, with some line somewhere in the middle, but the goal is to push towards the "cool and effective" end.)

Other examples of "Gold-allergy" or "addicted to the moon" or similar nonsense just to gather more building points is just something that bothers me.

That's a straight-up systems problem, and fixing those sorts of problems is the highest and best use of house rules.  Either give the player free points or don't, but don't encourage putting dumb, character-unrelated crap on character sheets.  (Though I've also seen sneaky and creative DMs allow this...and then it ends up being viciously relevant in game.  Personally, I prefer the house rule fix, but there's more than one way to skin a PC.)

Or to come back to fate, is, for example, a wizard lacking, if he takes a stunt instead of refinement? What if it is a knowledge stunt about comic books?

Maybe (depends on the stunt, character, and campaign context), and probably.  It's possible that your specific game has a whole lot of comic-book-related plot, such that a knowledge stunt would make sense.  I'd consider that case to be rare at best, though.  In FATE/DFRPG, refresh is a sufficiently limited resource that picking up stunts or powers that are unlikely to actually be used in game is bad character-building practice and should be discouraged.  (In your particular example, I'd suggest that the player make one of his Aspects cover the idea that he's really knowledgeable about comic books, among other things--say, Geek Chic.  Aspects are also sufficiently limited in number that it's probably a bad idea to devote a complete Aspect to this narrow point of character, but it's possible and good practices to fold a few related concepts into one Aspect.)

Both, the character I play and the character I build should fit together, in my opinion. minmaxed characters often don't, because they focused more on getting the highest numbers than being an intriguing character.

No, this is not an either/or situation.  If the player is focused on generating the highest numbers possible, and doesn't care about creating an interesting character in the process, the character is likely to be boring (or lethal) to interact with.  Correctly identifying the actual problem is key--a player who isn't interested in role-playing.  The fact that he's interested in and competent at character optimization is unrelated, and isn't actually a problem.

This is probably the main reason players who are interested in systems design and character optimization can get really bent out of shape when other players mock them as "immature" for being good at something.  Arrogant and judgmental "I'm a proper role-player and you're doing it wrong" attitudes are annoying.  The same attitude used to mock competence and defend incompetence is infuriating.

[toturi]

This is probably the main reason players who are interested in systems design and character optimization can get really bent out of shape when other players mock them as "immature" for being good at something.  Arrogant and judgmental "I'm a proper role-player and you're doing it wrong" attitudes are annoying.  The same attitude used to mock competence and defend incompetence is infuriating.

I agree and thank you for putting what I have been trying (and perhaps unsuccessfully) to say in a more polite and less confrontational manner.

[Taran]

Of course, you would. I think it is simply a function of where you stand on the kind of gamer you are. I call such people clowns because I find their behavior laughable and to show what it looks like from the other side of the line. If it is a bit of a double standard, then so be it, I can live with that.

No. You completely missed my point.  It was a double standard that you get insulted by something, yet find it acceptable to throw insults at other people on the boards.

If you disagree with something that someone says then have the courtesy to point it out without being rude.

Also, if you read my post, which I admit is long, you'd see that I'm a min maxer.  Character building for me is a game on its own and it's a strategy.  I'm sorry if you don't like when the term min/maxing is used to describe cheaters and people who bend the rules and use broken stunts and powers in an attempt to outdo everyone at their table.  It turns out its a loaded term.  We should make up a new term...although I tried that but it got shot down.  I know that the word has multiple meanings and I don't get upset when people use it.

[toturi]

No. You completely missed my point.  It was a double standard that you get insulted by something, yet find it acceptable to throw insults at other people on the boards.

Now I get your point. I will say that if I find someone stating something insulting, I find it acceptable to return the favor. In such a case, in that I get insulted by something, yet not allowed to throw insults at other people on the boards, is where I would find the double standards.

If someone disagrees with me politely (as you have), I will be courteous.

EDIT: I use the terms "min-maxer" to describe somone who maximises his character's strengths while minimising the character's weaknesses. "Powergamer" I use to describe people who bend the rules and use broken stunts and powers in an attempt to outdo everyone at their table (note: the important thing to me for "powergamer" is the attempt to outdo everyone at their table, a min-maxer would also push the RAW to their limits without breaking them and use mechanics that while are As Written but may be terribly unbalanced). A munchkin breaks the RAW.

[Lavecki121]

Can I just ask, because I'm not sure it has been stated, what stunts are providing stagnant +2 to weapon ratings and damage output and where are they located?

[Vairelome]

I'm a min maxer...the term min/maxing is used to describe cheaters and people who bend the rules and use broken stunts and powers in an attempt to outdo everyone at their table.

/facepalm

Yeah, agreeing on terminology is useful, since I'm quite sure you didn't mean exactly what you said there.  I've been using the term "character optimizing" as the positive term describing a process of creating a character that is efficient and effective at some defined area of expertise.  "Min/maxing" is used by some groups to mean the same thing.  "Powergamer" usually describes an attention-hogging player that likes to create combat monsters that may skirt the edges of what the rules allow.  "Munchkins" are usually breaking the rules entirely, and all considerations of game balance are long gone.

There are some players and/or GMs who are biased against character optimizing at all, and ignore distinctions in terminology.  "You only read the rules so you can abuse them."  No, players that know the systems encourages intended game balance and speeds up playtime devoted to mechanical details so we can all spend more time on character interactions.  "Your character killed more enemies than anyone else; you're just a munchkin."  No, I built a well-designed character that is effective in combat, while you made a bard that tries to kill orcs with his violin; it is not shocking that my way worked and yours didn't.  "Rules get in the way of role-playing; ignoring them and just going free-form is always better."  No, this argument is usually made by someone who never bothered to learn the rules, slows the entire group down by trying to do things he can't, and wants it to be someone else's fault.

[Taran]

Lol....no I didn't mean that... Stupid iPad ... Stupid making posts at 3am.  ;P

Anyways, I forget what kind of point I was trying to make at this point. 

[JDK002]

Now I get your point. I will say that if I find someone stating something insulting, I find it acceptable to return the favor. In such a case, in that I get insulted by something, yet not allowed to throw insults at other people on the boards, is where I would find the double standards.

If someone disagrees with me politely (as you have), I will be courteous.

EDIT: I use the terms "min-maxer" to describe somone who maximises his character's strengths while minimising the character's weaknesses. "Powergamer" I use to describe people who bend the rules and use broken stunts and powers in an attempt to outdo everyone at their table (note: the important thing to me for "powergamer" is the attempt to outdo everyone at their table, a min-maxer would also push the RAW to their limits without breaking them and use mechanics that while are As Written but may be terribly unbalanced). A munchkin breaks the RAW.

I feel the need to point out that there's a huge difference between feeling insulted by a general statement someone idly makes (even ifit may have been poorly worded), and being directly and personally insulted by someone.  The former means you're being hyper-defensive and out of line.  The latter, you actually were I sulted and have every right to be offended.

[toturi]

I feel the need to point out that there's a huge difference between feeling insulted by a general statement someone idly makes (even ifit may have been poorly worded), and being directly and personally insulted by someone.  The former means you're being hyper-defensive and out of line.  The latter, you actually were I sulted and have every right to be offended.

True. However, I was making a general statement in response to another statement made by someoone else. I read a statement that I felt was incorrect and was degoratory in tone. I made a general statement in counterpoint, not targeted at any single person or at the person I made the post in response in particular.

[Haru]

There are some players and/or GMs who are biased against character optimizing at all, and ignore distinctions in terminology.  "You only read the rules so you can abuse them."  No, players that know the systems encourages intended game balance and speeds up playtime devoted to mechanical details so we can all spend more time on character interactions.  "Your character killed more enemies than anyone else; you're just a munchkin."  No, I built a well-designed character that is effective in combat, while you made a bard that tries to kill orcs with his violin; it is not shocking that my way worked and yours didn't.  "Rules get in the way of role-playing; ignoring them and just going free-form is always better."  No, this argument is usually made by someone who never bothered to learn the rules, slows the entire group down by trying to do things he can't, and wants it to be someone else's fault.

Reading this, I think we actually agree on most of what is discussed here. The only thing we differ is what part of the continuum (see your previous answer to my previous post) can be considered an effective character. As far as I understand you, you prefer the top notch, the most optimized character, mechanically, I myself am ok with a lot of what follows below that.
If I do make a less than optimized character (not a bumbling idiot character, mind you), I would never do it in a way that would be a drag on the group. And I would be fully aware of that choice and would not complain about the fact that he was weaker than other characters, because that's what I chose to do.

One more question. In my Swordsman vs. master fencer example you commented above, I meant if everything else was equal, every stunt, every trait, everything. I just liked the idea of someone fighting with a fencing weapon rather than a sword, and that choice would mean my weapon did a bit less damage than every other character. Would that be enough for you to call that character mechanically lacking? This is not meant as an attack or anything, I'm just curious where you'd draw the line.

[Mr. Death]

There are other boosts that might be better.

Eh. Maybe it's a personal thing, but if I'm investing one refresh to boost a weapon, and I'm a pure mortal, I'm going to invest more.

Ugh. Can't you see you're inflicting this problem on yourself?

These stunts, like all stunts, are balanced by the fact that they're situational. If you compensate people for their situational-ness, you'll break them.

It's the same for all stunts.

You're still misunderstanding me. I am not saying they get a fate point every time a stunt doesn't apply. I'm saying that if a character built around using a sword can't use that sword, that's a compel. Because, usually, I find when a character is willing to invest fate points into a specific weapon (usually an IOP in my games), then they've got an aspect referencing that weapon.

The monster can have Supernatural abilities and stunts of their own.

I've tested this. Combat stunts let mortals compete, but they don't have anything like the firepower Powers have.

I'm not comparing one refresh stunts to four-refresh powers. Because there is no comparison. But with these stunts, a pure mortal can spend two refresh to match the effective melee bonuses of two two refresh powers (+2 stress, +1 to attack). And they have two bonus fate points on top of that...so, in a way, you can almost see it as matching up for free.

She's still nowhere near peak mortal melee combat ability. She says it herself in Cold Days.

And her stats say that Fists is two steps down from her skill cap.

Her stats were such in the OW write-up, but that's several books behind Cold Days. And regardless, she's presented as someone who never loses a physical fight against a mortal--she puts Hendricks down with relatively little effort in White Night. Hell, just going stat to stat, she should be able to fight a Red Court Vampire--her Fists are at 3, which match Red and Black court vampires for attack and defense. And yet she doesn't, because their powers give them a decisive advantage. Now, do you think that Karrin's someone who wouldn't take stress boosting stunts like this if she could? You think she wouldn't take a Fists attack boosting stunt if she could? Really, she has refresh to spend, she should. Which means she should be able to take a Red Court vampire apart easily.

And yet, she does not.

Eh, unbalanced games are often still fun.

So...wait. Wait wait wait. With these stunts, a pure mortal at the lowest refresh rating has a decisive advantage over a ghoul in hand-to-hand single combat, which is completely different from everything we've seen in the books, fiction, and write up in both rulebooks. Without the stunts, a ghoul poses a significant challenge even to a Submerged level pure mortal in hand-to-hand single combat, which is pretty well in keeping with the books, other fiction, and the write-up in both rulebooks.

And the latter one is the unbalanced game?

The Horror is clearly a mistake. Stunts can only give +1 to grapple, says so in YS.

Well, no. The only example is +1 to grapple, I see nothing in the rules saying it can only give that.

And I'm still a little tired of the, "The canon stunt contradicts my point, therefore it's a mistake" angle. Especially when you have also tried to use stunts from the same book you're always saying is full of such mistakes as evidence that these are balanced.

And they don't say that you go with the higher bonus unless indicated. Search the books if you want. You will not find any such statement.

But you will find Speed stacking with Size and Echoes Of The Beast for movement, Lawbreaker stacking other spellcasting bonuses, and stunts stacking with basic weapon ratings.

Which stunts stack with the basic weapon ratings? There's Archer (which I said my reasons for being acceptable before). The only other stress-boosting stunts I can think of are for Fists, which doesn't have a basic weapon rating to stack with.

Nope.

Weapon 7 accuracy 7 is clearly superior to weapon 5 accuracy 5. It's not even in question.

Weapon 5 accuracy 5 will do a mild to a (naked) ghoul on average. The ghoul will shrug that off and keep coming. Plus you'll have a significant chance of missing.

Weapon 7 accuracy 7 will a mild and a moderate. That's likely to end the fight, since consequences are taggable. And you're a lot less likely to miss.

[/quote]Fine, it's not close enough as makes no difference. It's still way better than a pure mortal should be doing against a Ghoul in a straight up melee fight going by their portrayal in both the fiction and the book's write-ups, at the lowest available refresh level.

"The entirety of one of the rulebooks is wrong" isn't an answer I'm going to accept.

Put it this way...without the stunts, the monsters in Our World pose a significant threat to pure mortals, such that the pure mortal has to take extra effort to overcome their strengths, maneuver, and block in order to hold them off long enough to get a decisive hit. This is totally in keeping with the fiction of the world, and with the write up in the rulebooks and, frankly, with common sense.

With the stunts, the vast majority of monsters in Our World are just plain unlikely to pose any kind of physical threat to a mortal PC of any level.

Either you're mistaken about what's allowable for stunts, or the people who spent years working on adapting the game's world--including working directly with the author and I have to assume a significant amount of playtesting--somehow managed to completely low-ball every single creature in Our World.

[Sanctaphrax]

You're still misunderstanding me. I am not saying they get a fate point every time a stunt doesn't apply. I'm saying that if a character built around using a sword can't use that sword, that's a compel. Because, usually, I find when a character is willing to invest fate points into a specific weapon (usually an IOP in my games), then they've got an aspect referencing that weapon.

If not being able to use a weapon is a compel, then you shouldn't be able to use reliance on that weapon for a Refresh rebate or as a stunt's limitation.

Because then you're getting paid twice.

But you are allowed to use reliance on a weapon for Refresh rebates and as a stunt's limitation (see IoP, Archer, etc) so by the contrapositive it shouldn't be a compel.

I'm not comparing one refresh stunts to four-refresh powers. Because there is no comparison. But with these stunts, a pure mortal can spend two refresh to match the effective melee bonuses of two two refresh powers (+2 stress, +1 to attack). And they have two bonus fate points on top of that...so, in a way, you can almost see it as matching up for free.

If you build a mortal warrior and a supernatural warrior, the supernatural warrior will be tougher. But the mortal will have more FP.

Speaking from experience here.

Now, do you think that Karrin's someone who wouldn't take stress boosting stunts like this if she could? You think she wouldn't take a Fists attack boosting stunt if she could? Really, she has refresh to spend, she should. Which means she should be able to take a Red Court vampire apart easily.

And yet, she does not.

I think Murphy would do well to buy Target-Rich Environment or Defend My Tribe or something similar.

And obviously she could take those stunts. They're canon.

But for whatever reason, Evil Hat says she didn't. At least not at first.

So...wait. Wait wait wait. With these stunts, a pure mortal at the lowest refresh rating has a decisive advantage over a ghoul in hand-to-hand single combat, which is completely different from everything we've seen in the books, fiction, and write up in both rulebooks. Without the stunts, a ghoul poses a significant challenge even to a Submerged level pure mortal in hand-to-hand single combat, which is pretty well in keeping with the books, other fiction, and the write-up in both rulebooks.

And the latter one is the unbalanced game?

Actually, that's not what I was talking about. I meant that by removing social combat without changing anything else you'll unbalance the game.

But for what it's worth, game balance does not have to do with simulating the fiction.

And dedicated mortal fighters can manhandle ghouls without these stunts. Might cost a few FP, but not buying stunts gives you those.

Well, no. The only example is +1 to grapple, I see nothing in the rules saying it can only give that.

And I'm still a little tired of the, "The canon stunt contradicts my point, therefore it's a mistake" angle. Especially when you have also tried to use stunts from the same book you're always saying is full of such mistakes as evidence that these are balanced.

If +1 to maintain is a balanced stunt, then +2 to initiate and maintain isn't.

And I know it's a mistake because Evil Hat said so. They did something similar with a monster in Neutral Grounds, I pointed it out, they went back and added a note saying the stunt was broken.

Which stunts stack with the basic weapon ratings? There's Archer (which I said my reasons for being acceptable before). The only other stress-boosting stunts I can think of are for Fists, which doesn't have a basic weapon rating to stack with.

Way Of The Bow, Off-Hand Weapon Training, and Berserker.

With the stunts, the vast majority of monsters in Our World are just plain unlikely to pose any kind of physical threat to a mortal PC of any level.

They're unlikely to pose a threat to a dedicated combatant of any level. Non-combat characters exist.

And it's true with or without the stunts.

(Though I could see a decent argument for houseruling defence stunts down to +1. +2 to defence is pretty major, maybe too major. On the other hand, True Aim is probably still better.)

Either you're mistaken about what's allowable for stunts, or the people who spent years working on adapting the game's world--including working directly with the author and I have to assume a significant amount of playtesting--somehow managed to completely low-ball every single creature in Our World.

They low-ball their PCs, too. I'm pretty sure it's intentional.

[Vairelome]

Reading this, I think we actually agree on most of what is discussed here. The only thing we differ is what part of the continuum (see your previous answer to my previous post) can be considered an effective character. As far as I understand you, you prefer the top notch, the most optimized character, mechanically, I myself am ok with a lot of what follows below that.

Well, given a reasonable concept, I do want to optimize that concept, but I don't pick concepts based on max damage or whatever.  I start with "what general sort of thing do I want to play," and go from there--and I definitely have strong role-playing preferences that are not optimization based.  In fantasy settings, I like playing elves as either a ranger/bow expert or a wizard/some type of caster.  I usually don't play dwarves because they don't interest me very much.  (I'm sure other people have other preferences, and that's good--it would be boring if everyone wanted to play exactly the same thing.)  If I've picked elven master of the bow as my concept, though, I will definitely stack as much bow-related goodness onto that character sheet as I can reasonably justify with a backstory that makes sense without being cheesy (in my own opinion, of course).

If I do make a less than optimized character (not a bumbling idiot character, mind you), I would never do it in a way that would be a drag on the group. And I would be fully aware of that choice and would not complain about the fact that he was weaker than other characters, because that's what I chose to do.

And this is all perfectly reasonable.  If I were asked to comment on a particular character of yours, I might ask why you chose X over Y if I thought that Y was mechanically superior and equivalently faithful to the concept you were running with, but I'd also listen to the explanation and not insist that my way was the only way to go.  (If I happen to know a system very well, often times the reason another player didn't choose Y to begin with was because they didn't know it existed or didn't understand a relevant synergy.)  I am very very strongly a partisan of the "each player is the master of his own character sheet" idea.

One more question. In my Swordsman vs. master fencer example you commented above, I meant if everything else was equal, every stunt, every trait, everything. I just liked the idea of someone fighting with a fencing weapon rather than a sword, and that choice would mean my weapon did a bit less damage than every other character. Would that be enough for you to call that character mechanically lacking? This is not meant as an attack or anything, I'm just curious where you'd draw the line.

I think it's usually bad systems design for one choice to be strictly superior to another with no trade-off at all.  This isn't real life, after all.  Broadswords should do more damage than daggers, but it is far easier to conceal a dagger, and you can build a decent advantage out of either side of that choice.  That said, 1 point of damage isn't that big a margin, all things considered (so long as the 1-point margin is what is being carried forward through other modifiers, not the 33% less damage).  A good system allows many builds to be within the same ballpark of effectiveness.  A bad system has a small handful of legal builds that are far and away more effective than the majority of the pack.

If one character is strictly better than another, yeah, I'd call the second one mechanically lacking.  But if the margin is not that big, then either option is reasonable.  My goal here is "reasonable," not "perfect."