Min-maxing problem

[SSB_Shadow 46]

Hello forumers. I have a problem and I need some advice.

In our game we have played for a while and the team has amassed around ~350 XP so far (not counting starting XP). And now quite recently we got a new player. To make it fair I just told him he could begin with 300 XP. I didn't realize the problem that he would dump all starting XP on Presence to kick it up to 4 and then easily bought down to Dedication and a new spec, doing the same, and ended up Presence at 6.

The remaining XP he maximized Charm to 5.

 

So... some of my players feel this is very unfair since they had to start legitimately from the bottom to get to their power levels and the highest they've reach in any characteristics is 4. 

 

What is your opinion on this? How should I rule this to make it fair but not too punishing for any sides?

[mouthymerc 4,483]

He should build his character as per normal initial character generation. Then after that he should add the 300 xp as per normal advancement. The additional 300 xp should not be used for stats unless he buys talents to a dedication talent as per normal.

[Squirrelsan 434]

Yeah, the rules in Force and Destiny about Knight Level Play are pretty clear about that, you build your initial character with the normal starting XP and add on more XP as if earned in the normal game (i.e. no buying Characteristics). 

[hydrospanner 433]

Yeah, it's very important to understand that starting XP and progress XP are very different animals.

 

Personally, this is one of the (very) few areas where I preferred the d20 method over the FFG method (I also really miss the quick reference offered by a short class/level notation, but that's nearly impossible within this system, unless FFG starts including a total XP reference for all characters that we could then use as a baseline).  Characteristics are so central to the character, that I really liked the point-buy method that WotC had for setting starting attributes completely independent of any other aspect of character creation, save species modifiers.

[Inquisitor Tremayne 424]

Have them rebuild from scratch, spending starting Xp as normal.  Then give him maybe 100 extra earned XP up front.  Then award 100 additional Xp after the next few sessions until the character is up to the same level as the others.

[Fenrir423 30]

To the people responding, a character can easily spend all of their 100 starting XP on Characteristics and have one at 4, that isn't the issue. The issue is that most people don't because they want to be able to do more than one thing in the first few sessions. Since this person made a character late, they can min/max more without the same difficulties that a strictly starting level character would have. Honestly, though? For this character specifically, they're really good at Charm. Big whoop, grand scheme. We had a similar situation where a Pilot started late and has an Agility of 5 where most of us have a few attributes at 3. Doesn't really detract from the rest of our experiences at all, so as long as everyone is having fun at the table, game on.

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

If it's a simple mistake just have the Player re-build his PC as per RAW. He's supposed to start with the normal amount allowed in character creation then add his EXP. It sound like this is what he did but then intentionally went full min-max. If that doesn't work for you, and it obviously doesn't work for some of your players, then say no to his PC an tell him to try again.

 

If they complain, beyond an "Awww man....", toss them because there going to be trouble anyway.

 

Edited November 11, 2015 by FuriousGreg

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

misread something 

Edited November 11, 2015 by FuriousGreg

[hydrospanner 433]

Hmmm, I see what you mean.

 

In that case, I'd probably just have them do a basic character with normal starting XP and leave it at that, throw them in, while explaining that it's pretty common for groups of adventurers to have members of varying experience levels (Ezra with the crew of the Ghost, Luke in the Falcon's crew in ANH, etc.)  If they raise a fuss, not only will it tell you something about them as a player, but you can also mollify them by adding that, as a benefit of hanging around with such a seasoned crew, they're likely to learn to be a proper adventurer far more quickly than they ever could alone...and that this effect will be reflected by a positive XP modifier of some amount (based on how quickly you'd like them to catch up).  Perhaps they earn 1.5x or 2x the XP of the rest of the crew until they're within 10% of the XP of the next most experienced character, at which point, they'll gain at the same rate as the others.  A higher modifier will catch them up more quickly, naturally, while a lower one will mean they're the tag-along for quite some time, and that disparity should be shown in the narrative as well.

 

Usually, if I have a significantly less-experienced character in my crew, I try to make sure that they have some sort of redeeming quality.  Usually a reasonable player will help think of ways to justify the disparity themselves ("Sure, I'm not as experienced, but even with all their advancement, there's nobody on this rustbucket that's better with a computer than I am!" or "The Imperial fleet arrived just after you crash landed.  With the blockade, you're going to be here a while.  Luckily, I know this city like the back of my hand!" ...or even, "Look, I like this arrangement only slightly less than you guys do...but Zarza the Hutt isn't someone you really can argue with when he tells you to go with.")

 

Some other fairly simple justifications for an XP disparity would be (with a connection to an existing party member) a Master/Student relationship, whether a Jedi and his/her/its padawan, a Master Hunter with the Bounty Hunters' Guild and an Apprentice or Journeyman hunter, a Colonist (Doctor) and an intern/resident, family members...(or alone) a stowaway/runaway, an overseer or specialist attached by some authority figure, someone who was simply in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time, someone who saw something they weren't meant to see, a Person of Interest to the gang's employer (or nemesis!), someone who the group owes (or they owe the group) in some way (and the party owed doesn't trust the owing party not to just cut & run), someone with essential skills or information that the group can't go without...

 

 

 

Incorrect, the RAW is that you create new PCs using normal Character Creation then add additional EXP after. This has nothing to do with fun at the table it's about fair at the table (not equal or balanced, just fair). All the Players should play by the same rules.

I think what he means is that, even with the rules, when a player knows they're getting a pile of XP right after creation, there's zero incentive to use their XP on anything other than raising their main characteristics.  I mean, if I were drawing up a character, and I knew full well I'd be getting several hundred XP before my first roll, I would but all the XP I could into characteristics, leaving it to those secondary XP to bump skills etc.

 

In contrast, the players that earned them gradually, had to make decisions about when to stop sinking XP into characteristics so that they had some left over for skills and traits at creation.

[Blackbird888 4,110]

...Honestly, though? For this character specifically, they're really good at Charm. Big whoop, grand scheme. We had a similar situation where a Pilot started late and has an Agility of 5 where most of us have a few attributes at 3. Doesn't really detract from the rest of our experiences at all, so as long as everyone is having fun at the table, game on.

I think the biggest problem, or worry, is that the player intends to just Charm his way through every obstacle. It's one thing for the GM to deny the Pilot with his maxed Agility/Piloting situations where he can flex those skills, nearly every scenario you can think of the in the game (street thugs, Imperial inspections, murderous bounty hunters) can, in theory, be overcome by a good Charm roll. If the player is an actual min-maxer and/or rules lawyer, he'll argue and throw a tantrum if the GM says no to his attempts to Charm (and, technically, would be correct; the book encourages the GM to entertain player's solutions to problems).

 

On the other side of the coin, I understand that power gamers form, not necessarily because they want to cause problems, but because they've experienced or are trying to avoid the killer GM. If OP is actually worried about min-maxing, maybe a conversation will get to the root of the problem and it's not maliciousness on the players part.

 

If it is maliciousness, though I would [REDACTED] and the grandmother's dog as well.

[2P51 33,416]

I'd only worry about it if you had another face guy in the group that he is over shadowing, otherwise I wouldn't sweat it.  He is great at one thing.  I'd let him do that occasionally, but I serve up a steady stream of group checks and the unit only does as well as it's worse member kind of stuff, so he likely would be a real drag at quite a few things.

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

Honestly, though? For this character specifically, they're really good at Charm. Big whoop, grand scheme. We had a similar situation where a Pilot started late and has an Agility of 5 where most of us have a few attributes at 3. Doesn't really detract from the rest of our experiences at all, so as long as everyone is having fun at the table, game on.

See below...

 

So... some of my players feel this is very unfair since they had to start legitimately from the bottom to get to their power levels and the highest they've reach in any characteristics is 4. 

 

The problem isn't that a high attribute is inherently bad but that the other Players feel it's unfair that another Player reached it without having to go through the sacrifices during play they did. This is the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned. Equality and Balance are rarely issues at the game table but fairness, both real and perceived, is the root of most unhappiness. Seriously, if boiled down nearly any argument at the table it will eventually come down to one Player unhappy at what they see as unfair treatment to either themselves or someone else. This is why things like "the Rule of Cool" are so slippery, it's because it's very hard if not impossible to apply consistently and fairly.

[Squirrelsan 434]

Ah, I see, I misunderstood the question.  Well I guess the simple answer might be to have a word with him and explain that the others aren't happy with his build and invite him to rebuild a more balance character.  If you feel you need to push him harder than that you can explain that he is brutally min-maxed and warn him that he will be useless and bored during most of the game since it won't all be about charming people.  You can of course take this much further and actively undermine his abilities (alien languages, spaceship combat with jamming...) but that goes into the realms of deliberately "punishing" players and personally I don't like being that kind of GM and would just choose not to play with someone rather than have to start being an adversarial GM. 

 

The answer to pretty much every GM question about player behaviour is "talk to them like an adult" with a side order of "accept that if you cannot reconcile the problem that way then they may not be a good fit for your game and part on good terms".

[Chimpy 194]

I like the idea of having the PC start at normal XP but "fast-track" with double or triple XP after sessions.

[SSB_Shadow 46]

Thank you all for your words of wisdom.

I did agree with Fenrir423 about not really caring as long as everyone was having fun, but the others really are not.

I like the idea of him starting at the bottom like everyone else and granting him bonus XP per session so he can catch up to the rest eventually. Hydrospanner's examples were pretty inspiring.

Iwill try to speak to him about the problem "like adults" and try to find out his intentions. And if it really comes down to him refusing to rebuild and only want to break the game, then I will have to let him go.

Edited November 11, 2015 by SSB_Shadow

[DurosSpacer 296]

I think the biggest problem, or worry, is that the player intends to just Charm his way through every obstacle. It's one thing for the GM to deny the Pilot with his maxed Agility/Piloting situations where he can flex those skills, nearly every scenario you can think of the in the game (street thugs, Imperial inspections, murderous bounty hunters) can, in theory, be overcome by a good Charm roll. If the player is an actual min-maxer and/or rules lawyer, he'll argue and throw a tantrum if the GM says no to his attempts to Charm (and, technically, would be correct; the book encourages the GM to entertain player's solutions to problems).

 

I see the problem with the Uber-Charmer character.  I think some re-thinking of what Charm can be used for is in order. 

 

"The use of the Charm skill requires the acting character to maintain a degree of sincerity in his statements.  A character that is flagrantly flattering with no basis in reality may be better suited to using the deception skill."

Further more, applying to one's better nature, seduction, and making an exception to the rule are also stated in the description. Now, you just can't do much unless you have something to go on about who you are Charming.  Also, a stupendous Charm roll may not always have the desired effect the PC was going for.  Let's say he is trying to Charm his way by a guard into a restricted area and makes an uber Charm roll with a Triumph or two. The guard can still refuse his entry (which would get him fired or executed), but he might have a contact who can give him a real good deal on....  As in, "Hey buddy, I really like you, you're my kind of guy!  But if I let you inside they'll have me executed!  But I tell you what....go see this guy on Main Street, behind the Jobo's Java Shack, he'll get you one of those fancy fake-ID's and then I can card you into the facility all legit-like and we both get what we want."

 

In other words, you achieve something great (as per a Triumph), but maybe not always the desired effect. Who says the PC gets to dictate the outcome of the roll? The NPC is a character who has been "Charmed" into taking a liking to you and would do for you what he'd do for a friend. I have a lot of friends. To a point, I will help them.  To the point where I get fired or come to personal harm, I don't cave in no matter how many compliments come my way!  But, I'll try to help them in another way.

 

Or, take the hostile bounty hunter you meet in the ally. You "Charm" him successfully so he says, "You know, the boss said to break both of your kneecaps, but because i like your style, how about we just go with a broken nose instead?"  (e.g. maim instead of kill, or take a bribe instead of fighting it out, etc...) 

Edited November 12, 2015 by DurosSpacer

[Daeglan 5,950]

one of the other things that people are missing is that using knight level you can't buy skills above 3 and starting you can't buy skills above 2. So really you need to give them xp in phases. It also sounds like they are building a 1 trick pony. so the GM should hit them in the dump stats. 

[Garran 485]

With the group at creation + 350 XP, insisting on the new guy starting at baseline, even with some multiplier, means umpteen thrilling sessions of twiddling their thumbs while the established characters do everything - including doing a better job of everything that the new guy's character is supposed to be specialized in. Unless chasing off any new players is the intention, the existing set ought to recognize that everyone playing the game now ought to be having equal fun now. It's not like the fun they (hopefully) had before suddenly disappears because someone else joins as an equal.

Is the Charm focus excessive? Maybe, but given that it can only do so much (although anyone with Presence 6 will be decent at several other relevant skills), the fact that they probably wrote the Star Wars' universe equivalent of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" doesn't inherently break anything; you can get a lot of mileage out of a silver tongue and a winning smile, but even those only go so far.

If the other players haven't specialized by the time they've hit creation + 350 and/or don't have stats higher than 3, that's a deliberate choice they've made. They've hardly been starved of the means to do it.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Garran

[Desslok 13,571]

What is your opinion on this? How should I rule this to make it fair but not too punishing for any sides?

 

Tell him to knock that **** off and rebuild the character over - and explain why. Problem solved.

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

Also when dealing with min-maxed PCs remind them that a Blaster will not blow a hole in a blast door regardless of their six Yellow dice, nor will a charming story keep a Rancor from eating you...

 

Edited November 12, 2015 by FuriousGreg

[Kallabecca 983]

 

Honestly, though? For this character specifically, they're really good at Charm. Big whoop, grand scheme. We had a similar situation where a Pilot started late and has an Agility of 5 where most of us have a few attributes at 3. Doesn't really detract from the rest of our experiences at all, so as long as everyone is having fun at the table, game on.

See below...

 

So... some of my players feel this is very unfair since they had to start legitimately from the bottom to get to their power levels and the highest they've reach in any characteristics is 4. 

 

The problem isn't that a high attribute is inherently bad but that the other Players feel it's unfair that another Player reached it without having to go through the sacrifices during play they did. This is the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned. Equality and Balance are rarely issues at the game table but fairness, both real and perceived, is the root of most unhappiness. Seriously, if boiled down nearly any argument at the table it will eventually come down to one Player unhappy at what they see as unfair treatment to either themselves or someone else. This is why things like "the Rule of Cool" are so slippery, it's because it's very hard if not impossible to apply consistently and fairly.

 

No different than someone coming into a D&D game and jumping straight to level 12. They'll make different decisions about their Feats and such because they didn't have to actually play the character to survive those levels.

[2P51 33,416]

If there is a concern you can impose direction on how xp is spent, but honestly a couple dedication bonuses with 300 xp awarded is not really min/max imo.  

 

If spent on in career specs it's 170 xp, and depending on the specs in question some of those direct pathways to the Dedication bonus are quite good, Assassin and Gadgeteer being prime examples.  A 4 Agility to start wouldn't be out of hand for that set up and it makes perfect sense to dump both Dedications into Agility. Range(H) 5 would only be another 60xp. That would still leave a PC with another 70 xp to spend that could be spread out among quite a few topical skills.  

 

300 xp is an advanced PC regardless of how the xp is spent imo.  A 6 Presence is going to be a champ of a negotiator and a leadership PC even without the skills.  When Cool is used for initiative that PC will also likely deliver the first initiative slot to the team consistently against nearly all opponents.  I think the other PCs aren't thinking about what that kind of a PC could bring to their group.

Edited November 12, 2015 by 2P51

[Kilcannon 177]

I start all my character with 300 bonus xp. However per rules I give them their normal species xp plus 10 to spend at character creation. Once that is done then they get the 300 xp to spend on skills, talents, Force powers if force pcs, and that's it. Characteristics can only be raised with talents. It's not about min maxing. This is going against the rules of the game. Even if you begin pcs at 5000xp all they get to spend on characteristics is the original 90 to 120.

And if you go to the extreme of making them only starting XP pcs then that's not fair either. Just tell them you can't spend the 300 on characteristics unless you get the dedication talent all the way down a tree. Or they can use their starting credits to buy cyberware.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Kilcannon

[Richardbuxton 7,319]

For this issue just a small side conversation with the player to explain that Charm isn't going to get them through every situation, and if they accept that they will Sometimes suck, then let them run with it. Then you have their authority to hit them in the dump stat (or 5 dump stats in this case!)

If they come to their senses then let them re-spec, nothing wrong with a good presence and charm skill, but let them broaden their character.

In the past I have handed out the catch up XP in chunks. If they have never played this system before they may not know everyone can do everything, it's just their chance of success that changes. I make them play a session with a base character (that they probably optimised anyway) and give them a chance to shine, but also to suffer due to their choice. Then I'll hand out 1/3 - 1/4 of the catchup XP at the end of each session. Keeps them hungry to an extent, and also a chance to grow into the character even if it's accelerated.

[vilainn6 306]

Tell your complaining players to shut up and enjoy the game. A super charmer isn't gonna break the game and will probably bring a lot of money to the group.

 

Also dont forget to exploit the weakness of that min/maxing character.