Topic: Abusing the System, and the GM

[Marc R]

The problem with 'weak' categories is the more flexible you make a subsystem the more ways people will find to abuse it.

I agree, and I think that this is an important area in game development/writing.

Anything written should not be blatant abuse, and if the writer is not on top of it, the Editors, proofreaders and playtesters should fire off flares and make sure it's fixed.

I think there are two important sub topics involved here.

1) "Everything is covered by the rules, and anything not covered by the rules is not allowed."

The only time you need to write with the assumption that the GM is a passive, drooling idiot, is if you're writing a computer game where in the end everything has to either be allowed, or disallowed in the Rules-As-Written. For a computer game, the rules have to be perfect, not in the sense of best-ever, but in the sense that all actions have a precise and exact resolution, from which no deviation is allowed.

You need a 90 in climbing and some luck to get in that window, you're not allowed to pile up boxes or go buy a ladder unless someone wrote those choices into the game.

If the GM is assumed to be a living, breathing entity with judgement to make calls, the rules can offer some specific rules, and some general rules. . .The GM has to make the final call on how to apply the rules regardless, so assuming they're not a literalistic drooling idiot CPU seems fair.

2) "What's Abuse in my game is Fun in your game, and vice versa."

There's a baseline average to which games are written in general, but your game may be very high powered, and that may be purely due to choices only in the realm of "GM Judgement". . .your game may not break a single rule in the book, but in any instance where the GM has to make the call, you choose to allow rather than disallow, or to make the penalty/modifier lower for a given action. If the rules were written so only my game, with my GMing style were the RAW, and thus your high end game was "abusive" in breaking the rules. . . .that might irritate you. . .it would also tend to make the book a LOT thicker, as rules are written to cover every possible instance the development team can think of, with specific written rulings and modifiers.

[David Johansen]

I like the rules to back up my decisions.  That's not to say you need have to explain and discuss every issue but the rules should provide a solid framework on which to build your decisions.

[Marc R]

I fully agree. . .anyone familiar with me on this forum would hardly call me free and loose preferring a rules free environment. . .I prefer for the rules to indeed be both as simple as possible, and to cover the most possible instances.

But, not to lose track of the Golden Rule. . .that the GM is the final arbiter, and many situations will require a GM call. . .None of us make it an entire session without ever assigning a difficulty or modifier to anything, only using the rules as written modifiers in the books and ignoring anything not specifically covered.

RMSS is just as susceptible as any other complex game system to rules optimization by players in character generation, or abusive cross combinations in play.

If you assume all of the RMSS/FRP published books to be canon, and usable, and allow a player to craft a 10th level PC with no limitations or GM approval factor, the resulting character could very easily be optimized into something VERY extreme.

Short of condensing the rules down to 10 pages or less of tightly controlled mechanics with all possible permutations explored and ruled out to a balanced fair, board game like level . . .the control over abuse is about equally shared by the Game Developer / Writer not writing the rules with absurd, gaping holes, and the GM balancing what they allow with the game they want to run.

I've been in games where the super optimized character sheet submitted by a player joining the game would be taken by the GM out in the driveway and burned. . .I've been in games where the GM would say "Good, you'll fit right in." and  a lot of variations in between usually revolving around requested changes.

That's because every version of RM and SM has been both complex, and flexible. . .which offers a wide range of potential for power gaming. Power gaming is only abusive in context of an actual game. . .you cannot look at a character sheet and say it's abusive, without knowing the context of the game that character is intended for. . .you can say the character is not legally constructed within the RAW, but really, any one of us, if we set ourselves to it, could easily create a RAW legal character that would likely be considered abusive power gaming in 99.99% of games and refused by the GM.

So did the RM2 and RMSS game writers build abusive systems, or did they write complex, flexible systems that can be power gamed, trusting GMs to keep control over ultimately what was and was not going to be allowed at their table?

[David Johansen]

Really, with RMSS most of the abuses happen during character creation.

The normal progression of levels and skills is very self limiting.  Two ranks in the skill and category are pretty much all you can do and ranks have diminishing returns.

The stacking of magic items is abused at first level, with the pick 2 +20 for 2 option being very popular.  Usually a weapon and armor.  Sure you can do a weapon and shield or a helmet and armor but any bonus on the weapon can be used to parry and is thus arguably superior to a flat +20 DB.  Special skill bonuses and stat bonuses are the ideal talent picks for a higher level build if one has the opportunity to pick up better magic items later.

Really I think RM does a pretty amazing job of it all told.  Even stacking Training Packages tends to hit diminishing returns on ranks and aging in a hurry.

But no, no rpg with sufficient depth to be interesting to play can be truly free from abuse.  Still, if I have any power in the revision the 2 +20 option will be gone, gone, gone.

[Marc R]

Keep in mind the character build speculated above is 10th level, so the potential for magical items is a lot greater.

Likely the largest holes to march abuse into would be:

Stacking of anything that offers a bonus.
Races (freaky ones)
Talents & Flaws
Background Options
Selection of additional Base Lists
Cross results of any two effects or abilities that produce an unplanned 3rd result

That all said. . .the freaky high end talent combo may be totally unacceptable in my game, but totally OK in your game. . .Played in a game once where all the players were half mortal demigod children of the Greek gods, and the builds were VERY high end. . .and quite amusing. . in any other game I'd call them abusive, but in that game they worked.

[David Johansen]

All the Spacemaster Privateers races would be abusive in a normal Rolemaster campaign.  Heck Oorts are even abusive in SPAM games.

But yes, it's not how powerful the characters are it's how challenged they are and how well their power level matches up that matters.  One of the reasons I'm opposed to a single stat per skill (though I use it in several of my own designs) is that it makes min/maxing way too easy.

[markc]

IMHO above level 10 level bonuses are very abusive.


MDC

[Marc R]

This being one of those elements where "Abusive" should be "Break my game balance".

Abuse is breaking game balance with intent.

It's one of those things that leads to a lower tone and less danger of fire. . ."Unbalanced" or "Over the top" are judgement terms. . .but "Abuse" implies intent to tip the boat.

Like,

I think that a 9th level fighter picking up a mace for the first time ever, it being the best magic item they've ever found. . .and their whole previous life being centered on bladed weapons. . . .so they 1 rank in Mace at level 10, giving them a +5 (skill) +15 (stat) +30 Level bonus for +50 total bonus a trifle over the top but overall it's kind of odd that 1:1 vs a person with 10 ranks in mace, no stat, professional or magic bonus. . .and they're equal. . .

('course, that's only +10 more than an RMSS fighter would have)

Abusive is when a new player joins your game of 5th level characters, and they have a +150 OB in their primary weapon due to an interesting conjunction of stats, talents and magic. . . while the highest OB in your party is +90 and you went over the lay of the land with them before they made their character. . .that player is being abusive.

[yammahoper]

This being one of those elements where "Abusive" should be "Break my game balance".

Abuse is breaking game balance with intent.

It's one of those things that leads to a lower tone and less danger of fire. . ."Unbalanced" or "Over the top" are judgement terms. . .but "Abuse" implies intent to tip the boat.

Like,

I think that a 9th level fighter picking up a mace for the first time ever, it being the best magic item they've ever found. . .and their whole previous life being centered on bladed weapons. . . .so they 1 rank in Mace at level 10, giving them a +5 (skill) +15 (stat) +30 Level bonus for +50 total bonus a trifle over the top but overall it's kind of odd that 1:1 vs a person with 10 ranks in mace, no stat, professional or magic bonus. . .and they're equal. . .

('course, that's only +10 more than an RMSS fighter would have)

Abusive is when a new player joins your game of 5th level characters, and they have a +150 OB in their primary weapon due to an interesting conjunction of stats, talents and magic. . . while the highest OB in your party is +90 and you went over the lay of the land with them before they made their character. . .that player is being abusive.

Of course they are equal.  It is the training and daring of adventures that make them our "betters", nothing else.

That's why what they do is heroic, since everyone else knows that THEY would fail.  Hero's are aspired to.  Few pursue being a hero cuz one wrong guess and SPLAT, youre a casualty.

Thein lies the humanity of a hero, and why unstopably god kin PC's munchkined to the hilt (pun intended) are both abusive and abuse.

[yammahoper]

Keep in mind the character build speculated above is 10th level, so the potential for magical items is a lot greater.

Likely the largest holes to march abuse into would be:

Stacking of anything that offers a bonus.
Races (freaky ones)
Talents & Flaws
Background Options
Selection of additional Base Lists
Cross results of any two effects or abilities that produce an unplanned 3rd result

That all said. . .the freaky high end talent combo may be totally unacceptable in my game, but totally OK in your game. . .Played in a game once where all the players were half mortal demigod children of the Greek gods, and the builds were VERY high end. . .and quite amusing. . in any other game I'd call them abusive, but in that game they worked.

I like this post and where it leads.

That includes the stacking of bonus items is the rig-day-jur issue to be solved in calculating DB.  Defining all sources of DB and allowing only one mod per type is the probable answer.  Highest level enchantment rules in case of conflict.

[Marc R]

You can get similar problems with "My Race has +X ST/AG or QU bonus, I get a talent for +Y ST / AG or Qu Bonus." then piling OB and/or DB bonuses on top of that. . . .Inborn bonuses, skill bonuses, long term external bonuses (items) and short term external bonuses (spells) all need to add up without sinking game balance.

[Langthorne]

I'm pretty sure the RAW for creating new races state that it is the preserve of the GM. But in any case, be it Talent Law (which I don't really use or like) or creating new races, if it is deemed to be acceptible to use, and within any GM stipulations (ie no "Blessed by War God" etc) then I would build the best character I could, and be perfectly happy for players I was GM'ing to do the same.

Even with extreme use of race creation options, and the stacking of items and abilities, there is no way a player can dominate a good GM.
I would never use my BOs for items  (there are myriad ways they could be lost...!).
There are many skills that could be important in my games, so stacking one skill over all others could be quite crippling.

I don't understand why people worry about power gaming - as long as all are playing within the rules (as agreed at the beginning) I see no problem.

I do agree that there are many imbalances in most versions of RM (none utterly broken though), so for those who don't want them exploited there are issues to be addressed.

[rdanhenry]

A Quickness based DB of over 60 is achievable for a Halfling in RMSS. Make him a Warrior Monk and you can pile Adrenal Defense on top of that. Nevertheless, I don't think Halflings are overly powerful. Specialization in one area leads to weaknesses elsewhere. You can only really win the min-max game if the campaign lacks variety in its challenges.

[Cory Magel]

100 Qu = +10
High Elf = +6
Qu Talent = +8
Lightning Reactions Talent +5DB

So I just created a character with a base 77DB.

Not really that hard in the RMSS core book.  Now, I don't think that's really an issue - I've never believed "Min/Max'ing" is an issue.  It will always exist unless you make your game lack variety.  If you are making a character that is supposed to be incredibly quick doing the above is not abusing the system, it is designing your character as fits its concept.  Now, your GM may nix it... but that's up to the GM and should not be determined by the 'rules'.

[GrumpyOldFart]

You can only really win the min-max game if the campaign lacks variety in its challenges.

Exactly. If the player's concept is to have someone who is a specialist, there's no reason not to let him be very good at what he does. As long as he goes into the process knowing that for every bit of attention he devotes to specializing, he leaves the GM opportunities to "attack him on his blind side", there's no reason for it to be a problem. As a simple example, the DB isn't going to help someone who is blown off a cliff, or has a building collapse on him. Nor (in most cases) is it going to be much help in an ambush either. And it certainly won't give him any protection against pickpockets.

[Marc R]

I believe it comes down to the world concept and game play style.

I have seen someone create a borderline sociopath combat monster, all that interested them was combat so they min-maxed their character to the nth degree. . .

They'd come alive and chop and slay royally in combat. . .then be sullen and whiny between combats ala "When will the combat start?" or "All you guys ever want to do is talk to people!" (i.e. roleplay rather than roll play).

I thank the gods of the blizzard for creating World of Warcraft. . .it's managed to bleed off almost all the "I long for combat" role-players I know.

But, back in the pre MMORPG days, there seemed to be a neverending supply of power gaming combat monsters. . .

As a GM, when breaking in new players, if they were total noobs, I made their character with them, if they were coming in from some other RM experience, I'd let them make their character after giving them some guidance.

With the latter, 10% of the ones who handed me a total minmax combat build, turned out to come from a total min/max combat game, and after getting some comments ala "you should really consider taking some perception, and perhaps it might not be the best idea to have maxed out these seven skills and taken no other skills." etc. . .

The other 90% turned out to be exactly the min-maxing combat monsters they looked like, and within two sessions were whining "Why are you guys taking crap from these guards, we can kick their arses!"

I never really had that much of a problem with letting natural consequences catch up with them, but some GMs run into serious issues with it, and I've seen many games sink shortly after a min-max combat monster joined a group that wasn't totally combat oriented when they arrived.

[GrumpyOldFart]

That was my whole point, to go through the process with them and let them know that the "min-max combat monster" decision will have consequences too, and that such extreme specialization in anything (yes, even combat) is likely to have consequences that will get them killed or worse (if you don't think there's any worse, you have a poor imagination).

If after all that, they still want their min-max combat monster, well okay. He creates it, consequences kill it, end of problem except for either a) helping him learn what a real character is or b) running him off before he spoils the fun for everyone else.

[Witchking20k]

Just as a question............if a weapon has a +10 OB, should it really apply to Parry.  Bonuses are usually associated with craftsmanship or enchantment that make the weapon "hard" & "deadlier" when being used againsts mundane materials......does this add to the defenders ability to dodge/sidestep/block an incoming attack?

[yammahoper]

Just as a question............if a weapon has a +10 OB, should it really apply to Parry.  Bonuses are usually associated with craftsmanship or enchantment that make the weapon "hard" & "deadlier" when being used againsts mundane materials......does this add to the defenders ability to dodge/sidestep/block an incoming attack?

 

Since OB represents both offensive and defensive abilities, I think the current RAW is yes. 

I had a core of players for years: Pat, Scott, Brett and Matt, that I would apply rule variations to.  They were the types that handled them well.  Not allowing OB bonuses for weapons to be used to parry with was one.

Pat always made a table for himself that showed his possible OB/DB combinations he would use, then he would check the combo he was using at the beginning of each round.  The others found the rule a bit pedantic and bothersome.  Ifthe weapon was magical and increased the potency of attacks, why not the ability to increase your effective DB?

In the end I stuck with the rule only for superior weapons, which means the rule is pretty much forgotton by fifth level.  That being the case, I just dropped the rule in the end.

Yet I always liked it.  armor DB increases cant increase OB after all, even if a DB increase from armor does allow attacks with more OB while having the "same" DB as earlier.

It's a rule I could live with in the next edition.

[Setorn]

I just had the stacking bonus issue with a player using the Crafting rules.  I had three bonuses to consider material and magical plus Crafting. 

I ruled
1) The highest bonus trumps
2) Material Bonuses may trump if the Material is a consideration to the action attack (Silver vs Werewolves). Material bonuses add to value.
3) Crafting Bonuses, like Material, adds to the value of the item and the bonus can be targeted.
4) Somethings can only be hit with magic. 

Example:  Steel +10 Material, +15 magical, +10 Crafting (DB)
This way the bonus is usually +15 with a +10 DB

It seems to work.  He Crafted a Trident to add to Pole Vaulting Rolls as the Material he used gave a better OB/DB.

I guess my point of this is tracking them and targeting them adds flavor.  My group can recognize an Orc weapons smith by the material he uses and how his crafting bonuses are aligned. 

If the above is too complicated highest bonus wins and material and crafting add to value.