Min-Max'ing & HotB

[Keith Fyans]

Following from this thread in the House Rules board...

Why sadly? Specialising in a field and covering each others weakness is a great motivation to form a cabal!

because it feels to me that it defines your character more even before the game starts and my players will most likely abuse it if they can min max and be on the same side

OK, you have two points here (correct me if I'm wrong), and I'll give my opinion - feel free to agree/disageee and imagine a good-natured smile on my face as we talk GM to GM:

1) Specialising your character at creation will define the character alot before play starts
I agree. This rocks. We know exactly what the player wants in a Story and so can create stories that use this focus. On the other hand we know the characters Weaknessess and can incorporate them at times where it would be fun. Make your players John McLean not Mary Sue.

2) Your players will abuse each having a focus in some way
I'm not rerally sure what you are thinking here, so I'm open to clarification. You seem to be casting yourself in an adversarial role with your players, wether conciously or unconciosly. Instead I would suggest talking about what sort of stories the group wants to play through, where the players want to succeed and where they want to fail. Anything they have access to, their enemies also have. They are young in their Spring. They will not have enough vassals/contacts to ensure Trouble is dealt with by others. They have a Liege demanding obedience and peers ready to pry everything from their hands. While you are above the plabs, you are by no means in the big legue as a starting character...

[Amp]

You're also forgetting the fact that while your Cabal-mates may cover your weaknesses in the best of times, they always have the opportunity to exploit them... Sometimes it just takes some creative manoeuvring.

[dogmirian]

what i meant is not that they have to much power for that is the aim of the game but that they use it wastefully and not very entertainingly

if they were trying to deduce a crime they roll their cunning then state bluntly who did it then with extras say stuff like i find a new magical sword and stuff
even if their aren't any real magical swords just artifacts and orichunum

[Amp]

That's when you as Narrator do two things:

1: Dock them Style. Simply announcing that X did it is bad form. Proofs should be supplied. At the very least proofs should be established during wagering. And just because X did it does not mean the characters know that X did it. All the proof could lead towards Y doing it.

2: Reach across the table and slap them in the head if they continue, or start throwing the 'Dolt' Aspect around. People stop doing stupid things when they find out that their precious pets are getting seriously crippled for it.

Another thing you might want to do is enforce the concept that Wagers have to be related to the Intent in a clear way. That Artifact Sword they found while looking for clues on the murderer's identity might still be found, but it's evidence, and will be held by a neutral party or put in a secure location away from interested parties.

[Keith Fyans]

if they were trying to deduce a crime they roll their cunning then state bluntly who did it then with extras say stuff like i find a new magical sword and stuff even if their aren't any real magical swords just artifacts and orichunum

While I agree with the use of stating Bad Form, and not giving any style out and watching their Invokes dry up, if the bahaviour is emdemic then it would be worth talking with the group about why they are acting like this. Discuss the idea of Tragedy and of failing to make the story interesting. In the end if you are wanting to run a different game from the one they want to play then keeping on going is just going to make all of you unhappy in the long run.

(While this is more mentioned for catharsis rather than a serious session you could always give them exactly what they want for a session and show them how breif and bland a Mary Sue story really is: There is a party with a murder => we know who did it => end)

[Amp]

You have a potential problem with that, Keith... It gives the players a sense of accomplishment, no matter how small. Not only that, they may turn it into what they thing to be an achievement. They did, after all, thwart the Narrator in record time. NEVER allow a player who is undermining the concept of the game to win. Always make them fail and die in shamed obscurity. Start calling random DOOMs if you must. Beat them down and do not allow them to rise again until they are willing to play the game the right way.

Now, I may note here that this advice seems a little fascist, but 'the right way' is still a pretty damn broad spectrum. Don't force the players to play exactly the way you want it, but certainly make sure that people that suck the drama from a game that thrives on it on a consistent basis are treated harshly for each offense. Force them to learn where the line lies, and make examples of them. Players that don't do that sort of thing can get away with the odd slip, obviously, maybe a Style dock or two if it starts becoming a habit. But one thing you always want to do when training anything, including your players, is make sure they know EXACTLY why you are doing what you are doing. Communicate it with them.

And this isn't to say that every session has to have a plotline so kinked and twisted it's unrecognizable, a la this, there obviously has to be building points, but you need to find a way to encourage proper use of drama and such. One way I considered doing when I was going to run a Real Life campaign is with cookies. These aren't Style Points, but are instead awarded whenever a Wager or Style Point is used to appropriately add to the drama of a situation, in a similar fashion but more commonly than Style points. They have no mechanical benefits, being physical cookies, but they are damn tasty, and who wouldn't want to get a cookie for doing something awesome?

[Keith Fyans]

NEVER allow a player who is undermining the concept of the game to win

If everyone has a sit-down talk and all the players want to play Houses one way and narrator wants to play it another, and there is no way to reconsile the two styles, then it simply ain't the game for them to play together.

[dogmirian]

thanks everyone for your 2 cents
i will see what happens when i talk to them next but if nothing comes out of that at least i have found the BDA skit