Mfw I make a non-combat character and the DM has to plan encounters around me

I feel Hector used STR to make an army more than he did CHA.

Or just his reputation of being part of the army that saved the world.

>ttrpg
>Tabletop ??? Role-Playing Game
what's the second T stand for user

I mean that is an accurate description of the character in the image he posted, so that might have been the point.

When did I say don't play GURPS, GURPS is fantastic and has great options for making non combat characters.

i wouldn't count him out, he was a gruff motherfucker but he did well enough when it came to holding it together but i haven;t played hector mode in a while.
if i still had my original ds i'd fire it up

Top.Because people are stupid.

Tabletop Top Role-Playing Game? that doesn't make sense. surely someone who posts on the enlightened board of Veeky Forums couldn't be stupid

He might have assumed Veeky Forums is one other person besides himself again.

If you lie Warmachine, I'd definitely recommend giving Iron Kingdoms. It's a great Tactical RPG. I've had a few good runs.

TableTop Role-Playing Game. Gotta seperate the term from Tactical Roleplaying Games somehow and the extra T works fine enough for that purpose.

No the two Ts are for Table Top even though tabletop is one word. It's like the SOS Brigade from Haruhi. But fucking stupider because we're English speakers and should actually know better.

>
Tactical Tabletop Role Playing Game.

>Gotta seperate the term from Tactical Roleplaying Games somehow
well, you see
you could just type 'tactical roleplaying game'
it's not very hard to type, user

You can't do shit with charisma in games.

...

>play a halfling bard
>18 charisma
>walk into the big bad's manor, bumble my way through his library making up an excuse that i'm a rare book repair guy, fall down the shaft to his secret underground lair and then convince him to give me a key to get around so that i can find my own way out
ayyy

You've converted me. Now you just have to convince the rest of the internet to follow your ingenious writing conventions. Good luck with that.

Except Warhammer40k is always referred to as a tabletop game, so it'd be easier to just call something an RPG, because it's not like we're talking with the spergs over in /v/ or anything. Nobody is confusing D&D for Fallout, except for "stat me" threads.

Especially since this is literally the first time since I've gotten onto Veeky Forums where I've seen the term "Tactical Role Playing Game"

As far as I know we used to differentiate it as TTG and TTRPG depending on if it's a tactical wargame or a pen and paper game because last I checked you don't roleplay during wargames unless you're an overly serious faggot or you only like skirmish level games.

your dm is shit then.
in WHFB, there are rules for it
across all the editions of dnd it is possible
i would be fucking floored if gurps didn't have it
so on and so forth.

Dark Heresy & co.

You can be a combat character and be useful. You can be a noncombat character and be useful. The party will need a good balance of both to get shit done.

Specifically Dark Heresy has the added bonus that you only need VERY minor house ruling to be able to play as a fantasy game.

Really I think it's about Genre. Take a game like Mutants and Masterminds. It's really focused on combat mechanics and fighting in a way that is tactically sound.

Then you have Masks. It's less heavy on combat rules because it's more about the roleplay of being a super hero and how those characters feel.

All of the WoD games are straight forward RPG's while D&D is Tactical by nature.

> never made appointment with him
> no sane person would let you do this
> yet because MUH 18 CHARISMA you can convince him to let you fuck him in the ass

I hate this meme.

with a good bit of phrasing you can do anything

Here's what I don't understand about min-maxing in DnD:

DnD games tend to follow the fantasy convention that enemies come in bite-sized chunks that are strong/numerous enough to give them a challenge without being too strong/numerous for the party to handle. This convention works both ways: if the party is weaker, so are enemies; if the party is stronger, so are enemies. Being ahead of the intended power curve offers no net gain, as encounters are scaled to be 0,8 times party power level regardless of what that level is. Thus, all min-maxing does is screw over party members with no advantage to the min-maxer. Why then do they keep doing it?

Have you seen that greentext about Gropey and two friends convincing a train station guard they had lost their elephant, after he found them illegally hiding out in a train cabin? In the end, they even got him to give them his spare keys to the train yard.

I don't know if there's any truth to the story, but I can easily see someone with neigh-superhuman speechcraft doing it.

>no sane person has ever, ever been scammed by a conman

That's just because new D&D systems removed retainer and morale rules, which made charisma into an amazing asset.

Veeky Forums always assumes it's just one person

haven't we agreed that Veeky Forums is an angry Finn talking to himself?

Veeky Forums doesn't drink nearly enough vodka for that.

perkele, that makes sense.

I played a child character with little more than clairvoyance and clairsentience in Strands of Fate once. I thought for sure I'd get bored and make a fighter character eventually, but my GM was a really cool guy and there was always something for me to do.

I too played martial the first time I got into Pathfinder.

Well now im curious. Please elaborate on this, ive haf 1st ed DH kicking around my shelf for a while and thought it to mich hastle to repurpose the system for fantasy.

Charisma was the only stat that sometimes mattered in Gygaxian D&D.
See also,

>having codified "encounters"

Just to note that min-maxing is not in itself a problem, just when it creates a major party imbalance. Min-maxing can actually be a good thing if the class is one of the notoriously underpowered ones.

>Why then do they keep doing it?

1. The player might have started out in high lethality games and simply be used to having to min-max to keep their character alive.

2. The player may simply enjoy min-maxing as an activity in its own right.

3. The player might be afraid of failure. Powergamers often defend themselves by saying "I don't want a character that sucks" (falsely claiming it's a binary choice) and many ex-Powergamers admit they hated 'losing'.

4. The player might be a spotlight hog who wants, conciously or unconciously, to be able to stand out in as many areas as possible during play. Games like DnD with poor inter-Class balance enable this.

What you're saying is assuming the DM is some kind of inhuman computational engine with the capability, or even the desire, to out minmax a minmaxer in order to keep the danger level the same. Which, in my experience, is rarely the case. Typically you'll have one completely new player, two or three more experienced but still new or grizzled enough to want to play something less optimised "for fun", and then HIM. The guy who read every obscure referece and errata there ever was a month in advance solely so he can "win".
It might not even be conscious (and again, in my experience, it usually isn't), but they want to play a "good" character and somewhere in their minds that translates to wringing out every mechanical advantage possible. They may even have a backstory the size of a small novel in order to explain all that stuff, but in the end the fact of the matter is that he's there to beat every challenge, and he will intentionally or not outshine everyone else in the process. Entering an arms race with this guy or trying to limit him by imposing arbitrary bans and houserules are both losing propositions; you either manage to convince him to intentionally "lose", or give up on him.

>1. The player might have started out in high lethality games and simply be used to having to min-max to keep their character alive.

This was what pushed me to minmaxing.

I don't want to "win," necessarily. I just don't want to throw out characters over and over because I'm getting shrekt in every random encounter vs a literal who pack of assholes

>blini

>Indicative of bigger system issue
>Indicative of non-communicative gm which is in and of itself an issue
>Personal problem
>Personal problem
>Significantly worse personal problem

You are the last person I wanted to see.

But user, he rolled a 20

Oh, that's so sweet! You wanted to see me again!

Your DM doesn't have to plan SHIT around you. You have the pleasure of a DM that is willing to plan even one encounter with a non-combat solution in mind instead of you being eaten by somthing you can't reason with. I have q grognard DM that straight up told us he expected at least one of us to die first session. We only survived by the skin of our teeth because he didn't expect anyone to prepare dispell magic and it saved our asses twice.

Because tickling that enemy with 120 HP or so to death over 5 rounds with a sword and board Fighter's dinky 1d8+10 longsword attacks is shit while playing classes that can actually kill things in a reasonable amount of time is not. The former is one of the worst experiences I've ever had playing tabletop.

>playing with "rules" and "dice"

>You can't do shit with charisma in games.

In a good game of shadowrun, the GM constantly asks for Etiquette rolls and has NPCs question PCs all the time. And then NPCs can dislike the party, the PCs' contacts' loyalty won't increase (which causes problems down the road), fences will give worse rates for items, questgivers might offer lower run rewards, or guards may try to search the bags of people who don't look like they belong. Things like that can make or break a run, and that's not even counting availability rolls which take charisma to locate and buy high-end gear. In SR, a character with no social skills is just as much of a burden as someone with no combat skills, if not more so.

I've not only played high lethality games when I learned gaming, my first group bullied me for not being good enough in their eyes. Which was encouraged by the gm. I'm a power gamer now. I do keep it low key and always play team oriented characters so to not hog the spotlight.

As someone who optimizes pretty hard, I tend to like looking at my various options and figuring out how to get the biggest numbers (or high numbers in the most categories, or whatever). That said, being way the fuck stronger than everyone else is no fun, so I limit my power level so I don't overshadow anyone else.

Some people also want to show off and be the best, because apparently they think that makes their penis bigger or something.

And, finally, some people may be used to situations where that's relatively appropriate. They may come from a group where everyone optimized as much as they do, or where the other players weren't combat focused so their whole deal was "kill shit quickly so it doesn't kill the rest of the group" and that DM worked around that setup.

tl;dr if it gets to the point where it's affecting the game, the person in question is either an ass or doesn't realize what's going on. Either way, talk to them about it.

Howabout world of fucking darkness you greasy bucket of fuck.

Most characters I've seen in WoD, especially Vampire, don't need to be combat oriented. In fact because I started with WoD, moving to other systems like DND felt really weird since everyone is expected to fight. As if that's the sole and only source of drama ever.

Min-maxing is the logical conclusion of build cancer and babied PCs. D&D was never supposed to be about combat except as a last resort, and designing encounters around party level is intense WotC cancer introduced only to make the game safe and palatable for shop events.

>tl;dr if it gets to the point where it's affecting the game, the person in question is either an ass or doesn't realize what's going on
Why is the onus on the player to hide his power level and not on the newbies to just git gud? DM's that baby their players are shit, just as much as they are ones who can't challenge min-maxers by bringing the houserules out of their comfort zone.

>D&D was never supposed to be about combat except as a last resort

Niggah it was literally a fucking mod for a fucking wargame. Don't you spout that shit. If you need to buy a wargame to even play combat isn't "a last resort". It's literally the idea.

WoD is a good, simple intro to actual RPGs for DnD-drones.

The wargame roots are present in D&D's domain level play. OD&D only borrowed Chainmail's rules for man-to-man combat (and Outdoor Survival's hexmap). You barely get any XP for killing monsters up until AD&D 2e, it all came from gold.

DMs always have to plan encounters, in and out of combat, around the party composition. That's just part of the job.

READ THE BOOK

>typical Dawn problem in exalted

In WoD everyone just minmaxes mind control because that's the strongest thing there is. That's no different to minmaxing damage or magic or charisma. It's the same shit, don't pretend it isn't.

The amount of XP from battles was a pittance compared to amount from treasure, you had low amount of HP, and attack bonuses small making combat swingy. The game incentivised exploring the dungeon while avoiding battles. Fighting something was occupational hazard not the main content.

That has literally never happened in any wod game I've ever run, you fucking idiot. Mind control is heavily effective on humans and mages but not werewolves, changelings, or vampires. And humans even have exceptions in hunters. Not only that but you can nerf that shit on the fly because storyteller covers its own ass incredibly easily. Unlike DND where everyone would have to turn into a whiny pissbaby because their entire fucking character took 5 hours to optimize for that one tactic and there are 800 rules backing it up that you'd have to un-knot to fix.

Can't you just play Warhammer Fantasy and be done with it?

>The amount of XP from battles was a pittance
Wrong, combat XP was severely nerfed, that wasn't part of the original game.

...

>Shouldn't you be the one planning around his encounters?

But user, that's metagaming!

No? The player has no idea what the GM will do unless you're playing D&D in which case you know exactly what they will do every single time.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pittance

If you go with a group that is very much prone to start fighting, yes you should know what will happen.

If vidya taught me anything optimal exp yield of an encounter is solving thing peacefully. And then killing everyone.

>mfw a player shows up with a non-combat character and he gets turned into fucking chum and the DM tells him he just used up his only reroll

DARK SUN GIVES NO FUCKS ABOUT YOUR PACIFISM

Literally impossible.
I hear DMs complain about this and I have never understood it.

>that sure is a bad case of polio your min/maxed fighter has.

Modern DMs are too afraid of conflict with their players. They started the hobby too late and view the game as a "shared experience" instead of a game, so stopping someone's enjoyment is the worst crime (although they'll just ignore the fact that it's hurting everyone else's enjoyment).

All DMs need to put something through a fucking meat grinder at least twice so the other players know he's not fucking around.

Never understood this either.

>your non combat character gets accosted by 3 muggers. They haven't eaten in days and will stop at nothing less than killing you and taking your money.
>you're noncombat.
>looks like you're dead, senpai :^)

...

I've been spending too much time on /pol/; I read that as ni and not mu

Well, ggers gonna gger.

I guess my stance is a function of DMing for a long time.

You really think you can fucking beat me, with your min/maxed fighter/wizard/whatever?

If you're intentionally trying to make my job harder in regards to making a fun and engaging campaign for the group because you want to steal the lime light, I'll crater your fucking character so fast.

This. 2e is fun as fuck

Yeah... I actually do use race in my campaigns, though it's more pronounced when it's between humans/dwarves/whatever.

Saying "black people are oppressed bere" is just going to raise the question of: "if multiple human ethnicities are present in your world (even if we just say like 5: white, black, asian, latin/south American, arab), how many ethnicities do dwarves have? Elves? Orcs?"

It's more trouble than its worth. Lol

>Thus, all min-maxing does is screw over party members with no advantage to the min-maxer. Why then do they keep doing it?

For the PvP user. got to curbstomp those fags nerds and casuals. Cause they aint Treu Nerds

>setting up """games"""

Shadowrun 3e had a line in the rulebook about how its hard to care about skin color when some guys have horns

>They may even have a backstory the size of a small novel in order to explain all that stuff,

This is just one of the small parts of the fun of min-maxing, getting together all your shit and then figuring out how to camouflage it as a character.

>rolling a non-caster

>I limit my power level so I don't overshadow anyone else.

You don't have to do that, just play support and then go 1000%. Like a wizard or a Paladin or a cleric or some shit. As long as you're not actually dealing damage nobody notices what you're doing, just help everyone else deal damage and they'll feel awesome and you'll be smug.

That's perfectly OK unless it was stated earlier that game is combat-centered.

GURPS is OK with non-combat characters. 7th sea is OK. WoD is OK. L5R is OK. Even *W systems have a ton of options for social/skillful characters.
Just Poke few popular systems that aren't DnD or it's clones.

>I don't see why you need to come inside to make your pitch
>I would never buy a vacuum for more than $200
>You're right $2500 at 15% interest is a good deal for that vacuum.

>This meme going anywhere

No I don't. It's a hexcrawl. You can try talking to things you encounter sure, but don't be surprised if combat comes up.