Pnp ttrpgs

>pnp ttrpgs
>encounter balance mechanics do everything they can to avoid any chance of PCs dying
>GMs do everything they can to avoid any chance of PCs dying, including fudging dice
>players still min-max and metagame out the ass

you don't fight the monsters, you fight the other players for the spotlight

Don't balance encounters that way.
Don't run your games that way.
Don't let the players read the rulebook.

>Dont let players read the rulebook
Get the fuck out of Veeky Forums

t. Critical Role player

oh hey look, it's my first DM and the reason I didn't play pnp rpgs until half way through college!

kys faggot

t. entitled playerfag scum

OP specifically asked for how to avoid people meta-gaming and min-maxing, and having incomplete or unavailable rules will do exactly that. Players will actually pick classes and races based on what they think sounds cool or interesting instead of based on their abilities. Players may actually play a knight in shining armor fighting class even if sub optimal because they can't examine the rulebook's monster section to see how strong that would be against monsters. Players will pick the warlock class because they want to play a dark wizard who makes a deal with the devil instead of knowing exactly what sort of magic skills and abilities they'll have access to at level 18.

Both of you who want to make tabletop games play more like video games that lack any kind of immersion- you're the problem. 99% of GMs think it would spoil the game to tell the players their game notes and campaign plans; letting players see all the monsters and challenges in advance would ruin the game or at the very least remove any sense of mystery or discovery. Why is including the rulebook in that decision a problem?

You don't know shit about running games or game design. Not everything has to be shown up front and not everyone needs to know all available information. Fuck off.

The more powerful their builds get the more powerful stuff you can throw at them.
Honestly it's gotten to the point with my party that I intentionally throw things I know they can't handle at them because I know they'll end up taking it down in like one round anyway

Who are you quoting?

>Players will actually pick classes and races based on what they think sounds cool or interesting instead of based on their abilities.
And lose interest once they realize that, hey, this particular combo sucks or could've been better if they had chosen this other option instead.

Of course, this helps if you play a good system in the first place where you can afford to play a knight in shining armor or a warlock and not end up being completely shat on because you decided to choose something based on flavor instead of results.

Stop using systems that reward min-maxing and metagaming out the ass.

OP I dunno how to tell you this but... killing players is easy.

Rocks fall. Everyone dies. As a GM it's VERY POSSIBLE to just kill any given player for like... anything. Put a sphere of annihilation in a dark room and you're guaranteed at least 1 player death.

The point of 'balance' isn't to give anyone a clear advantage it's to give the impression of fairness. It's to communicate to the player that "no you died for this and this reason" and for the player to go "okay that's a reasonable conclusion to what's been set up" instead of "what the fuck how was I suppose to even know about that?"

and like everything there are different tolerances and different standards for different players. Some players don't like it when ANYTHING they haven't immediately calculated for is revealed and some GM's have no problem revealing that the random peasant you're shaking down is actually a red dragon in disguise.

Both of these people might be considered "that guy" to some but what's important is that you find people who can strike a good middle ground there and a GM who's good at communicating the fairness of a situation along with players who will accept that fairness graciously, both for good and for ill.

You remind me of my first DM. His games were a blast, but only because we didn't know any better. Thinking back, the gaming habits he cultivated in us were utterly cancerous, and I suspect none of the other players of that group will ever be fully rehabilitated.

>Plays casual games where dying has to be purposefully engineered by the GM.
>With nerds with inferiority complexes who sperg out if they lose their minmax'd character builds
>Wonders why every game is too easy and nobody ever dies.
Try playing either a different system or with a different group. Don't do what this sperg is suggesting though, it'll only allow them to blame the DM when their bad decisions catch up to them and convince them to minmax harder in all future campaigns.

>His games were a blast, but only because we didn't know any better
It's sad that you can't detect the irony surrounding this. I think you've been ruined by gamists.

user it's not odd for a player to look back on a game he played and say "you know if I encountered that bullshit now I'd find it insufferable"

Looking back and realizing how stupid you were is a mark of maturity user.

Maybe one day you'll realize.

If I don't want the GM to have to fudge for my sake, I take measures like optimization (I hate min-maxing for having a "min" part).

Or I convince him to play a game where dices or even death itself hasn't got so much impact. Edge of the Empire, NWoD, Dream Pod 9's games and Pokémon Tabletop Adventures come to mind. Would do it for Shadowrun too (Burning Edge is an option), but min-maxing in Shadowrun is somewhat of a tradition.

> but min-maxing in Shadowrun is somewhat of a tradition.
Sorry, I meant: "but min-maxing in Shadowrun is a prerequisite not to play once every 3 or 4 turns".

T. GM with a god complex.
Have fun teaching all your players bad habits you powertripping fetishist

As a DM from the 90's, when most players literally didn't have access to most books outside of the PHB unless tha GM loaned it to them, I agree with everything you said, and agree that that environment genuinely lead to better games that actually emulated the fantasy genre pieces that got us into the game in the first place..... but do you have to be such a dick about it?

Yes, maintaining the mystery about the nuts and bolts of the system outside of what's necessary to run their character does indeed encourage RP/Coolnes-based choices, which prevents the optimization arms race that plagued 3e and made it all but impossible to hit the encounter sweet-spot of "not going to kill the party, but definitely going to make them sweat and be a challenge."

However, you don't do it "because players are entitled babies." You do it to "maintain the mystery" and becayse you want to provide a genuinely fun experience for your table.

Chill bro.