TT’s RPG glossary defines a twink as follows: “A player who exploits loopholes in the rules (but does not break them) to build PCs that are more powerful than average.”
I think that’s a pretty serviceable definition, but much as one person’s erotic art is another person’s porn, every GM will draw the line between fine-tuning a character and twinking in a different spot.
Where do you draw the line in your own games? And how much do the game system and the tone of the campaign affect where that line is drawn? Is there, in fact, a hard-and-fast rule for what constitutes twinking?
If a player is willing to invest the time to achieve a level of mastery that benefits them, I’m not going to get in their way. It’d have to be an obvious design flaw or really wrecking the game for the other players for me to step in.
I honestly don’t get why there’s so much hate for system mastery in our hobby. Are GMs that insecure?
I think there’s a difference between powergaming (maximizing a character based on inherent inequality in the rules) and twinking (exploiting rule inconsistancies that obvioulsy defy the spirit of the game). Buzz, I would call what you are describing “powergaming,” and I agree, it is not something to be quashed.
I like exploring “twinking” as an intellectual exercise, but in my experience, it doesn’t make for fun gaming. After all, isn’t it a violation of the “sprit of the rules” for a GM to put the characters face-to-face with a certain-death encounter? The rules provide ways for this to happen, but it just isn’t fun.
I don’t think a GM disallowing a violation of the spirit of the rules is a mark of insecurity–it is merely a bulwark against the advancing horde of the reality of number-crunching replacing an immersive role-playing enviroment where disbelief can be suspended.
And, if at the end of the day, I’m stuck with a player who just really wants to twink, I can always come up with some kind of one-off adventure where the twinked player can be used. Sometimes it is just fun to run an adventure that the players utterly dominate.
Any time I do not agree with your position upon my third read of the rule giving you your advantage, it’s twinking.
T
For myself this a social issue and not a game mechanics issue. Two players can design the exact same character with the same rules system.
If player A plays the character well, then I don’t care that he or she has taken the time to really use the system to his or her advantage. That is what the system is for.
If player B plays the character poorly, and it becomes obvious that he or she designed the character so that he or she would just have an advantage of some sort according to the rules then I still have to respect his or her ability to design a strong character. The problem is that I won’t have much respect for a player who puts the game part before the role-playing. I’ll be sitting there thinking “That character is so cool! If only this person would actually do something other than analyze every situation from the rules view point and play that character!”
As for GMs being insecure, I don’t think that is the case in this situation. We as GMs always have the advantage. Got a PC that is so tough they can take whatever you throw at them? Take their character sheet, copy it, and add +1 (or +5%, or whatever works for your game system) to every stat/skill and you now have a very challenging villain for that PC. And that is just one of many tricks we can use to make a game interesting for a tough PC. There is never a reason to feel insecure when you have unlimited resources, just make sure to use them wisely.
I like T’s definition 🙂 I wish I had the chutzpa to put it into play.
We’re almost finished with character-build phase of restarting my OA game and I’ve got one player that’s twinking.
I understand that part of his behavior might stem from being unfamiliar with True20, but he’s crafted a kitsune with several traits (+10 disguise, +4 stealth, change shape, night vision, talk with canines) and took the only feat (Lucky) that most True20 GMs have nerfed as too powerful.
I think he’s worried that his character will be “left-behind” because he’s an adept and believes that he’ll be fatigued after a few rounds of combat. So in his defense he’s created an uber-magic user fox-man. On top of this he added one additional point to his abilities than I allowed.
Sometimes you wonder if this behavior comes from knowing too much, too little, or just seeing what you can get away with.
“I honestly don’t get why there’s so much hate for system mastery in our hobby. Are players that insecure?”
Hey Buzz, I fixed your post for you. 😉
The street goes both ways, my friend.
When I was younger I used to think this was the mark of a bad player. Now I think it’s more the mark of a badly designed game, or uncertainty about the goal of the game. Telling players that they can’t give the game all they’ve got seems backwards – particularly when the game system likely rewards the type of play the rest of the group finds bothersome. If the goal of the game *isn’t* dominating with stats/combat then make sure that’s not what players are being rewarded for (eg. with XP).
I agree with Charlie: the key to twinking is violating the spirit of the rules.
Picking the optimal set of feats so your dwarven barbarian is a killing machine is powergaming.
Taking 1 level of barbarian for the speed advantage, hit points, and skill points, then switching to wizard is twinking.
Or put another way, if the GM’s response is, “that’s a really specialized character,” you’re powergaming. If the response is, “I can’t believe that’s legal,” you’re twinking.
Re: It’s just rules mastery. Are GMs insecure?
Twinking is about violation of expectations.
If the expectation of your game is that everyone is going to try and optimise their characters, there is no problem. In such a game, it’s not even possible to twink, as pushing the rules is part of the social contract. (For fans of this sort of game, while D&D works with such play just fine, you might want to look to Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Rifts, and Hackmaster, all of which strongly support such play.)
However, if the expectation of your game is that the PCs are roughly evenly matched, pushing the rules is a problem if not all of your players are skilled at it. The less skilled players end up being overshadowed by the skilled one.
If the expectation of your game is that there is a different focus, say on storytelling, a twink can run roughshod over that expectation. As I noted above, I’ve had Vampire games which ground to halt because of a twink. Better rules might help, but should the other players be force away from rules they like because of the presence of a twink? The better fix is to eject twinks from such games. The down side is you might alienate a friend. And, of course, you’ll have to put up with their whining, “I’ve just mastered the rules. Why are you all so insecure.”
I’ve been on all sides of the fence on this one. In the end, for me, I think it comes down to a few things.
1. If you are playing healthy gamism, then optimization (powergaming) should be perfectly acceptable (though the gamist social contract MIGHT constrain this – perhaps the goal of the game is to build the badest character that doesn’t exploit rule X). If people are uncomfortable with the results, then that would imply the game is broken, or at least is not suitable (as written) for the group at hand. If the optimization says that exactly one set of choices is absolutely optimal, and as a result, everyone plays the same character, the game may not be what people want.
2. If the creative agenda is not gamism, this kind of thing may be a result of one person NOT playing for the same agenda. I recently ran a couple sessions of Dogs in the Vinyard, which is a narativist supporting game. Afterwards, I realized that really we were playing gamist (even myself – under a critical eye, I saw that I was playing to win, to impose challenge, not to create story). From the point of view of someone wanting to play narativist, we were probably “twinking” out all over the place. Of course, since Dogs in the Vinyard doesn’t support gamism very well (and I was hoping for something different), the game turned out rather blah.
3. I guess there’s sort of a #3. What if the creative agenda is simulationism? I think that may be where the worst accusations of “twinking” come into play. Sure, the rules say X, but the world, the dream, says Y.
So Alan is correct, “twinking” is a violation of expectations. However, I will disagree with the feeling that you shouldn’t abandon a rules-set that you like just because it’s twinkable. Instead, I would suggest taking a close look at the rules, do they really support your expectations? Or are you constantly having to ignore rules because they don’t fit your expectations? If the latter, you might be better off finding a new game system. Or at least be honest, and write up a complete set of house rules that does actually describe the game you play. Additionally, when recruiting new players, be sure to be honest about your expectations, and make sure the new player understands them.
And don’t be affraid to play different games with different friends. It’s a falacy to think that your 20 year long set of gaming buddies will always want to play the same game as everyone else.
Frank
I think any game has the possibillity for a player to build a twink or a power gamer. I don’t think it should be done, because it tends to make the game bad for other players, as well as the GM. Building a cool character, with kickass stuff isn’t twinking, using it to kill the game momentum or balance is.
It depends on the focus of the game that is being run, as to whether this is a problem or not. In a typical dungeon crawl if the player twinks to combat hausness, and nobody else gets to make an attack, then that may be a problem.
If the game is more story based, or social interaction based, and the player can dominate or “force” stuff to go on with special powers, then it’s a problem. Ruining the incredibly intriguing plot point and social interaction which would require cunning and quick witted thinking, with a single roll is quite annoying. Doing it for every single intriquing social interaction just kills anything of value for that game.
In my current game, the regular “fighter haus” player built more of a conman. He hadn’t gotten much chance to use his conning skills yet, but when they encountered an island of intelligent, well read natives who wanted to be recognized as a sovereign nation (despite being less than a square mile as a landmass), he jumps in, uses his massive con artist skills, rolls a speech off his tounge (in real life) about how he is “a legally authorized represtntative of the Cyrus League of Nations, fully capable and vested to oversee and notorize the initial papwerwork needed to get you recognized as a sovereign nation. There is of course the matter of the sponsorship fee, but I’ll cover that for you personally with some collateral, how about the washed up wreckage of that boat that we came for. Let us have that, I’ll cover the fee and fill out the paperwork and get you on your way to becoming the Nation of Melos, instead of just the island.”
He rolled it, got an incredible rating through the use of multiple skills to make it happen. That was all system, and was incredibly broken, but it was what his character was made to do, and he did it in the context of the game. He didn’t just go “I roll to try to convince them they should give us the wreckage”. Even if he had just said “I want to try to roll to convince them I’m a representative of a government, and can get them their recogniziton, but I need the wreckage in return.”
I think that’s what defines whether it’s good or bad. Whether the player builds a kickass character that can do anything in one field, do they do it in context of the game. Are they breaking the game and making it no fun for the other players or GM? If not, then who cares. If so, you may need to do some retconning, or blocking off of their character so it doesn’t suck for others to play
Twinking is when your character is at a power level (not necesarily combat power. I’ve twinked for bluff and run entire adventures where I just tell the other PCs and NPCs around me what reality is and they accept it) that’s so much more powerful than the rest of the group that anything that’s a challenge for you is impossible to defeat for the other characters.
If the entire party is uber powerful, for example (perhaps each specializing in something different), then there’s not a problem. Everyone can be equally challenged. Maybe (such as the case in Exalted) it’s damn near impossible to build a character that’s NOT god-like in some way. In these cases, the game is more like a session of rock paper scisors with Sir Meat Shield fighting the knights, Sir Thinksalot outwitting the chamberlan, and Sir Winning Smile winning over the hearts of the people and setting them all up as heros instead of king-slayers.
It’s when one character has an overwhelming advantage and your other players have no way to shine on their own that you have a problem because that one character will overshadow everyone else a good deal of the time, especially when they have to face challenges together that aren’t a challenge to one of them and that are beyond the abilities of the rest.
“Twinking is about violation of expectations.”
“If the expectation of your game is that there is a different focus, say on storytelling, a twink can run roughshod over that expectation.”
I had a nice long, post that covered many of the same points as Alan’s message (#11). He said it so well that anything else seems redundant at this time.
Well said, Alan. Well said.
The only time “twinking” really comes in to play for me is when it makes a character played by another player obsolete and thus the other player doesn’t have fun. It doesn’t matter to me if they kill the monsters easily or bypass the challenges quickly, but when it bleeds over into other players’ enjoyment, it’s a big problem.
For example, early into my rpg career, we played a GURPS Supers game. I played a Green Lantern-type character able to create energy constructs. Another player poured all of his points into Telekinesis, and there was no situation that came up that his character wasn’t just plain better than mine. (“We need to get the group across town! I’ll make an airplane!” “No need, I’ll just rip a section of street out and we can fly on that.” “Uhh, can I at least make the seatbelts?”)
I think I’m about to run into a related situation with the game I’m about to run: it’s a investigation/horror game set on a college campus. The first player rolled his character, and immediately stated he wanted to be in the ROTC so he had access to guns. Oh boy… 🙂
I agree with Charlie up in post #2. I’m very much a “spirit of the rules” kind of guy–in addition to the letter. (That’s true in life, as well as roleplaying games.) I’m also firmly of the opinion that people that insist on always pushing everything right up to the edge shouldn’t complain when they get in trouble for crossing the line. A hefty dose of powergaming is fine, as long as it takes the spirit of the rules into account and isn’t pushed to the limit.
Fortunately, I do not (and will not) game with anyone that really pushes to the vicinity of the twink category. So I don’t concern myself too much with exactly what a twink is. If I’m asking myself if a person is a twink, then I know I’m totally uninterested in gaming with them.
I agree with much of what has been said, that twinking is a violation of expectations. There is just one area I’d like to address:
However, if the expectation of your game is that the PCs are roughly evenly matched, pushing the rules is a problem if not all of your players are skilled at it. The less skilled players end up being overshadowed by the skilled one.
This problem is easily solved: have the entire group work together on creating everyone’s characters. This happens by default in my groups, without any concious decision to do so. If everyone works together to craft each character, the mechanics will help bring up the cruch level of the roleplayers. If you are lucky, the roleplayers will even raise the fluff level of the characters of the mechanics. This should lead the entire party to be at the same level of power.
Abulia: Duly noted. 🙂
Alan De Smet: A good way of putting it.
However… I think it also needs to be aknowledged that the expectations provided by the system figure into the equation, too. A system that says it’s all about story-telling yet provides a system that rewards powergaming and building combat monsters is not doing its job. In that sense, I can’t really blame the players; assuming they can do math, they will eventually see that there are optiomal choices and suboptimal ones. Chiding them for not willingly making suboptiomal choices in order to preserve the story-telling is unfair, IMO.
As some others here have said, this is why it’s key to 1) find a system that supports the play you’re after, and 2) create characters *as a group*. Heck, then the twinkers can help the non-twinkers and everyone will be on the same page. 🙂
Interesting — I’ve never thought of twinking as an insecurity issue in either direction (player or GM). I’ve always seen it as an outgrowth of powergaming.
It makes sense that twinking might also signal an unwillingness on the player’s part to engage with the game as presented, or a failure to accurately present the tone and style of the game on the GM’s part.
Apart from that, I don’t really have anything to add. This is one of the best discussions I’ve ever seen here in the comments on TT, bar none.
I’ve been on both the giving and receiving end of powergaming (or character engineering, as we called it in our group), and I’ve grown to find it somewhat acceptable. As the GM, you have to remember that your responsibility is to set up the story for the players to make a mess of. If player A wants to make a combat-monster (or social-monster, or mind-monster), then they’ll suffer when you have the group do non-combat stuff. If they’re having fun, and the group is having fun, then there’s no real problem, is there?
I’ve actually had a lot of good results with an experiment I used for a PBEM, where I had the players answer questions about their character, then designed the characters myself based on what they told me. They were really basic questions about the character’s personality, motives, goals, powers, and history, but it got them thinking about the person behind the numbers rather than twinking the stats that make up the character.
longcoat000: Did your whole group dig your experiment, or were some players less enthused about it? I could see that experience being very cool for some players, and not at all cool for others.
Martin:
Actually, they liked it. Since it was a PBEM, I was able to get away with not giving them a character sheet at all, and just describing the action based on the rolls I made. All they knew about the character was what they told me (and I approved), and any weird stuff (like specific spells) that I absolutely had to tell them about.
I also noticed something funny about it. Since they didn’t have a character sheet in front of them saying what their chances were of doing something, they played their characters more “realistically”. Its one thing to get into a fight with a goblin when you know you’ve got a +3 to hit and +6 to damage. It’s quite another when you just know you’re “pretty strong”, but the thing in front of you has green skin, red eyes, patchy hair, and a rusted meat cleaver.