The Min-Max Problem: Solved

[GMMichael]

Some of the other reasons I min/max are the following:

1) I may believe the character should be in the top-tier in his profession -- not because he's missing an 'N' in his descriptor (PC vs. NPC) but because he is just that talented/focused/determined compared to everyone else.
2) There may be tasks inside a game that I do not want to bother with. I'll tend to maximise my capability to minimise the chances I have to deal with them.
3) I may want to play a character for the long haul and want to reduce the chance of death/permanent disability to a minimum.
4) I may want to be a cornerstone for the group -- the one everyone can rely on to get done what he says will be done.
5) I may want to be more of a loner who can accomplish much on his own should the need arise.

While I'm thinking about it: the reason that min-maxing is a "problem" is that it results in awkward, unbalanced characters - not because optimizing is wrong. Preventing it is one of the implications of character classes: "your character must take this much combat skill, have this many hit points, and gain these automatic special powers at each level."

I don't want the other players in my game to see the approach of another PC and think, "here comes the guy who forgot to fill out all the other attributes."

But...Nagol provided us something to work with.

1) Optimization preference.
2) GM control.
3) GM control.
4) Optimization preference.
5) Suppressed bloodlust.

So, as GD/GMs, we can't do anything about 1, 4, and 5. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Of the undesirable tasks in 2, GMs have full control. Personally, I wouldn't want to roll d100, add my +30 from being Trained three times, subtract 40 due to my (blank) equipment, add/subtract another situational bonus from the GM, and then decide if the result is below my attribute, when the rest of the game implies that high numbers are good. Just to find out that I failed anyway, since my opponent made his (blank) roll. I could be wrong, but of the tasks to which Nagol refers, Succeed/Fail rules are probably a major portion. Nagol doesn't have to min-max if those tasks either aren't there, or become less undesirable.

3) Avoiding character retirement. Most players (looking at you, Paranoia players) don't want their characters to die or otherwise become un-fun to play. The player's job is to make decisions that avoid this fate, the GM's job is to provide story options that don't corner a PC into it, and the GD's job is to provide rules that always offer the potential to have fun. Nagol min-maxes because there's a real possibility (or uncomfortably high odds) that a GM or GD is going to retire the character. That possibility should be there - sometimes it adds to the fun. But it shouldn't force a PC into min-maxing. WotC and Paizo have modified their Succeed/Fail rules in terms of magic spells, by altering, wherever possible, Save-or-Die spells into Save-or-Suck spells - and Nagol has less to worry about

 

[Nagol]

While I'm thinking about it: the reason that min-maxing is a "problem" is that it results in awkward, unbalanced characters - not because optimizing is wrong. Preventing it is one of the implications of character classes: "your character must take this much combat skill, have this many hit points, and gain these automatic special powers at each level."

I don't want the other players in my game to see the approach of another PC and think, "here comes the guy who forgot to fill out all the other attributes."

But...Nagol provided us something to work with.

1) Optimization preference.
2) GM control.
3) GM control.
4) Optimization preference.
5) Suppressed bloodlust.

So, as GD/GMs, we can't do anything about 1, 4, and 5. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Of the undesirable tasks in 2, GMs have full control. Personally, I wouldn't want to roll d100, add my +30 from being Trained three times, subtract 40 due to my (blank) equipment, add/subtract another situational bonus from the GM, and then decide if the result is below my attribute, when the rest of the game implies that high numbers are good. Just to find out that I failed anyway, since my opponent made his (blank) roll. I could be wrong, but of the tasks to which Nagol refers, Succeed/Fail rules are probably a major portion. Nagol doesn't have to min-max if those tasks either aren't there, or become less undesirable.

They may be pass/fail; they may not. It depends on what I'm trying to avoid. In one Fantasy Hero game, I was playing a thief and I wanted to concentrate on heavy-planning big scores and not worry about fiddly little things like whether I could open a door so I bought my Lockpicking skill up to 23 or less on 3d6. Even with a heavy penalty, I should still auto-succeed. There's an example of pass-fail. In the end, this attempt boomeranged because the GM saw how much I invested in the skill and assumed therefore I wanted to exercise it a lot and suddenly everywhere the character went there were really impressive locks on everything.

In a Cyberpunk game, I was trying to avoid the Decker mini-game so I dumped a lot into powerful autonomous intrusion programs to limit the time spent and my participation in the minigame. The optimization worked; we spent very little time on the mini-game throughout the campaign, but we still had some of the information advantages the mini-game could offer.

Just because I find the tasks undesirable doesn't mean the group will want to forgo them. The best way to handle such tasks is to overwhelm them. The second best way is to sidestep them.

3) Avoiding character retirement. Most players (looking at you, Paranoia players) don't want their characters to die or otherwise become un-fun to play. The player's job is to make decisions that avoid this fate, the GM's job is to provide story options that don't corner a PC into it, and the GD's job is to provide rules that always offer the potential to have fun. Nagol min-maxes because there's a real possibility (or uncomfortably high odds) that a GM or GD is going to retire the character. That possibility should be there - sometimes it adds to the fun. But it shouldn't force a PC into min-maxing. WotC and Paizo have modified their Succeed/Fail rules in terms of magic spells, by altering, wherever possible, Save-or-Die spells into Save-or-Suck spells - and Nagol has less to worry about

The player's job is to have fun while providing fun for the other participants. Depending on the game engine, genre, and expectations, working to keep your character alive can be fun. The best a game designer can do to make certain the game expectations match the mechanics in place and that those expectations are clearly articulated to the audience.

If I'm playing in a game where the expectation is risk of death/retirement is very real and I decide I want to be one of the last standing, I'll spend time working out how I can arrange that. If the GM undercuts that risk without changing the expectation then he just robbed me. The worst example I have for this was another Hero Games campaign. It was sold as a Traveler-esque science investigators with a ship. I built an inexperienced highly curious teenager (extra Body, some armour, other specialty defences, inherent Regeneration...) and made him very survivable because I wanted to keep playing the character shoving his nose in the most wildly inappropriate places and learning things. The character was destroyed anyway when the campaign turned out to be a bait-and-switch and his universe was erased while he was still inside it.

I am unsure how you converted (paraphrasing) "I want to have a modicum of solo capability in case I need to take actions without the group" into "suppressed bloodlust". The solo capability could at least as easily be covert or non-aggressive as much as it could be combative.

 

[Vesve]

Min-maxing is a great deal of the fun, IMO. Progressing thru levels, and advancing your character adds to the reality, and the fun. When I am in game,
I'm constantly reviewing my character sheet, considering either skill or equipment enhancements, or future moves, responses, or reactions. So there's
never any "wasted time". It's not only what you play, it's how you play.

Agreed, Min-Maxing is especially fun for the player min-maxing. But that fun ends for those that are left out; which might be even be the Game Master. Change the focus from you as an individual to that of a team.

Decades ago, we designed a party of torqued-out characters. ALL the initial players were in on the planning stages and we all had a great time, except the DM. He struggled to come up with challenges that were designed for our levels. His first solution: He doubled all the hit dice of every monster. An experienced Game Master adapts and creates appropriate challenges. Some of the players felt "cheated." I applauded the efforts and just dug in for more fun.

Back to my original statement: When Game Masters rotate or new players come in, the min-maxers often step up and share their ideas of the system. Inexperienced players and GMs often recoil or retreat from this, making the game much less fun to those new to the system. This is when min-maxing is not appreciated. ~ Not the solution, but I felt the direction of this discussion left this out.

In summary, a group of highly skilled min-maxers puts a burden on the DM. One or two min-maxers tend to claim the spotlight over fellow party members (Many posts referring to this), especially during convention play or online gaming.

 

[Blue]

Agreed, Min-Maxing is especially fun for the player min-maxing. But that fun ends for those that are left out; which might be even be the Game Master.

I think you may be overgeneralizing. I've been running a 13th Age (d20 that came out before 5e but has a similar streamlining) campaign now for 4.5 years. By far the most min-maxed character is the a serious defender. But far from making the other characters feel sidelined, the group which is mostly glass cannons instead feel empowered and get even more spotlight. He sits there and gladly takes the hits, and everyone else shines.

A self-obsessed player can ruin a game, regardless if they are creating highly efficient characters. A team player can improve the game for everyone, again regardless of how they build.

Decades ago, we designed a party of torqued-out characters. ALL the initial players were in on the planning stages and we all had a great time, except the DM. He struggled to come up with challenges that were designed for our levels. His first solution: He doubled all the hit dice of every monster. An experienced Game Master adapts and creates appropriate challenges. Some of the players felt "cheated." I applauded the efforts and just dug in for more fun.

I'm disappointed by those who feel cheated. What play experience were they looking for when planning an all-strong party? A DM need to tailor to their table, be it weak, strong, or average.

One or two min-maxers tend to claim the spotlight over fellow party members (Many posts referring to this), especially during convention play or online gaming.

Convention play I agree with you is a bit of a different beast.

 

[gatorized]

Interesting.

A few questions for you, if I may:

First, what system/rule-set are you running? (this can make a big difference; some systems are fine with simultaneity, others seem to want to fight it)

Then, how do you find the declaration side works in practice? Do you get much "I'm waiting to see what she does before I decide"? Does everyone try to talk at once or do you go around the table?

For resolution, do you have a mechanism for determining what happens first when it's relevant? (example: does the caster get hit and killed by the arrow before or after completing her spell?) And, how does reaction work, or do you have any mechanism for such?

And from your side, do you determine the NPC actions before asking for the PC actions?

I ask because at first glance this seems like a neat way of doing it, but I wonder if the practice works as well as the theory.

Lanefan

system: When using published, dnd 5e and prowlers and paragons are my big ones; my group has tried a few dozen others to date. Haven’t had any difficulties adapting for simul play so far.

declaration: After I declare the start of a round, players have as long as they want to discuss their options, in and out of character. However, any player who hasn’t posted after 48 hours is skipped. My players know this is the one rule I’m a hardass about, as posting delays lead to a self-reinforcing death of game interest. Any player who is skipped three consecutive times is removed from the game.

resolution: We simply use the system rules. For example, if a wizard gets hit in the same round she’s casting, the spell is successful if she makes her concentration check or appropriate save. If the rules are ambiguous, I typically favor the players unless it’s clear that the opponent’s action has precedence for whatever reason. Also, in some cases, the spell may be successful, but interfered with in unpredictable ways. Same goes for other actions.

reactions: In general, many reactions can be handled automatically: contingency for example. These are resolved in the normal resolution phase with other actions. For voluntary reactions like opp attacks, players have two options: they can declare “standing conditions” for their reactions, in which case they’re handled as above, or they can choose after the resolution phase. In this case, they take effect in the resolution phase of the following round.

npcs: Treated the same as the players. In those cases where they can’t make their own decisions, I’ll have already decided their actions at the start of the round.

 

[steenan]

Some people just get a lot of fun from playing with numbers and ability combos. This kind of players often take strange, sub-optimal character concepts and make them surprisingly viable. They also often take support roles where they can have enormous effect on party effectiveness without overshadowing other players. I am one of them - I min-max because it's fun in itself.

Some people get their fun from winning. Not being challenged, but just winning. They optimize characters to ensure that they win. This may be very problematic if it doesn't mesh with the group's playstyle, but is not a problem when everybody approaches play this way. This case is often made worse by a GM who focuses on challenging the optimized character, thus incentivizing the player to make them even more powerful.

But the reason for min-maxing that I encountered most often is much more basic and universal. It's about player agency. In many games, failing rolls means that the player can't affect the fiction in the intended way. Bad rolls kill characters, thus negating the agency entirely. So to avoid that, players make characters who don't fail rolls they are interested in and who fight well so that they are hard to kill.
That's not the only reason for focusing on combat. In D&D and similar games combat is the most mechanized part of the game and gives the most mechanical assurances. When I kill somebody, they are dead. Social and exploratory situations are much more handwavy, with less clear stakes, DCs dependent on DM judgement and no guarantees for how long the result will hold. Thus, players who want to feel in control focus on the part that is the most driven by hard rules.

And it's clear that that's the reason when one observes how the same players make characetrs and play in different games. Games where players have more control over the narrative than just what their characters do, games where PC death is never a result of a random roll, games where social mechanics are as robust as combat ones.

 

[Lanefan]

system: When using published, dnd 5e and prowlers and paragons are my big ones; my group has tried a few dozen others to date. Haven’t had any difficulties adapting for simul play so far.

declaration: After I declare the start of a round, players have as long as they want to discuss their options, in and out of character. However, any player who hasn’t posted ...

Posted?

As in, this isn't around a table but is online?

If yes, then a different breed of animal to what I'm thinking of. I was assuming tabletop play, and wondering what the good and bad of a simultaneous system would be in that environment.

 

[gatorized]

Posted?

As in, this isn't around a table but is online?

If yes, then a different breed of animal to what I'm thinking of. I was assuming tabletop play, and wondering what the good and bad of a simultaneous system would be in that environment.

Oh for sure, I haven't had time for a face to face game in decades. Although if I were gonna do this in that context, I'd just have a smaller time limit, and still allow discussion each round.

 

[pemerton]

It is possible to design and/or run a game in which players don't always want to bring their biggest numbers to bear.

As the OP suggests, "fail forward" adjudication can support this.

Burning Wheel combines that with an advancement system that requires facing some impossible challenges.

In my experience, it is possible to establish situations in which players (playing their PCs) will want things that they can't get - given the fiction - by deploying their best numbers. And so they will declare actions that use smaller numbers.

Conversely, if the players have a sense that nothing is at stake except whether their PCs live or die, and the only way to secure life is to never fail at some crucial check, then they will build PCs with big numbers (probably combat ones) and will get frustrated when they can't use them. A lot of modules push play in this direction.

 

[Lanefan]

In my experience, it is possible to establish situations in which players (playing their PCs) will want things that they can't get - given the fiction - by deploying their best numbers. And so they will declare actions that use smaller numbers.

I don't quite understand this.

If the players/PCs can't get something using their best numbers how are they supposed to get it by using smaller numbers?

Or are they in fact relying on failure to get them what they want in the end via fail-forward? (and if yes wouldn't this be a form of railroading - they're ultimately going to get what they want whether they succeed or fail so what difference does it make?)

Lanefan