Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
This might be veering a little off the main topic, but this caught my attention.Well... I think that's an edition-independent issue with Adventure Path type play. I ran into this playing Rise of the Runelords (the updated, Pathfinder version) recently. Basically we get told we have to do the set encounters in order to progress the plot. So our PCs have to be tough enough to win the encounters. So we have to focus on charbuild, on min-maxing for combat. We're not really allowed to go 'around' the encounters - and even if we were, we wouldn't get the XP, so future encounters would become impossible. It's an issue I'm facing converting Curse of the Crimson Throne to 4e; I don't want it to feel linear, I think there's a lot of potential there which can be brought out if I can avoid railroading the adventure. One thing I've done a lot of is think of alternate ways scenes might play out.
I think 4e adventures can suffer from this just as much as other editions, if 4e is better at all it's just that the fights are less swingy, so you don't need to min-max as much to win pretty reliably (pace Irontooth). My impression is that some of the Paizo AP boss fights run by an impartial GM will TPK all but the most min-maxed parties.
I don't think min-maxing stops players from 'adding colour' to their characters via roleplay, though; it doesn't necessitate pawn stance.
I had no idea that the Pathfinder APs were so deadly! I guess that can be an issue when writing an adventure for a system with such a wide range of variability in PC effectiveness - where is the "sweet spot" to design around?
You could make it such that almost any group of unoptimized characters could win out, but then the CharOp crowd is facerolling through, requiring the DM to work a lot harder to challenge them, or you could do the opposite, as they apparently have, and make it near-impossible to beat without a min-maxed group, similar to WotC's own Lair Assault series of Organized Play modules, but then everyone who doesn't care to optimize is left banging their heads into a wall.
I can see how it might be pretty satisfying to the CharOppers that want to be challenged, even moderate ones, but there should be some kind of guideline for adjusting the encounters for "weaker" parties, or even mixed ones as I imagine most are.
Getting a back to the subject at hand, I absolutely agree that min-maxing doesn't necessitate pawn-stance. I once thought it did, until I learned to open my mind a little more. I think that back when I subscribed to the Stormwind Fallacy, my experiences were coloured by those CharOp folk that I knew, who did not roleplay much and mostly took pawn stance all the time, and even exhibited other playstyles that I found undesirable at my table, such as "turtling" and generally rules-lawyering the DM to death.