The Min-Max Problem: Solved

[Aenghus]

Sometimes its the GM or the group as a whole that encourage min-maxing. For instance the GM overly punishing failure mechanically or plotwise or the gm and/or group responding negatively to suboptimal character design or play. Some groups expect certain types of min-maxing, though they might frown on or forbid other sorts.

Fundamentally, I don't see min-maxing as an eternally negative thing to be squashed, as some groups like, accept or tolerate min-maxing. Issues arise when there's a strong difference of opinion on the topic within a group.

 

[DRF]

 

[Blue]

Min-maxing is the art of rules-interpretation when the player feels the need to overpower in leu of role-play.

I have to respectfully disagree with your definition. Not saying there aren't some people that it fits, but it's far too narrow.

First, min-max is orthogonal to roleplay. Some of the biggist min-maxers I know are also fantastic roleplayers. Enjoying playing a numbers game and seeing what they can get out of the system is completely independent of being able to RP.

Second, min-max is often about system mastering - understanding the rules, not just creative interpretations of them.

And third, people do it for all sorts of reasons, not just "to overpower". One example - a whole group min-maxes, and a DM is fine since all of the PCs are at a similar power level - that's the easiest place to challenge the party from, be it everyone weak, average or strong. No "overpowering" happens. Or when someone makes a very effective support character that makes others shine. Most min-maxers I know are happy to share their system knowledge, helping to make everyone's character efficient - it's not just for them "over power" the rest. Every group has it's own challenge level, from pick-up-games with little synergy to tight teams regardless of system mastery, etc. A DM has all the tools they need to challenge any group. After all, they have all the monsters.

I'd rather say:

"Min-maxing is the art of understanding and using the rules to design a character that is highly efficient in some categories."

It makes no judgement on the player - all kinds can do it. Some players will want to show off how uber-cool their character is and steal spotlight. Others end up with the best possible Investigation and Insight skills because they've cleared with the DM that they want to play a Sherlock Holmes archetype. Another makes a fantastic defender so that all of the glass cannons in the party can have a chance to strut their stuff.

 

[Nagol]

<Snip>
...Most min-maxers I know are happy to share their system knowledge, helping to make everyone's character efficient - it's not just for them "over power" the rest. Every group has it's own challenge level, from pick-up-games with little synergy to tight teams regardless of system mastery, etc. A DM has all the tools they need to challenge any group. After all, they have all the monsters.

Indeed. When I was running a CHAMPIONS game, one of the best min-maxers I know helped two of the other players realise their character visions at substantially better capability and much lower cost than originally presented. I was relieved because it helped reduce the range of capability and made designing/running adventures much easier.

 

[Blue]

Indeed. When I was running a CHAMPIONS game, one of the best min-maxers I know helped two of the other players realise their character visions at substantially better capability and much lower cost than originally presented. I was relieved because it helped reduce the range of capability and made designing/running adventures much easier.

Agreed. Actually, Champions in a great one to also teach to match to party effectiveness. I know one guy who as a lark built an atomic bomb on 8 character points. (It was in a vehicle (a van), independent, one use, took a month to activate (assemble), with a skill check (also to assemble), etc.) But during the actual game he played with reasonable characters because it was more fun to do that. And, as you said, he'd be glad to help anyone realize their character or help build a power.

That experience - matching party level of efficiency - has stood me in good stead. I recently joined a group with no healer or buffer/debuffer. I made a bard to help fill in the gaps, but talking with the DM beforehand he let me know there wasn't a high level of optimization so I created a character with that in mind. If it was at my FLGS which is fiercely competitive I'd be mocked if I didn't have a +2 CHR race and "all the right spells", but for a more relaxed group I didn't sweat it. Just helping fill in the role gap has made everyone else shine more and we're all having a lark.

 

[GMMichael]

Lots of great replies. Be patient with me...

Everyone plays games in some sense, at least in part, for the illusion of 'success'. . .
The problem is that there is absolutely no way to solve that problem, if it is in fact a problem.

Right. You can't change the player. But you can change the gameplay experience . . .

Thus, your suggested 'fix' or 'solution' doesn't even really address the problem, because min/maxing is never driven by what you think it is. At some level, you even recognize that when you say things like, "Do you dread doing nothing at the table while watching the other players have fun?" How are you defining "fun" in that statement?

Good question. We could call "fun" the achievement of what you address above: the illusion of success, since everyone plays games for it. If a min-maxer decides to change games because you've changed the rules, that does indeed move the problem around. But that falls under categories #1 or #2 - the ones we can't affect. But if a min-maxer stays with the game when succeed/fail is no longer an issue (#3), is it because he intends to continue to min-max, or because the need to min-max is no longer there, providing other ways to find illusory success?

 

[Nagol]

Agreed. Actually, Champions in a great one to also teach to match to party effectiveness. I know one guy who as a lark built an atomic bomb on 8 character points. (It was in a vehicle (a van), independent, one use, took a month to activate (assemble), with a skill check (also to assemble), etc.) But during the actual game he played with reasonable characters because it was more fun to do that. And, as you said, he'd be glad to help anyone realize their character or help build a power.

That experience - matching party level of efficiency - has stood me in good stead. I recently joined a group with no healer or buffer/debuffer. I made a bard to help fill in the gaps, but talking with the DM beforehand he let me know there wasn't a high level of optimization so I created a character with that in mind. If it was at my FLGS which is fiercely competitive I'd be mocked if I didn't have a +2 CHR race and "all the right spells", but for a more relaxed group I didn't sweat it. Just helping fill in the role gap has made everyone else shine more and we're all having a lark.

The min-maxer I mentioned earlier designed 50 pt. agents that would destroy entire star systems and were fanatical enough to do it if they deemed it necessary. Together we built the equivalent of the Rain of Colorless Fire that destroyed Oerth as a spell that was easily affordable and mimicked the few descriptions available.

He (and for that matter I) will design and play reasonable characters unless the GM specifically challenges us on a point. For example, one GM and I argued whether a PC could completely dominate combat under his house rules (I was trying to point out some large and obvious holes in the rules) do the next session I handed him a copy of Prominence, a character completely legal under his rules. His took one look and said "You're right. You can't play this." so I pulled out the PC I wanted to play,

 

[gatorized]

regarding the waiting for turn problem, I just have everyone submit their actions simultaneously, and then resolve them all simultaneously along with all NPC actions; that way we don't suffer from the "always waiting for someone" that I get in a lot of games I've been in, in the past

 

[Lanefan]

regarding the waiting for turn problem, I just have everyone submit their actions simultaneously, and then resolve them all simultaneously along with all NPC actions;

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

 

[Celebrim]

Good question. We could call "fun" the achievement of what you address above: the illusion of success, since everyone plays games for it.

Well, in part. There are aesthetics of play that aren't heavily involved in "success" like community and sensation, but yes, I think when you were thinking about what "fun" was you were very much thinking about the illusion of success because it's that aesthetic most threatened when you aren't doing something or when what you do is nullified by failure.

But if a min-maxer stays with the game when succeed/fail is no longer an issue (#3), is it because he intends to continue to min-max, or because the need to min-max is no longer there, providing other ways to find illusory success?

First, there is no such thing as a game where succeed/fail is no longer an issue. It's always there. Think of it this way - success for a min-max oriented player is defined as "getting my own way". The risk of not getting your own way is pretty much always there in any system that has fortune mechanics, even if it is one of those that has success on failure to one degree or the other. The only thing that differs is degrees of risk and what it means to have system mastery - that is, what skills it takes in particular to maximize your chances of "success".

Or put it this way, any game that has mechanics such that you can effect chance of getting what you want through chooses in character creation and play has a min-max outlet.

And that's pretty much every RPG ever.

In fact, games that have "success on failure" may be even more attractive to many min-max oriented players because it maximizes their chance of getting what they want. They aren't thinking "Well, even if I fail, I'll still have fun." They are thinking, "I can maximize the chance of getting what I want, and even if I don't get what I want immediately, I basically will get a reroll, thereby maximizing the chance of getting what I want." In this case, min-maxing is oriented both toward "winning big", where winning big means "more spectacularly than the other players" and "getting what I want as soon as possible." The aesthetic of the player hasn't changed just because you've provided different mechanics. He will absolutely continue to min-max because doing so maximizes his enjoyment.

There is a wonderful nigh definitive example of this in the 'Geek & Sundry' episode where they play the game FATE Core, nominally by mechanics and intention a narrativist oriented game with fail forward mechanics and low appeal (at least in theory) to gamist players whose motivation is "win now". As Wil Wheaton introduces the system, he calls it the "gold standard in getting the system out of the way so that the story can be the thing." Ironically, in 30 years of playing RPGs I've never seen a game session so dominated by system as the one that is presented. There are three players at the table. One of them, Wil Wheaton, obviously in CharGen intends to create a combat focused character who will take spotlight during combat encounters. However, Wil's system mastery turns out to be relatively low, leading to taking relatively little spotlight in the resulting play especially in combat situations (to some degree of evident frustration). On the other hand, John Rogers during CharGen and play demonstrates a massive amount of system mastery, allowing him to turn his character into a massively competent agent of basically anything he wants to be competent at, ultimately dominating play, accumulating spotlight, winning bigger than any other player in terms of illusion of success and validation from the GM that he's a winner, and demonstrating a great deal of skill in min/maxing in a system that is supposedly not about "winning".

There is absolutely nothing you can do mechanically to change someone's aesthetic tastes.