Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Odhanan]

I honestly have no idea. As a DM I don't care how my players build their characters - if they want to min/max, or if they find some broken combination, that's fine by me - I just have to find ways to deal with it (and of course, it just flags up stuff that I can use myself, heh heh heh). As long as everyone's having fun, it's all good.

Well, here we go. I perfectly agree with this!

A good read: The Evolution of Munchkinhttp://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html, by Monte Cook.

Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts.

What about belittleling players who like to min/max and concentrate only on RP and fluff? Wouldn't it be just to regard it as just as bad, then?

 

[Goblyn]

yeah thats what I mean "sacrificing character for system advantage" but thats bad within a game about "Roles" ie Characters

Unfortunately you simply cannot take the 'role' out of the character. A fully optomized combat monkey without a single point in any social or knowledge skills will be just that in society: a maladjusted retarded sociopath spat upon by the mercantile and nobility. People like this exist in real life and would definitely moreso in the ultra-violent and eldritch world of D&D. It's a crappy one, but the role is there.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Thats fine, but the game in question is meant to be a "Role" playing game,

Is that the only way it can be played?
Is it the only way it should be played?
Is defining a role playing game so narrowly missing out on half the fun?
Are you dismissing a whole heap of players out there because they don't share your focused view?

I think we will have to agree to disagree which is a shame. I think you would enjoy playing at my table.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Agback]

minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another.

Or in other words "making your character so bad at one thing that you wreck adventures by screwing up some scenes, in order to make you character so good at something else that you wreck adventures by screwing over other scenes."

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Thats fine, but the game in question is meant to be a "Role" playing game,

Yes, a ROLE-playing GAME.

GAMES have mechanics and rules. Those mechanics and rules are meant to be used to facilitate the "playing" of the game. To deride people for using said mechanics to make thier play experience better for them makes no sense.

If the role playing is all that matters then those player types should take up ACTING instead of playing a ROLE-playing GAME. Thankfully alot of rational people fall somewhere inbetween and can enjoy doing both, without putting down anyone elses play style.

But that's just internerd bravado for you I guess...

 

[Piratecat]

If you never saw min-maxing in previous editions then you weren't looking hard enough.

Agreed. Min-maxing was rife throughout 1st and 2nd edition. In fact, it was a stated design goal of 3e to make the classes balanced enough that min-maxing a "broken" PC would be much, much more difficult.

I see a few people getting frustrated by the arguments in this thread. It's not worth getting angry about, folks; if you start getting angry because someone is pushing your buttons, walk away from the thread for a while.

 

[librarius_arcana]

A munchkin will use any and all advantages, usually conveniently "forgetting" some disadvantages, a munchkin=powergamer

No some of that is called "cheating"

Why is min/maxing munchkinism?

it is if character doesn't come first (which is almost all of the case's, as it tends to be a secondary thought if at all, and is the first thing to go for system advantage)

Thinking you have some sort of right to actually tell poeple thier gaming style is wrong is vanity at best, downright bigotry at worst. You dont like someone elses play style? fine, no one is forcing you to, so accept people are different the world over, and be happy your gaming group plays to your "gaming" strengths. In fact, if your gaming group does play to the style you like and are good at, arent you min/maxing your playstyle?

Feegle Out

bigotry is when some one makes baseless assumptions,

being munchkin is based on roll play, and not roleplay,

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Is it still a "cliche" if it's true?

Yes. The fact that it is a cliche means nothing about if the statement is valid or not. A cliche can be good or bad. It can be neither or be both good and bad at the same time.

The 'surprise twist' in a movie that you know is coming an hour before hand is typically bad or the sudden 'revelation' that "The Killer is in the house!!11!" can actually be what puts you to sleep.

In contrast, when you see a Zorro or James Bond movie there are certain events you "know" are going to happen. I'm guessing I can state a few big events and action sequences that will happen in the Superman movie coming out this week simply because it is a Superman movie. But would they really be a Zorro, Bond or Superman movie if these events did NOT happen?

Getting back to the topic of the thread...

Where I am coming from:

Min-Maxer: A player that centers, stat-wise, in one area of the character (combat, social, spell save DCs, etc.) to the detriment of other areas of the character. Not inherently a bad thing.

Powergamer: Almost the exact same thing as a min-maxer though almost exclusively referring to the players that min-max for combat. Not inherently a bad thing.

Munchkin: A min-maxer (usually a powergamer) that 'powers-up' his character that bends or breaks the rules of the game. The really annoying ones being players being ones that find loopholes in the ruleset that allows them the benefits that, while obviously going against the spirit of the rules, do not actually break the rules thus requireing DM/GM intervention to 'block the combo'. Inherently a bad thing.

There isn't anything wrong with min-maxing as long as they don't bend/break the rules. There is nothing wrong with having a half-orc barabarian that crushes skulls to the best of his ability. There may be something wrong with a druid that worships a specific deity in order to be able to wear a certain type of armor and being a certain race for X benefit when said race usually doesn't worship said deity (depends on backstory and campaign - it could be a munchkin or it could be really cool set-up for the DM to have fun with).

 

[FireLance]

But it's not really a "Role" anymore if you are just playing the system, for the systems sake,

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I'll have you know that every one of my PC's character optimization decisions was arrived at through an agonizing, soul-searching, in-character process of simply trying to survive in a harsh and cruel world. (Cue angst and pathos-filled music )

Whenever there was a new feat or prestige class ideally suited to my character, I made sure that I heard rumors of it in a tavern and went out of my way to find a master and get my training done (in-character) between gaming sessions so that I would not eat up valuable time for the other players.

Calling what I do "playing the system, for the systems sake" belittles the agony, angst and tortuous suffering that my character went through to achieve his in-character goals. I am saddened, and filled with angst. In-character, of course.

 

[Presto2112]

For the record, it is my firm belief that a really good player can RP his heart out after making a really strong, min-maxed character. I believe it really depends on your character creation method.

(A) Do you begin with a character concept in mind, build a strong, survivable PC, and then build his/her story around that concept?

(B) Do you begin with a story for your character first, and then build the PC to fit the story?

If you choose Option A (as I usually do), you're more than likely (but NOT definitely) going to be one who min-maxes.

I've actually gone so far as to give my new wizard PC the Noncombatant flaw so I could get that extra feat. Wizard's are weak melee combatants anyway, and he's usually not going to find himself in the midst of melee combat, so what's an extra -2 going to hurt? However, I made a story reason as to WHY he has that character flaw (lost his eye in a sparring match in his youth and now gets extremely nervous when holding a weapon). That's the key, IMO.

That's also where I draw the line between powergaming and munchkinism. Munchkins typically don't care about their PC's story at all, it's just a collection of numbers. Powergamers like their characters to be powerful, but not necessarily at the expense of fulfilling RP.