D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

hejtmane · Mar 20, 2017

lowkey13 said:
There are always things to discuss! But IMO, and IME, I have noted the following-

1. People who have a preferred playstyle ... prefer that playstyle (I know ... shocker).

2. Therefore, people who have a preferred playstyle believe very strongly that their preference is a good one.

3. Because people have preferences, there is a natural desire to defend one's preferences ... especially when some people view a term as pejorative (as there is a continuing debate about optimizing v. minmaxing v. munchkins).

4. I have often noted that the same personality types that enjoy minmaxing/optimizing are the same personality types that believe that this is a better playstyle. Because ... well, it's an optimum playstyle. That it can be logically reasoned toward, just like you can logically reason toward an optimum character sheet. It's not a perfect correlation, but it happens fairly often.

5. Which is why these discussions tend to be ... less than fruitful. You can't solve for it. Just like you can't solve for "having a cell phone at the table," or "should PvP be disallowed, tolerated, or encouraged." It's a group social decision.

That said, I don't disagree that mimmaxing and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. But it's a question of focus- some people put the game mechanics first, some people don't.* There is no wrong decision here, just a question of preference.

*And this isn't a binary or a .... *shudder* false dichotomy. The most hardcore "realism/RP" players are aware of the mechanics, and the most hard core optimizers are completely capable of roleplaying.

Hammer nail contact

Gladius Legis · Mar 20, 2017

Clearly few people in this thread have heard of the Stormwind fallacy. There is so much of it going on here.

lowkey13 · Mar 20, 2017

*Deleted by user*

The Crimson Binome · Mar 20, 2017

Gladius Legis said:
Clearly few people in this thread have heard of the Stormwind fallacy. There is so much of it going on here.

That does not necessarily follow. People could have heard of it, and simply disagreed with it. It's been known to happen.

There's also a significant amount of misunderstanding about the nature of what it means to role-play. Some people acknowledge that you're role-playing whenever you're doing what the character would do, per the definition of the term regardless of whether that's talking or fighting. Some people are under the belief that role-playing just means talking instead of fighting, and if you're starting from that definition, then weak characters actually do encourage role-playing since you're less likely to want to fight when there's a good chance you might lose.

Mad_Jack · Mar 20, 2017

lowkey13 said:
The sun will rise, the sun will set, and I'll have lunch.*

By RAW, you can't have lunch after the sun sets. By definition, that would be a late dinner or perhaps a midnight snack. You're clearly a munchkin trying to bend the rules.

lowkey13 · Mar 20, 2017

*Deleted by user*

Mad_Jack · Mar 20, 2017

lowkey13 said:
I prefer to call myself a lunchkin.

Lunch-kin?
Lol - I've never met anyone before who'd be proud to proclaim that their family tree included at least one ham sandwich...

(I do, however, know several people whose parentage I suspect includes a fair number of root vegetables...)

nswanson27 · Mar 20, 2017

Saelorn said:
That does not necessarily follow. People could have heard of it, and simply disagreed with it. It's been known to happen.

There's also a significant amount of misunderstanding about the nature of what it means to role-play. Some people acknowledge that you're role-playing whenever you're doing what the character would do, per the definition of the term regardless of whether that's talking or fighting. Some people are under the belief that role-playing just means talking instead of fighting, and if you're starting from that definition, then weak characters actually do encourage role-playing since you're less likely to want to fight when there's a good chance you might lose.

Unless you have bad charisma, then talking doesn't work so well either. I know some optimizers who go for this route and are good at it. Not just the stats, but good social steering tactics to avoid fights, divide enemy party loyalties, etc...

Caliburn101 · Mar 20, 2017

Saelorn said:
That does not necessarily follow. People could have heard of it, and simply disagreed with it. It's been known to happen.

There's also a significant amount of misunderstanding about the nature of what it means to role-play. Some people acknowledge that you're role-playing whenever you're doing what the character would do, per the definition of the term regardless of whether that's talking or fighting. Some people are under the belief that role-playing just means talking instead of fighting, and if you're starting from that definition, then weak characters actually do encourage role-playing since you're less likely to want to fight when there's a good chance you might lose.

Nothing wrong with optimising a character from a gameworld or character concept point of view.

Nothing wrong with proposing a name for a phenomenon - such as the term Stormwind Fallacy.

There is plenty wrong with accepting that a proposed name for a phenomenon is an excuse not to analyse an argument and merely label it 'wrong' by doing so.

Tony Vargas · Mar 20, 2017

lowkey13 said:
Oh ... c'mon Tony. It's not just implied antagonism. There's a lot of explicit antagonism! And while I might be the leading proponent of "can't we all just get along," that doesn't mean that I think that there are not, in fact, two extremes that are possible (although most people occupy the middle ground, or only slightly away from the middle).

Nevermind middle ground and compromise, the two 'extremes' are compatible, even complementary.

You can better-realize a concept (RP) if you do an optimal build (G) to that concept, you can get a better optimized build going (G) if you have a character-based (RP) justification for it.

This would be similar to ... wait for it ... saying that ... you know ... two past editions of D&D were really just the same thing. /ducks

All past editions of D&D were the same thing: RPGs. ;P

But the place you put your emphasis on matters a great deal to some tables. It's like how some table love re-skinning and homebrewing, and some table are by the book. Some tables love some humor, and some tables prefer GRIMDARK. Some tables like a little Barrier Peaks, and others don't want any SciFi in their fantasy. People have preferences, and that's fine.

Where I think that goes off the rails a bit is when preference becomes intolerance. It's one thing to put G or RP first, it's another thing to shun one, even when it's perfectly aligned with the other and doing so is actually to detriment of the one you're 'emphasizing.'

Some people like Bags of Rats, and other people hate 'em.

Bad example.

Mad_Jack said:
Lol - I've never met anyone before who'd be proud to proclaim that their family tree included at least one ham sandwich...

The 'ham' portion of that heritage seems pretty evident.

D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

hejtmane

Explorer

Gladius Legis

Legend

lowkey13

Guest

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Mad_Jack

Legend

lowkey13

Guest

Mad_Jack

Legend

nswanson27

First Post

Caliburn101

Explorer

Tony Vargas

Legend

Similar Threads