Perfectly fair Dave. You did nothing wrong.
If anything, I'm at fault for not complying to community context. This is just one of those cases where the term chosen to define a negative stereotype could really be better than it is.
Be well
KB
D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?
Perfectly fair Dave. You did nothing wrong.
If anything, I'm at fault for not complying to community context. This is just one of those cases where the term chosen to define a negative stereotype could really be better than it is.
Be well
KB
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Anyone who makes any decision with the aim of reaching a preferable outcome is min/maxing. Anyone who wields a greatsword instead of a greataxe, or instead of a club wielded in two hands, is min/maxing.
Min/maxing just means you're paying attention. It means you're at least minimally invested in the well-being of your character. As with most things, it's a matter of degrees. Anything taken to an extreme can be a problem.
dave2008
Legend
I disagree. The term min/max implies a trade off. Your minimizing something to maximize something else. I would posit that you cannot min/max one choice, it is the total context of your choices that determine if your a min/maxer. Simply choosing a greatsword instead of a greataxe is not min/maxing IMO, that is just maxing.
I think your definition it too broad, you probably think mine is to narrow.
Last edited:
I disagree. The term min/max implies a trade off. Your minimizing something to maximize something else. I would posit that you cannot min/max one choice, it is the total context of your choices that determine if your a min/maxer. Simply choosing a greatsword instead of a greataxe is not min/maxing IMO, that is just maxing.
I think your definition it too broad, you probably think mine is to narrow.
I am more likely to agree with Saelorn's definition and recognize yours Dave. That said if by "context" you actually mean "intention" or "maturity" then I'd add this.
Regardless of what definition of min/max you use if the intention/maturity level of the player is such that they start problems then it's bad. If the player is not starting problems then it's good.
Since the player is the problem I'd rather not use the term min/maxer to refer to them. We'd avoid this thread that way
dave2008
Legend
I am more likely to agree with Saelorn's definition and recognize yours Dave. That said if by "context" you actually mean "intention" or "maturity" then I'd add this.
Regardless of what definition of min/max you use if the intention/maturity level of the player is such that they start problems then it's bad. If the player is not starting problems then it's good.
Since the player is the problem I'd rather not use the term min/maxer to refer to them. We'd avoid this thread that way
First, this thread is about 5e becoming Pathfinder - not min/maxing. That is probably our issue right there!
I do not mean "maturity," but intention plays some part in it. The context I am referring to is: all the decision of character creation and advancement. From my perspective, if the majority of your decisions are made to maximize some aspect of your character, to the detriment of some other aspect - then you are a min/maxer. It seems pretty simple to me.
It seems like a hollow/useless term if it is defined as anyone who has made any choice to maximize or otherwise increase the performance of some aspect of their character at any time. I think the term has it uses, but @Saelorn's definition would be useless in describing a certain playstyle, IMO.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You're correct that I have a different definition of min/maxer than is commonly used on the forums. It's why I edited my post.
I guess the reason why is because I never saw the reason to call a jerk something other than jerk.
Thanks for the clarity.
To be clear in case it was not earlier, I do not think min/maxers are jerks even by the more common definition. In fact usually they're not and I have not found jerks to be any more or less prone to min/max in a game. It's just different preferences for how people enjoy the game. I myself sometimes min/max, and sometimes I do not (depending on the game), and I don't think my jerkiness level changes depending on whether or not I am doing it or doing more or less of it.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
I actually try to avoid the term, when possible. It has too much baggage associated with it. The value-neutral synonym I prefer is "optimize".I disagree. The term min/max implies a trade off. Your minimizing something to maximize something else. I would posit that you cannot min/max one choice, it is the total context of your choices that determine if your a min/maxer. Simply choosing a greatsword instead of a greataxe is not min/maxing IMO, that is just maxing.
I think your definition it too broad, you probably think mine is to narrow.
Historically, though, I'd heard that the "min" part referred to minimizing your weaknesses, so not having any weaknesses would be the logical end-game of that. It's just that most systems don't give you much room to optimize without accepting trade-offs.
Remember the old Skills and Powers books? I see that as being more along [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION] 's idea of min/maxing: You could take all sorts of disadvantages to earn more points to increase HD, Thac0, etc.
Using the best weapon, prioritizing a certain stat (like Dex!), choosing fireball...this is more about efficiency over flavour (though they don't necessarily lack flavour, they are the more obvious choices).
Using the best weapon, prioritizing a certain stat (like Dex!), choosing fireball...this is more about efficiency over flavour (though they don't necessarily lack flavour, they are the more obvious choices).
dave2008
Legend
Interesting, that is not how I understood the term. But I've never experienced it in the wild in either form. I only became familiar with the concept when I joined the old WotC forum.
dave2008
Legend
This definition still gets to the heart of it as well. It is an extreme. It is not about one decision, but many.
Similar Threads
