Min/Max your Min/Max'ing

[Hereticus]

Min/Max your Min/Max'ing

This is an advertisement for DDi on the wizards website. Is this the kind of behavior that is currently being rewarded? I know I am an old gamer, but in my day we used to discourage players who sat down for hours before a game min/maxing everything until they put what they think is a god among men down on the table. This led to people being dissatisfied with their characters, roleplayers feeling unwelcome at the table, and people who could not min max as well blatantly cheating. What is your take? Is min/maxing the new norm? Should I get used to it? Is it a growing trend? Is it more valued in certain editions than others?

One thing I do to both minimize max'ing and to allow player more colorful character generation options is to eliminate all stat boosts for LA=0 races. I do this in 3.5, but it would also work in 4.0. Most players will only select a race that gives them a stat boost in their prime state, and penalizes them in one they don't care much about. Without the stat boost, players can then choose from a wider variety of races for each class.

 

[Oni]

One thing I do to both minimize max'ing and to allow player more colorful character generation options is to eliminate all stat boosts for LA=0 races. I do this in 3.5, but it would also work in 4.0. Most players will only select a race that gives them a stat boost in their prime state, and penalizes them in one they don't care much about. Without the stat boost, players can then choose from a wider variety of races for each class.

Yeah, I've had that thought myself. 4e would be a stronger game without the racial stat bumps, as is they tend to force certain races into certain classes (some times seemingly nonsensical ones from a flavor standpoint become the standard combination) just because players feel they need to have that extra bump in their primary stats.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

One thing I do to both minimize max'ing and to allow player more colorful character generation options is to eliminate all stat boosts for LA=0 races. I do this in 3.5, but it would also work in 4.0. Most players will only select a race that gives them a stat boost in their prime state, and penalizes them in one they don't care much about. Without the stat boost, players can then choose from a wider variety of races for each class.

I actually do the reverse, but for the same reason: soon after I started DMing 4e I started letting players put their racial ability bonuses wherever they want. Sometimes I make minor tweaks to PCs who switch ability boosts to maintain 4e's fine balance standards, but mostly it's all good.

Although it's amazing how many players think that "any boost for any race" would create some kind of identity crisis for their PC. One of my players won't take me up on my offer "because she's a role player." Next campaign I'm going to justify floating stat boosts as the subrace option, and see if more of my players dig it.

 

[Hereticus]

I actually do the reverse, but for the same reason: soon after I started DMing 4e I started letting players put their racial ability bonuses wherever they want. Sometimes I make minor tweaks to PCs who switch ability boosts to maintain 4e's fine balance standards, but mostly it's all good.

I start everyone off with stats of 18-16-14-12-10-08. That is equal to a 22 point buy-in with the two highest stats increased by two.

Players can then distribute them as they wish, which accomplishes about the same thing you do.

 

[Fifth Element]

Any style of play can be bad if taken to extremes. Even if not taken to extremes it can be tough if done in the wrong group. The player who marches to the different drummer can certainly cause issues just by being out of step with the rest of the group. Either you learn to accommodate each other, or someone needs to go their own (gaming) way when it gets too bad.

This right here, well said.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Let me start with a min/maxing rules lawyer. He spends hours pouring over books, spending several days or weeks before putting a character down on the table, the character is a book with over 100 pages of every feat ability and spell he will ever take on any level every magic item he will ever take ect. The problem happens when he is informed that he selectively reads the abilities always in his favor, he ignores stacking rules if it helps him but points them out if it hurts the DM or another player, and if you refuse to accept his interpetation of the rule he has to stop playing the game and spend another week planing out all 30 levels of character progression because that feat being gone ruined the math for all the levels of his character.

Umm...if he's doing the bolded things, he's being more of a munchkin than a rules lawyer. Rules lawyer would be more along the lines of doing whatever is legal by the rules as written, even if he knows it's probably wrong, broken, or intended to work differently.

But if there's one thing a rules lawyer is good at...it's not mistakenly reading the rules.

(rest of the quoted post is basically a min-maxer)

 

[Kzach]

I know I am an old gamer, but in my day we used to discourage players who sat down for hours before a game min/maxing everything until they put what they think is a god among men down on the table.

I consider myself a 'middle-aged gamer'. I'm not middle-aged, but rather I started with 1e AD&D and 2e AD&D interchangeably. I never played OD&D like 'real' old-time gamers.

I'm a sandbox DM that encourages min-maxing and yet can spend entire sessions just roleplaying. And I use 4e.

Apparently, I break all the 'rules'. I'm just that bad-ass.

 

[The Greene Knight]

What do you think kits and the skills and powers books were used for in 2e?

Silly me. I used to use them to build you know... interesting characters to play. Not necessarily optimized characters. They were giving me ideas, inspiration to come up with new stuff.

Guess I was doing it wrong. *shrug*

 

[Budalic]

I start everyone off with stats of 18-16-14-12-10-08. That is equal to a 22 point buy-in with the two highest stats increased by two.

Slouldn't that be 18-16-14-13-10-8?

 

[Runestar]

Considering that you may well be playing that same character for months on end, if not a year+, it makes sense (to me at least) to first spend some time and effort designing him to be capable of what you want him to do. I see it as an investment. What you get out of it depends on how much work you put into making it work, IMO.

Granted, in 4e, there seems less need to plan because costly feat chains and steep prc requirements no longer exist, but back in 3e, if you wanted to take a feat such as whirlwind or qualify for a prc such as archmage (as a sorc), you would often need to start mapping out your progression from lv1 to lv20, to ensure that you are able to acquire those abilities at the desired lvs. If you simply took whatever feat seemed cool at the time, you will probably be stuck with all the lower-tier ones, because you cannot qualify for any of the more powerful ones with steeper requirements.