D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

[Lanefan]

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".

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.

That's roughly how I'd always interpreted 'min-max' also - reduce the weaknesses to a minimum and enhance the strengths to a maximum.

And personally, I see 'optimize' or 'optimizer' as the terms that represent the hard-core types who are trying to break the game to their advantage (bad), while 'min-max' is a lesser version usually involving sensible choices both in and out of character (usually not a problem).

 

[Kobold Boots]

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.

..and that's good. Your intentions are good. As a result you're not a jerk.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Yes, min-maxing is not just about optimization. The "min" part is minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths. Furthermore, there are different goals one can optimize towards which is why I not always distinguish between min-maxing and optimization, but the goal for optimizing in the specific instance being discussed- not every instance of optimization is about combat or powergaming.

 

[Greg K]

And personally, I see 'optimize' or 'optimizer' as the terms that represent the hard-core types who are trying to break the game to their advantage (bad), while 'min-max' is a lesser version usually involving sensible choices both in and out of character (usually not a problem).

See, I don't see optimize or optimizer as necessarily trying to break the game. It can be, but it does not have to be. Optimization is on a continuum. Also, there are things several different goals one might optimize towards and not all have to do with breaking the game.

 

[RobertBrus]

Whether "optimizer" or "min/max," what about optimizing the whole character, as in personality, backstory, which the DM can then use to create new story lines that draw upon the character's past, etc.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, min-maxing is not just about optimization. The "min" part is maximizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths.

That doesn't jive. Who in their right mind would want to maximize their weaknesses?

 

[Greg K]

That doesn't jive. Who in their right mind would want to maximize their weaknesses?

doh! Should have read what i typed before clicking. Fixed it

 

[Greg K]

Whether "optimizer" or "min/max," what about optimizing the whole character, as in personality, backstory, which the DM can then use to create new story lines that draw upon the character's past, etc.

Well, my view is, once you start prioritizing resources to best meet your character concept, you are engaging in optimization.

 

[Lanefan]

See, I don't see optimize or optimizer as necessarily trying to break the game. It can be, but it does not have to be. Optimization is on a continuum. Also, there are things several different goals one might optimize towards and not all have to do with breaking the game.

I guess I most associate the term 'optimize(r)' with Char-Ops boards, which to my way of thinking are a horrid abomination bent on nothing but finding the most broken builds possible - the serious hard-core number-crunchers. Hence, to me 'optimize(r)' is a four-letter word.

 

[MoonSong]

It only matters if the DM cares about having those players whom will only play if feats and multi-classing are used.

Why wouldn't they? it is not like players wanting feats and multiclassing are defective or inferior somehow is it? Would you rather have no players than playing with feats and Multiclassing?

You don't have to use them, as there are folks on these boards who have said they play without them. It's not theoretical.

I might not be able to get my group to play Paranoia. That doesn't mean that no one plays Paranoia and it's only 'theoretically' an RPG.

Do you know which is the best game system, the best playstyle and the best playing group? the ones you get to experience! If you don't get to experience them, then they are purely theoretical. Sad thing, is that DMs not wanting multiclassing telegraph that they have little tolerance for characters outside Gygaxian archetypes and no feats signals they don't like more "modern" playstyles and won't tolerate many of the innovations nor any creativity with unusual character types. Given that I like sorcerers that act quite non-traditionally -by refusing to blow stuff up- and have never been able to stand the wizards, it is in my best interest to look for DMs that allow multiclassing and feats .

That doesn't jive. Who in their right mind would want to maximize their weaknesses?

<Raises hand> n_n