Min/Max explination

[Pielorinho]

In asking other gamers about this topic, one comment was made that I wanted to pose to you all: DnD tends to lead to more min/maxing, yet some rpg's like whitewolf don't.
(whitewolf was the example given in the statement, but later it was explained that other rpg's could have been placed there instead)

Two stories:
-A guy I gamed with in college was very proud of two White Wolf characters. One was a vampire who had the equivalent of about a +30 diplomacy check at first level (technically, she got 14 dice on attempts at supernatural persuasion). The other utilized a discipline (magic system) of his own creation, giving her the power to burn like the sun by the equivalent of fifth level.
-In New Orleans once, we went to a bar popular with gamers. It was an off night, and the only gamer there cornered me for nearly an hour telling me about his uber-powerful vampire character who could walk around during daylight without suffering ill effects.

So, no, that's not my experience .

I will say that D&D rules tend more toward rules the DM referees, whereas WW rules put a lot of judgement in the GM's hands Powergaming in WW rules requires GM complicity in a way that powergaming in D&D rules doesn't.

Also, WW games tend not to focus so much on combat, so having a character who excels at killing people (e.g., a werewolf) doesn't change the game's dynamic so much.

Daniel

 

[Particle_Man]

Personal Definitions:

Min/Max'er: Someone who will maximize some character abilities and minimize others. This is a technique to do with character design. (And where levels are involved, character design is an on-going process).

Power Gamer: A player that wants to be the best at something. This player will likely use min/maxing, but will also have her character try to get/find/make stuff that will improve that character's abilities.

War Gamer: A player that wants to be the best at combat (usually Conan style meelee combat). They don't always min/max -- they might go for a big ax because that would be cooler, even if the big sword does a little more damage). But only so long as no one else outshines them by doing more damage with a big sword.

Rules Lawyer: Someone who is a stickler for obeying the rules, and for others obeying the rules.

Note that none of the above four would break the rules of a game.

Munchkin: Someone who will try to maximize character abilities, even if it involves breaking the rules. Someone who will try to be the best at everything.

Rules Raper/Twink: Someone who tries to blend incompatible rulesets (like, from two sourcebooks from two different companies that have different and incompatible takes on an optional rules subset).

 

[diaglo]

Personal Definitions:
War Gamer: A player that wants to be the best at combat (usually Conan style meelee combat). They don't always min/max -- they might go for a big ax because that would be cooler, even if the big sword does a little more damage). But only so long as no one else outshines them by doing more damage with a big sword.

i tend to mostly agree with your other definitions. however, this one is way off base.

a war gamer... at least from my point of view.... is a guy like me... who started playing games like chess and with minis... and then converted over to the newer fangled style of games known as roleplaying games like Dungeons & Dragons.

i was a war gamer long before i was a roleplayer.

 

[Arnix]

As long as the powergamer/munchkin/min-maxer RP's, I have never really cared.

I have been called all of these things, usually by someone who thinks that we should all just sit in town and RP for 10x the sessiosn that we actually kill stuff. These people look down on anyone who can do math to maximize their potential to be better/more powerful than the same class run by someone else.


One things to alway remember:
It is NOT human nature to be the bottom of the food chain.


I refuse to be the food if there is anything I can do about it. This obviously does not include cheating or sacrificing all RP abilities of the character. This does include using any feat allowed in the game, putting the correct stats/points where they need to go, memorizing the spells best suited for my character, seeking out the optimal gear for my character, best prestige class, etc.

 

[takyris]

I guess the distinction I would make is between a character that sometimes glories in the spotlight, and a character that hogs the spotlight. The lockpick extraordinaire is a sometimes-glorier: it's not like you're going to get in every fight and say, "Aha! I astound and intimidate the shambling mound by picking this complicated lock in front of it! 45 on my open lock check, suckah!"

True. That's an excellent distinction. As a GM, I think it's important to make sure that no one character is the best in the party at too many things, and if somebody minmaxes their battle cleric to the point where they're hitting more often than the party fighter and doing more damage, and also outcasting the party sorcerer, then I'm going to have a word with them in private.

The monk example I gave earlier, though, is going to outshine every fighter: except when fighting critters immune to stunning, his first successful hit against every creature will almost certainly kill it.

Sorry, didn't catch your example, but one important factor a GM can use in that situation, for example, is a diversity of combat options. It's harder on the GM, because he has to plan more, but having a combat in which the bad guys include something with an insane Fort save, a whole lot of minor things that the fighter can go to town on or the sorcerer can blow up (but which the monk wouldn't want to waste use/day powers on), an undead or construct or elemental that's immune to stunning, and something that uses a bunch of magic and forces the casters to get into a magical duel... all of that makes it harder for the monk to own the entire combat. (And no, you wouldn't want every combat to look like that. Good lord. That would be a lot of planning.)

So diversity will help somewhat.

In fact, though, that character isn't just ruining the game for the other players. He's holding himself hostage for the DM. The DM is now stuck with either beating him the only realistic way he can (creatures immune to stunning) or knowing that he's going to own the combat, and a player who builds a stunmonkey like that is going to sigh loudly every time they run into "Yet another thing the DM won't let my stun-power work on." So I acknowledge your point. A player like that is annoying. The system allows focus, and focus to a certain point turns a character into somebody who can break the system in one direction, leaving DMs with the ugly question of how often to let him do it.

Severe minmaxers in a group create another similar problem: since not everyone likes doing the minmax polka, characters will end up with very different power levels.

My group actually has a pretty good solution to this issue. Most of our players help each other out when making characters, and everyone helps out a person new to the system. "Okay, so, what's your concept? A two-weapon person who fights smart and uses tricks? No spellcasting? Light armor or heavy armor? Okay, got it. Here are some feats for you to look at. Why don't you flip through and write down everything that looks like something your character would want. Then we'll figure out what classes. You'd probably be best with fighter/rogue, Low-Wisdom ranger, or a monk who holds weapons for flavor text -- maybe the DM will let you do unarmed damage with any weapon you hold, but you always use the weapon's properties and never gain Ki strike or something... Fighter/Rogue is easiest, though. That's what I'd recommend..."

Since my group includes a bunch of computer geeks who love playing within rules systems and figuring out how to get maximum returns, minmaxing is always going to be there. They just make sure to make things fair by helping out the other guys with character creation (and with in-game tactics at the very beginning -- "coughPowerAttackcough").

As I said, a bit of minmaxing is a fun part of the game, but when it goes to extremes, especially when someone finds a way to make their character far more powerful than all the other characters in a majority of scenes, it ends up detracting from the game, IMO.

No argument there. The same could be said for deep-immersion roleplayers who hog the spotlight and make every conversation a chance for them to bug the DM with forced solo in-character conversation while the other players wander off to play Grand Theft Auto in the other room. Any player who does anything that makes the game all about him on a consistent basis is ruining the fun for everyone.