[TOUCHY SUBJECT] Why all the hate for min-maxing?

[ph0rk]

The other was a rolled wizard, whose stats were the equivalent of about a 44 point buy, or something. The cleric rolled poorly, getting the equivalent of point buy in the low 20s.

Even though the cleric maxed out Knowledge: Religion skill ranks, and was played as a religious scholar, the wizard surpassed the cleric in this area with a rank or two and a big Int bonus.

Well, that would only be temporary, unless the wizard kept the skill up in the long run.

However, that anecdote illustrates why rolling instead of point buy is unfair and can be abused beautifully!

FYI, for the stat-buffs out there, most die-rolling systems where you drop ones (i.e. 3d6 reroll 1's, 4d6 drop the lowest, etc) essentially change the 3d6 average score from 10.5 to 12, and so unless there is some, *ahem* abuse, scores should not vary that badly. IMHO, in any game where die rolling for stats is used it is the DM's job to look over characters and make sure that there aren't any glaring differences in ability points. (i.e. if the best the cleric can put in wisdom is a 14, give the guy a break!) otherwise you as the DM are wilfully starting your players on an uneven playing field, and even if someone doesn't act like a jerk about it, someone is likely to get irked over their reduced effectiveness.

Ability scores are (almost) forever! Don't leave them to random chance!

 

[jester47]

On a side note, non-combat spotlight time can be an issue. For example, if in your main roleplaying session the Rogue is away from the party a fair bit of the session time, checking for traps, scouting, and so forth. That can result in the spotlight being on the Rogue for most of the session. I've been in sessions like that, and it is boring as hell.

I think this comes down to how the DM handles party splitting and scouting. For example, if scouting is often dangerous, the party split will not be as far, nor for as prolonged periods. Also, the DM can gloss over things and just summarize the scouting with only several rolls from the Rogue. Another alternative is to DM such things outside the main session.

In the campaign where I play a Rogue, there are times when spotlight has been on me. However, usually other characters get involved relatively quickly. It also helps that other characters have some Rogue abilities so that they can be in the vicinity even if I am the main sneak. e.g. One session where my character signaled frantically with a mirror after realising the party Wizard with charmed Yuan-Ti had walked up to their base and was talking to undead - the other sneaks moved in faster, and combat ensued. And the Wizard was better for this sort of thing, courtesy of charm. (There's some things that Diplomacy and Bluff just can't do.

Again though, I think these issues tend to be less of a min/max issue, and more of a DM's focus issue and how the party handles temporary splits.

Just my thoughts ...

My rule of thumb for this is that the description goes with the majority. Everything else is mechanical.

A.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Uh, you'd have to remind me - I'm not sure which thread you mean...

Specifically, the Low Magic/GnG thread, although my point extends to any preference of style or taste. For instance, your comment about the Min/Maxer also being a jerk doesn't make Min/Maxers jerks relates to the idea that a low magic game run by a bad GM doesn't make all low magic games bad.

You find any debate between two differing preferences within the game and apply this same reasoning, and suddenly you wonder what all the debates are about...

"Someone who says they are heavy RPers that try to hog the spotlight with elongated speeches and Shakespearian prose doesn't make all RP-centric players spotlight hogs..."

"Having played with a Min/Maxer that only made two-dimensional characters doesn't make all Min/Maxers poor role-players..."

etc.

etc.

etc.

I think we've all probably had a bad experience with someone taking a facet of the game too far, and likely their sense of teamwork and sportsmanship was skewed (thus the reason they took it too far). It's an unfortunate side of Human nature to take these singular or limited experiences and make them symbolic of related issues.

Example: One Min/Maxer was a jerk and ruined an earlier game for you, so when you realize the guy next to you at the table is a Min/Maxer, you become nervous that the game is about to go down the drain like the other one did...

Another Example: You played in a Low Magic game that involved a lot of railroading and screw-overs from a poor GM, and now the new GM you just met has announced that his game is low magic and you fear the same issues are going to arise.

With all the debates over tastes, styles, and methodology lately, I'm really starting to believe that this is the real issue that's been bubbling up.

For instance, I used to be heavily anti-min/max until the individual that proposed the earlier described "theoretical" and "practical" min/max methods took a gander of my rules and setting and told me exactly how he would min/max a character in my game. And while a smidge more potent than what my own players generally produce, it wasn't anything so outrageous or beyond the scope of the campaign parameters that I wouldn't allow it or fear that the other PCs would have been overshadowed. And thus, having had this done for me, I became more acceptable of the notion of min/max (although I certainly favor "practical" over "theoretical", I see value and worth in both).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

In my opinion, based on what I have read here and elsewhere, this may be another big reason, if not the main reason, for the dislike of min-maxing.

Plus, I think it can almost apply to many of the dislikes gamers have regarding gaming styles, gaming systems, etc.

Yeah, I was pondering the current list of debates while I took my kids to the park, earlier, and this line of thinking started to occur to me. When I came back and found this thread, the thought finalized itself and is likely how I'm going to approach such discussions in the future.

(Should cut down on my Tums consumption.)

I like this quote so much, I'm gonna have it in my sig for awhile.

Kewl... I'm a quote.

 

[Junkheap]

Wow, why all the hate. All the players i play with as well as myself are heavy min maxers, tweakers, munchkins, whatever you want to call us. We personally try and outdo each other with ridiculous combinations that ALWAYS get nerfed by wotc in newer books. Most of it, i dont really mind, i am a DM as well, and i find it fun.

Right now as a player in a campaign based around some adventure in Dungeon(cithy of cauldron) or something like that, we are all maxed(some of us almost at our full potential and others need a whole lot of imt to get there). We are 7th lvl atm. I have a Pal5/Annointed Knight 1/ Fist of Raziel 1. I will be taking the fist for the entire 10 lvl. I took annointed knight just for the DR. But my character is based soley on not getting hit, and to deal massive damage to evil. My AC right now is 26/27 vs evil, 30/31 with divine shield. Not many things can hit me. But with all our tweaked characters we still got our butts kicked.

It all depends on the DM as well. If he can handle it and knows how to appropriately challenge PC's then there is no issue at all. And we discuss and sway each other in making better decisions that would benefit the whole party. Just like playing any sports, you will not pick an average person. You will pick the star of the bunch. He may suck at defense, but his upside to making the big play is definitaly worth it.

In our campaign we have
Me: The ultra righteous cleanse the depths of abyss paladin as you see above.

A fighter/sorcer that is going to be an eldritch knight, with a little spell sword in there. He does more damage than me in melee(gs vs ls), but he doesnt have the defense.

A cleric aiming for heirphant.

A LG rogue that hates eveil as much as i do and took a xalted feet that increases smite damage from d6 to d8 vs evil

A mage that is trying to be an archmage.

Most of these are not supertwinked characters, but are extremely good at what they do. Everyone get thier chance at glory and it doesnt ruin the game. The DM just has to be comfortable with the capabilities of what the PC's can do. You could complain about all giants in the book. They are extremely tweaked for massive melee damage, butcher anything, pray that the mage has a glitterdust left fight.

Sorry for the long post, but tweaking is the best part of 3e, and it doesnt mean tweakers dont roleplay, they just want to play someone that greatly excels in something. But again, it all depends on the group and what the DM can handle.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wow, why all the hate. All the players i play with as well as myself are heavy min maxers, tweakers, munchkins, whatever you want to call us.

...

But again, it all depends on the group and what the DM can handle.

That's exactly it. When "All the players" are min/maxers, there's no problem. When all the players but one are min/maxers, you end up with a character who probably can't survive the sorts of encounters likely to crop up, and who will die repeatedly.

When all the players aren't min/maxers, there's no problem. When only one player is a min/maxer, his character is potentially going to overshadow all the others and make the game less enjoyable.

Compatibility is important.

-Hyp.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

I don't have a problem with min-maxing per se; it's when someone can't rationalize why their character is the way they are other than b/c the rules say they can do it. Or when the rationalization is so incredible that it's obvious it's just an excuse to min/max.

 

[jester47]

Why does that diplomat need to be nerfed? Why does it have to be "hard"? If a player takes all that effort into being a good diplomat, why not let them reap the benefits of it? It certainly won't help in every situation - even in some diplomatic situations it won't necessarily be all that the players need to do. Why does every situation that the DM sets up that requires die rolls have to be one where the players can fail?

last question first- I will answer with a question. If the player cant fail, then why roll at all? If it requires a die roll, by the very nature there must be room for failure. If there isn't don't roll that die.

I am not really nerfing the diplomat. If thats what I am doing than I am nerfing everyone. Even myself as DM (mooks come out of the books, NPCs are rolled if I am not using a module).

It doesn't have to be hard. There just has to be a significant chance of failure. I do let the player reap the bennies of putting a lot into pumping up diplomacy. Thing is, I don't set up the situation.

Why do I do this?

Because it keeps the game fun. Billions of gamblers can't be wrong. A whole city has been built on the fact that there is a rush associated with games where you can loose. Translating it to D&D, there should always be a chance of failure and success. Otherwise the game stops being fun.

And something I still don't understand is how you can consider an identical set of stats NOT to break your game (as you indicated in your earlier example) merely because they were rolled randomly rather than deliberately? Either a +17 diplomacy is a problem or it isn't. I fail to see how the fact that it happened "by accident" changes that - won't you still need those 31 DCs in either case?

I guess I left out another side of the equation. The reason random works is because everything is random. If the players decide to go to Naightfang Spire (A real location IMC) at 5th level, then they go. I am not going to stop them. So they probably will get attacked by a mooncalf, its the decision they made. A random world is best met with a random character. If I created encounters and tailored what happens to the characters, then an intentional min/maxed character causes problems. However a statistical outlier vs status quo is a very different situation, because I am not setting the DCs.

And everything hypersmurf said.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

Now I don't want to give the wrong impression, there is tweaking in my game, but it does not occur on the class/race/stats level. Rather it is limited to the many player options we have, skills, and feats.

I anyone is curious, I will be posting my house rules to these forums for praise, scrutiny, and general comments and use very soon.

Aaron.

 

[Snoweel]

No, we use: state race, state class, roll 4d6 drop lowest in order of stats, total stat bonus must be +2 or better or the set gets thrown out and you have to roll them again. Also, if the stats after racial adjustment make the character unplayable (sorc with a cha of 8) they get to reroll. Draconian? yes. Keeps players from tweaking thier character? You betcha. Do the players like it? Anyone who has tried it has not gone back.

Let me just say that for somebody who hates the die-roll method of character creation, I think your method is very cool.

I could happily play in a game using this method, though I'd be reluctant to take the risk of choosing a paladin, ranger or monk.