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

[dreaded_beast]

This is a possible touchy subject and it is not my intention to cause anyone to be insulted, flamed, etc. If this subject has been addressed in the past, sorry for bringing it up again.

That being said, I have always held the opinion that there is nothing wrong with min-maxing. For myself, I enjoy trying to "get the best" out of my character, tweaking them to their maximum potential. This is my style of play and that is what I enjoy, I'm not saying it is better or worse than others out there.

In my opinion, I believe that nothing can ever become "too" powerful in a campaign, with a creative DM. Just as players can become "creative" with their tactics, so can a DM become "creative" with his encounters.

I know that there have been many discussions regarding min-maxing, but I have been unable to determine why the majority of the people I see (at least on these messageboards, I could be wrong though) have a strong dislike of min-maxing.

However, I have heard the arguement that min-maxing takes away from the "role-playing" aspect of the game. In general, I do not agree with this opinion, since I believe that role-playing a character is much more than just a list of stats, abilities, feats, etc. However, I do like having said stats, abilities, feats, etc., tweaked just the way I want them.

Anyways, why is there hate for min-maxing?

 

[Tuzenbach]

The only thing with "creative" in front of it that is truly wrong is accountancy! LoL

RE the whole "takes away from role-playing" aspect, I've found that a lot of players regard D&D as a much more fun and interactive version of Monopoly. Stats are more important to them than "pretending" to be what they're not. Min-maxing is their way of building hotels on Boardwalk & Parkplace and if that's what makes them happy & keeps them in the game, so be it!

 

[Crothian]

It depends how it is done. If taken to the extreme it's almost like cheating within the rules.

 

[Stone Dog]

Getting the most out of your character is one thing, but it can seriously go too far.

The most extreme example of this in my world where I was going to play Vampire. Once everybody was done one person shoved all the dots he could into physical (Dex and Sta) combat skills and three dots of potence. Clan, Nature, Demeanor and NAME were all left blank and the player had no clue what else he spent points on other than hitting things. Now you might think this was a player new to the game. Nope. Just didn't give a damn about anything but hitting things.

The path of the Min-Maxer is winding and seductive. Wander too far and your roleplaying skills are lost to the siren call of pure numbers. However if you abandon it completely, you may not survive long enough to learn better.

 

[Crothian]

However if you abandon it completely, you may not survive long enough to learn better.

Now this I disagree with. I've seen many characters that may be qualified as sub optimal do well and succeed. One of my first 3.0 characters was a half elf Ranger. I never multi classed nor did I take a prestige class. I placed my highest stats in wisdom and Charisma. He wasn't the most powerful ranger or even character by any means but he did fine and is still doing great.

 

[MarauderX]

It depends how it is done. If taken to the extreme it's almost like cheating within the rules.

Which, if you talk to a lawyer, isn't cheating. And a lawyer might also say if you're not cheating you're not playing.

My problem is when it comes to players vs. players. As a DM and player, I don't care if others have devised some great tactics that work well for battle against a typical type of critter. But please don't gloat about how your PC is so much more valuable to the team than anyone else.

When a game is stagnant the min-maxer will always prevail because they always face a typical opponent or situation. You have to switch that up to give everyone in the party a chance to be a hero, or else everyone watches the typical maxed cleric PC mop up the battlefield time and again. A min-maxer may be tweaking out his PC to beat what the DM throws at them to reduce risk; sure fine, just make sure that it doesn't take away the fun of the game.

Strategies for 'beating' a min-maxer should be a whole new interesting thread.

 

[lord_banus]

The reason why min-maxing is a problem a lot of the time is that people who do it are missing out on a lot of the real fun in roleplaying. I have found that many min-maxers focus their entire attention on creating the best character possible put this focus takes away from the creating of an interresting character.

This is not to say that you can not create the best character possible but that when creating a character you should create an interresting concept with all the quirks and traits that will bring him to life, then min-max to fit the concept. Too much time is spent on the mechanics.

Now if you are the kind of person that can do both well then great for you but I have met very few who can.

 

[reiella]

I think it's more so min/maxing at the expense of the campaign that's an issue.

And it honestly depends on the players and the DM (and their interactions) to determine when that happens.

There's also that some folks don't want as 'Over The Top' superhero-esque style that results from some types of Min/maxing.

 

[Stone Dog]

Now this I disagree with. I've seen many characters that may be qualified as sub optimal do well and succeed.

Which is why I said may instead of won't. I've had plenty of characters do fine with poor or average stats. A wizard with a 6 dex leaps to mind.

Tweaking your stats is fine, but I've seen people who can't do anything else but tweak stats and state what they are hitting.

 

[Zappo]

Min-maxing by itself isn't wrong... the only time when you are "playing wrong" is when you are not having fun. Problem is, lots of people don't have fun doing min-maxing. Second problem is, if one player in the party is doing serious min-maxing and the rest aren't, he is going to have a substantially more powerful character, leading to intra-party inbalance.

Now, if the entire party is stronger (or weaker) than what their level suggests, it's not a problem. The DM can tailor the encounters appropriately. However, if there is intra-party inbalance, making encounters that are challenging for everyone without being lethal to some becomes progressively more difficult.

This means that in the same party you can't have a 100% min-maxed character and a lame cleric. Well, you can, but it won't work as well as a balanced party. This is the first cause of annoyance at min-maxing.

The second cause of annoyance at min-maxing is that beyond a certain point it does hurt the roleplaying. A lot. There is nothing wrong in making an effective character - actually, I guess that a real adventurer would make sure to be as likely to survive as he can. Beyond this stage, however, lies the point where you are no longer "making effective characters". It is the point where you are exploiting bugs in the rules, using combos that the designers obviously didn't think of, and making a thing that can't be really called a character because it doesn't make any sense in the game world. It is the point where you no longer care to justify your choices in setting terms. And precisely because it doesn't make sense in the game world, it kills suspension of disbelief for everyone in the party. Unless everyone is playing wargame-style, the rest of the group is going to be annoyed.

Notice that the previous consideration has no relation to whether the "character" is too powerful or not. It doesn't matter; what's irritating is that the player is clearly trying to play a glorified Monopoli game.