DragonLancer
Hero
For the record, the stat generation method that my group and I prefer is the standard 4d6 drop the lowest and put them where you want.
[TOUCHY SUBJECT] Why all the hate for min-maxing?
- Thread starter dreaded_beast
- Start date
Altalazar
First Post
DragonLancer said:
You might find it an interesting exercise to calculate the point-buy equivalent of each PC and see how they compare - perhaps, just by accident, they are clustered close. Or perhaps there is a wide spread. Then you could compare the general flow of play of the group as it is now to how it may be the next time you start over with fresh characters.
Geoff Watson
First Post
Zappo said:
They should have calculated things before hand. Why spend ten minute calculating in game when they could just look at the notes they spent ten minutes preparing before the session?
Geoff.
Qualir
First Post
My problem with min-maxing characters lies in the fact that only one member of my group does this, and he does it too well. His characters tend to be so focused that they are capable of competing against encounters 4+ levels above him alone. Granted, such extreme specialization leaves huge weaknesses, but I dislike using the same tactics vs him every time in order to "challenge" his character. Doing so would be effectively gunning for the character, which is very poor DMing in my opinion.
The problem is not just this player. The problem comes from the fact that this player's characters usually appear to overshadow the rest of the group in combat (Out of combat, the player doesn't even pay attention). These min-maxed characters create a lot of friction at the table.
It is the friction that I have something against. Occasional friction can be fun and entertaining. Continuous friction usually decreases everybody's enjoyment of the game. We all like this player (hey, he's my oldest brother and he paints all the minis) and do not want him to leave the group. We just wish that he would occasionally embrace the group concept instead of letting himself become obsessed with numbers.
The problem is not just this player. The problem comes from the fact that this player's characters usually appear to overshadow the rest of the group in combat (Out of combat, the player doesn't even pay attention). These min-maxed characters create a lot of friction at the table.
It is the friction that I have something against. Occasional friction can be fun and entertaining. Continuous friction usually decreases everybody's enjoyment of the game. We all like this player (hey, he's my oldest brother and he paints all the minis) and do not want him to leave the group. We just wish that he would occasionally embrace the group concept instead of letting himself become obsessed with numbers.
The Spectrum Rider
First Post
I have no objection to min-maxing per se. But I often find that min-maxing players have an extremely narrow focus on what constitutes fun, enjoying the game, or "winning." If a situation doesn't lend itself to the very specific talents of their character, they get quickly bored. If you don't cater to them, they're frustrated. Sometimes they're one-trick ponies - most often, really good at combat, lousy at everything else - and bring less creativity than other players to their actions. (All their creativity has gone into the min-maxing, and now the only thing to do is follow it.)
This is not true of all min-maxing players. Some do a great deal of careful design work on their character, then happily and playfully take on whatever follows. But that is not, in my expereince, the typical case.
The Spectrum Rider
This is not true of all min-maxing players. Some do a great deal of careful design work on their character, then happily and playfully take on whatever follows. But that is not, in my expereince, the typical case.
The Spectrum Rider
Gothmog
First Post
The Spectrum Rider said:
Yep, I find this to be very true of most min-maxers. In my experience, most min-maxers also only care about their own ego gratification, and will happily discount other players enjoyment of the game in favor of self-glorification. If things don't go their way, they whine, sulk, or throw a temper tantrum until they get their way or are thrown out of the group.
That said, there is nothing wrong with creating a character who is good at a few things or specialized. In fact, its rather wasteful to create a generalist, since he will be able to adequately perform many role, but excel at none. This sort of a character is also usually very frustrating to a player. What there is something wrong with is a character who exploits loopholes in the rules, abuses the spirit of the rules, and/or only takes certain combinations of abilities because they are "optimal builds." Min-maxing is dangerous to a game when there is only one/a few min-maxers, because the other players are forced to min-max or be left in the dust by the twinky offenders. Tension between players at the table only breeds resentment, and min-maxers cause a lot of tension in a group that doesn't tend to min-max. In addition, if there is a combat min-maxer in the group, the DM is forced to scale up encounters to challenge the min-maxer, but such scaling up is often lethal to the non min-maxers, further escalating the situation. My solution to min-maxing has been to explain to players that while specialized characters are good, the point of the game is for everyone to have fun, and if you can't have fun without being "better" than everyone else, then you need to game elsewhere.
jester47
First Post
Why Min/Maxing breaks the game
I don't like min/maxing because it breaks the game IMO. I like a random game where the margins of error range between 3/4 and 1/4 of the total range of results. Any more and the players will find it too hard, any less and the obstacles become too easy. The reason Min/Maxing breaks the game is because when a DM compensates for a Min/Maxed character the DCs become exclusive to the min/maxed character. Untrained skills become useless, only combat oriented characters stand a chance in a fight, and as a result of these, characters become more two dimensional. Lack of min/maxing allows for the exceptional but does not cause the problem of making the DCs exclusive only to specialists in an attempt to keep the game interesting and fun. I avoid it and have house rules to help my players who might lean that way to avoid it.
Aaron.
I don't like min/maxing because it breaks the game IMO. I like a random game where the margins of error range between 3/4 and 1/4 of the total range of results. Any more and the players will find it too hard, any less and the obstacles become too easy. The reason Min/Maxing breaks the game is because when a DM compensates for a Min/Maxed character the DCs become exclusive to the min/maxed character. Untrained skills become useless, only combat oriented characters stand a chance in a fight, and as a result of these, characters become more two dimensional. Lack of min/maxing allows for the exceptional but does not cause the problem of making the DCs exclusive only to specialists in an attempt to keep the game interesting and fun. I avoid it and have house rules to help my players who might lean that way to avoid it.
Aaron.
Last edited:
I think a problem comes if a game balances roleplaying-stats (like CHA for most classes) against combat stats (STR, CON, DEX). Min-max Fighter player is always tempted to use CHA as a dump stat, say. Problem then comes when they want to play their CHA 8 lunk Fighter as an inspirational leader without regard to the stat.
In the Midnight game I play, with point buy, I gave my PC CHA 12 (4 pts) so I could play her as a fairly forceful personality, but those 4 points I spent to justify the character concept, was quite painful when I could have spent them to get my STR to 18 and been considerably more effective in combat, in a game where success in combat is commonly the difference between life and death.
In principle though I don't generally have a problem with min-maxing within a defined ruleset, eg the PHB. There's a form of bad min-maxing that can shade into munchkinism where the player wants to bring in extra stuff from outside the ruleset purely for the power; eg wanting to play some Savage Species monster in my humanocentric game, or even a Hobgoblin or other race without an adequate ECL for its stat mods.
In the Midnight game I play, with point buy, I gave my PC CHA 12 (4 pts) so I could play her as a fairly forceful personality, but those 4 points I spent to justify the character concept, was quite painful when I could have spent them to get my STR to 18 and been considerably more effective in combat, in a game where success in combat is commonly the difference between life and death.
In principle though I don't generally have a problem with min-maxing within a defined ruleset, eg the PHB. There's a form of bad min-maxing that can shade into munchkinism where the player wants to bring in extra stuff from outside the ruleset purely for the power; eg wanting to play some Savage Species monster in my humanocentric game, or even a Hobgoblin or other race without an adequate ECL for its stat mods.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
DragonLancer said:
What was his Will Save? What was his flat-footed touch AC? What was his grapple check?
"Tougher and tougher" opponents is one way to combat high AC... but it's not the only way.
-Hyp.
dreaded_beast
First Post
Interesting replies. 
The general feeling I am getting so far is that min-maxing is usually related to "combat" encounters.
For those who dislike min-maxing because "it detracts from role-play and focuses on the numbers", what about characters who "min-max" Charisma and Intellegence, getting many skills, feats and spells geared to non-combat encounters and focused on social interactions, etc.?
Is min-maxing done strictly for "combat power"? One poster mentioned that DnD is generally ends up in combat anyway. Can it be done to get "role-playing" power as well and is that a bad thing?
In my opinion, based on what has been posted so far, it seems as if the dislike in regards to min-maxing is:
1. Not so much a dislike of the actual min-maxing itself, but the general personality and attitude of people who tend to min-max. According to most of the posts, this is generally at the expense of other people at the table.
2. The possibility of a min-max character unbalancing the campaign in terms of combat. Unbalancing in regards to the min-maxed character being on a higher level of power than the other characters of equal level.
I feel that based on many of the posts, that min-maxing itself is not "bad" or "cheating", but that many posters have had bad experiences with players who do min-max. I believe that min-maxing itself is not the cause, but just the personality of the player.
The general feeling I am getting so far is that min-maxing is usually related to "combat" encounters.
For those who dislike min-maxing because "it detracts from role-play and focuses on the numbers", what about characters who "min-max" Charisma and Intellegence, getting many skills, feats and spells geared to non-combat encounters and focused on social interactions, etc.?
Is min-maxing done strictly for "combat power"? One poster mentioned that DnD is generally ends up in combat anyway. Can it be done to get "role-playing" power as well and is that a bad thing?
In my opinion, based on what has been posted so far, it seems as if the dislike in regards to min-maxing is:
1. Not so much a dislike of the actual min-maxing itself, but the general personality and attitude of people who tend to min-max. According to most of the posts, this is generally at the expense of other people at the table.
2. The possibility of a min-max character unbalancing the campaign in terms of combat. Unbalancing in regards to the min-maxed character being on a higher level of power than the other characters of equal level.
I feel that based on many of the posts, that min-maxing itself is not "bad" or "cheating", but that many posters have had bad experiences with players who do min-max. I believe that min-maxing itself is not the cause, but just the personality of the player.
Similar Threads
