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

[Geoff Watson]

Min-maxing is orthogonal to role-playing.
They are not related.

You can roleplay an interesting, powerful character as easily as a interesting loser character, regardless of what many 'thespian' players would say.

Geoff.

 

[Snoweel]

The problem with min-maxing is that few real-life people can relate to it.

An example is me. I have a bunch of totally unrelated skills and talents, and I waste my wealth.

I also eat unhealthily and I drink heavily. However I recently quit smoking (again).

Imagine what a sub-par contribution I, as an rpg character, would make to a game where all the other PCs were min-maxed!

Another point of note is that the heroes of fantasy most of us were inspired by are rarely min-maxed either. They all have their cons; none of them are what you'd call 'optimally configured'.

 

[DMScott]

Well, in my experience there are three reasons why I'm not a fan of min-maxing:

1) Disparity between PC power levels. If half the group min-maxes and the other half doesn't, you can end up with some pretty huge differences in effectiveness that make it hard to run a fun game.

2) Lack of diversity. I find min-maxers often have a single favourite build, and that's the only one they play. This tends to limit other players' options.

3) Player tendencies and interests. My general experience - and yes, there are some very good players who are exceptions - is that somebody who min-maxes their character for one aspect of the game (usually combat) is likely to be uninterested in other aspects of the game. This again makes it hard to run a fun game.

 

[DragonLancer]

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.

I forget now, but I did use touch attacks and will-based spells/abilities on him. In the end though it was a pack of Gorallion’s that got him. I just dislike focusing on specific means to affect him because then they hit the characters who haven’t tried to min-max.

What I’m trying to say there (and I’ve just woken up so brain is slow) is that I don’t like punishing the other players for one guys min-maxing.

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?

I may be wrong but I don’t think that you can badly min-max when it comes down to RP. If a character becomes a top notch diplomat or becomes a master at using any other skill I consider that a bonus. Such min-maxing is not breaking the game.

 

[Afrodyte]

As a player and a DM, I hate min-maxing when it shifts the focus of the game from the party to the antics of a single character or player (which is often). Of course, there are other player habits that can do likewise, but the topic of this thread is min-maxing. The fun for me comes in being able to play my character. A lot of times, with a flagrant min-maxer in the group, I can't do that because the time that could be spent in meaningful interaction (ie: non-random encounter) is instead spent doing things only the min-maxer enjoys. Put bluntly, min-maxers make it harder for me to do the things I like when I play or DM.

 

[Altalazar]

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.

Do you use point buy for stats? And you are talking just about the subset of min/maxing, combat min/maxing, right?

 

[Altalazar]

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.

Yes - it seems that ALL of the complaints are about combat min/maxing. I've not seen a single one refer to any non-combat min/maxing.

I also think there is a question of point-buy versus random stats. I tend to think random stats can cause, by themselves, as much combat unbalancing as min/maxing, if not more. In a party where everyone point-buys, and you aren't using any exotic 3rd party feats, I think it is probably very hard to combat min/max yourself that much better than the rest of the group.

 

[Altalazar]

As a player and a DM, I hate min-maxing when it shifts the focus of the game from the party to the antics of a single character or player (which is often). Of course, there are other player habits that can do likewise, but the topic of this thread is min-maxing. The fun for me comes in being able to play my character. A lot of times, with a flagrant min-maxer in the group, I can't do that because the time that could be spent in meaningful interaction (ie: non-random encounter) is instead spent doing things only the min-maxer enjoys. Put bluntly, min-maxers make it harder for me to do the things I like when I play or DM.

Since it sounds like the problem is COMBAT min/maxing, perhaps the best solution to keep that combat min/maxer from dominating is to reduce the amount of combat. If there are all sorts of experience-producing non-combat encounters to deal with, the combat min/maxer will not shine at all while the rest of the party certainly will.

 

[orchid blossom]

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.?

I think min-maxing is less of a problem in things like Charisma and Intelligence because the player still affects these things. I have a high Charisma character, but no matter what, my own charisma still affects how she comes across. Sure, there are rolls and skills, but if I say something stupid it's going to have an adverse affect. Same with Intellignece. If my character is trying to work a puzzle that I can't figure out, that 18 INT doesn't really help. The DM may give a few hints because of that score, but I doubt he'd just tell me the solution. I still have to figure it out.

With STR, there is no part of the player. It really comes down to what's on the sheet. Same with CON. The fact that the player passes out after one wine cooler doesn't have an iota of effect of his CON 20 Dwarfs ability to drink a keg.

Anyway, thats why I think people worry much more about min-maxing in the combat heavy stats. OTOH, if you have a player with a forceful and persuasive personality maxing that CHR, watch out! You may never have a combat again.

 

[Afrodyte]

Since it sounds like the problem is COMBAT min/maxing, perhaps the best solution to keep that combat min/maxer from dominating is to reduce the amount of combat. If there are all sorts of experience-producing non-combat encounters to deal with, the combat min/maxer will not shine at all while the rest of the party certainly will.

If this comes across as curt, I apologize, but don't you think you are presuming a bit much in that statement? First that my only problem with min-maxing is combat min-maxing, second that I am too stupid to realize that I can limit combat min-maxing by limiting combat, and third that I am too stupid to realize that as DM I have the power to award XP for things besides combat?

My problem with min-maxing is not just combat min-maxing. I do not dole out combat-based XP anyway, and I rarely do combats at all. So, min-maxing is not just about combat for me. I'll give an example of a non-combat situation where min-maxing can ruin the fun.

If I have a character, and one of his main issues is the regret he feels for abandoning the woman he loved because of social obligation, it would make me less than happy if a silver-tongued bard (Bluff and Diplomacy maxed out, with feats and spells to enhance it) smoothed things over without my character having to make any decisions or sacrifices. Or, if my character's lover had some object or information vital to the party, min-maxed bard could use spells to get what he wanted out of her and completely bypass my character dealing with the issue I designed for him. It'd be the same if he were an NPC. Of course, if the characters were hired, coerced, or cajoled into reuniting that character with his lover, it's one thing. But if it isn't, and one of the driving ideas behind the game is forgiveness, then I won't be too happy if it is all just glossed over.

Even if the min-maxer's character were a barbarian, there's nothing I can do to prevent that character from turning the encounter with my character's long-lost love into a disaster. With a maxed Intimidation and a huge sword, my character's lover would probably shun him not because of something he did, but because of what the other player did. Indeed, said character might just kill her and be done with it. If said character were anything besides Neutral or Chaotic Evil, I can give an XP penalty, but sometimes min-maxers even take alignment into consideration. Granted, I can say "no evil characters," but that rule would only be made to keep the min-maxer from playing it like that, which hampers the other players in the group.