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

[Hypersmurf]

But isn't fault really irrelevant? I mean, the game is ruined either way. Wouldn't it be better to make sure neither the players NOR the dice can ruin the game? (Point buy being the obvious method to prevent it).

Absolutely. That's why I use point buy.

But there's still a difference. A min/max player can hurt a game if his playing style is at odds with the rest of the group, just as a non-min/max player can hurt a game if he's the only one. ("Man... we gotta Raise the bard again?") It's a player compatibility issue, and it may require telling someone "Change the way you play or leave"... which is always hard.

Whereas random ability generation is less likely to cause personal affront. "The game is unbalanced because the dice favoured one person over another, and so we're changing to point buy" might result in grumbling from the players who like random generation, but there's still no fingerpointing of "Your playing style is ruining the game; change or else".

-Hyp.

 

[Altalazar]

Absolutely. That's why I use point buy.

But there's still a difference. A min/max player can hurt a game if his playing style is at odds with the rest of the group, just as a non-min/max player can hurt a game if he's the only one. ("Man... we gotta Raise the bard again?") It's a player compatibility issue, and it may require telling someone "Change the way you play or leave"... which is always hard.

Whereas random ability generation is less likely to cause personal affront. "The game is unbalanced because the dice favoured one person over another, and so we're changing to point buy" might result in grumbling from the players who like random generation, but there's still no fingerpointing of "Your playing style is ruining the game; change or else".

-Hyp.

Point buy is the only way - at least, I think so - for the reasons we are now discussing.

My first 3E campaign was with rolling, simply because that was the way it had always been done and I hadn't really looked into point buy. It ended up with one player so badly overmatching the others. I don't think it would have made a difference in terms of personal affront in this particular group - we somehow managed to get by anyway, but it took a lot of work on my part. But after that it was point-buy all the way. I'm sure there was some min/maxing done in later games by some - but when everyone starts off with the same points, it just didn't end up that any of them were able to be that much more powerful to make a real difference. Which I think is a testament to how balanced (core) 3E was. I don't know about all these supplements - I keep hearing complaints about how new feats allow too much min/maxing in combat.

oh well.

 

[dreaded_beast]

But there's still a difference. A min/max player can hurt a game if his playing style is at odds with the rest of the group, just as a non-min/max player can hurt a game if he's the only one. ("Man... we gotta Raise the bard again?") It's a player compatibility issue, and it may require telling someone "Change the way you play or leave"... which is always hard.

Good point. I believe this may be the reason that min-maxing may have a negative connotation: difference in play styles.

 

[DragonLancer]

I don't honestly like point buy. All too often I have seen almost exact duplicates made of recently deceased characters. Random rolls, while making some characters slightly better than others, makes for much more interesting characters.

 

[McBard]

I don't honestly like point buy. All too often I have seen almost exact duplicates made of recently deceased characters.

Perhaps try a random, point-buy hybrid: decide on the points (say 28 or 32); and then have the DM generate a large amount of different arrays (perhaps a couple of dozen, just as long as you cover a wide variety of combinations--you know, just about everything from the "18, 16, 14, 8, 8" to the "14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 10", even including odd-numbered scores), and then have the players roll randomly for the particular array group their character receives.

At that point you could allow players to then assign the ability scores as they wanted OR even take it one random step further and have them randomly assign the 6 scores.

 

[ph0rk]

With all of the whining about min maxing, I honestly don't see why some of you play any rpgs using the d20 system at all. The system was made so that players can tinker and make interesting (numericly and thematicaly) characters through multiclassing and feat selection; In short complaining about min maxing is complaining about the very heart of 3e and 3.5e.

It is possible for a player to spend hours tinkering with a character build, and to not be disruptive in play. It is also possible for a player to spend -no- time building their character and to be utterly disruptive in play.

I would take issue with the statement that maxing Int or Cha for skills isn't as 'bad' as maxing combat abilities; I've often seen such characters spend so much time of "rp-ing" on their own to showcase their skills that the game is a drag for everyone else.

In short: Pointbuy limits multiclass combinations and feats available. Willy-nilly ability selection/generation is going to on the one hand create player characters with vastly different levels of ability, and facility some otherwise difficult or impossible multiclass combos. Even with a 32 pointbuy, distributing ability points to make an effective arcane trickster requires sacrifice. If you "rolled up" scores along the lines of 15 16 12 9 18 17, it requires no such sacrifice.

Player characters with vastly differing power levels can cause a DM trouble, but the more uniform character creation is, the less that is an issue from the onset. As for specialization vs generalization; it is silly to wish to penalize players or their characters for trying to excel at one area. No character is inherently immune from all obstacles (though unwise distribution of magical items can make them almost so).

Honestly I get the idea that those loudest about the evils of Min-Maxing just don't really understand the rules, and loathe those that do.

 

[Altalazar]

I don't honestly like point buy. All too often I have seen almost exact duplicates made of recently deceased characters. Random rolls, while making some characters slightly better than others, makes for much more interesting characters.

Isn't that really a problem with the player not the method of stat generation?

What do you do when one player ends up with a 50 point character and another with an 21 point character in the same party?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even with a 32 pointbuy, distributing ability points to make an effective arcane trickster requires sacrifice. If you "rolled up" scores along the lines of 15 16 12 9 18 17, it requires no such sacrifice.

So if you want players to be able to use those scores, why not just call the game 49 point buy, and avoid the problem of having the Arcane Trickster with the equivalent of a +2 LA Race (unbalanced ability modifiers) compared to everyone else?

-Hyp.

 

[shadow]

All dese people complainin' about min-maxin' just be playa' haters!

Seriously, I don't see much of a problem. Min-maxing is just a derogatory term used to refer to a certain style of character creation. I prefer powerful characters because it allows the game to be more epic and more legendary. There are times when players take advantage in rule loopholes to create overpowering characters, but it has been my experience that this is usually the fault of the DM having a poor grasp on the rules allowing players to get away with too much, or having too many untested house rules, or just giving in to player demands!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Whereas random ability generation is less likely to cause personal affront. "The game is unbalanced because the dice favoured one person over another, and so we're changing to point buy" might result in grumbling from the players who like random generation, but there's still no fingerpointing of "Your playing style is ruining the game; change or else".

Actually, this is why I use a Standard Array (9, 11, 11, 13, 15, 17).