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

[ph0rk]

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.

I would argue, however, that if a not overly generous system is used at character creation (pointbuy, for example) then even the most rigorous min-maxing won't help overmuch...

Unless someone just -wants- to make a fighter with a str of 11 and use a greatsword. Though in that case I'm not sure who is the dull one; the character or the player.

Even without min/maxing, all character types will overshadow others in some way - if one character is able to overshadow all the time though I'd have to say the DM is doing something wrong. Perhaps the other players need some character counciling, for example?

Mind, whether using pointbuy or not, if someone chooses to specialize in something other than combat (skills, turning ability, etc) and then has the gumption to whine about not being a superstar in combat, they'd get a nasty glare. (Or an orc sandwich, depending on whether I'm in the DM chair or not.)

Perhaps there are some skill-maxers out there that felt outshined by damage-maxers?

 

[Trainz]

You guys want my two cents ?

"NO !!!"

OK. Here it is.

Min-maxing, even down to every single little skill point or feat or ability point, isn't the real problem.

It's doing something with the rules that, while not forbidden, is clearly against the spirit of the rules. That's what can make some DM's roll their eyes. It's impossible for the game designers to prepare for every output of rules synergy and combinations. In something as vast as a RPG's rules universe, it's just not humanly possible.

What the game designers do is trust that most people will understand the intent, and trust those people to not go in the ludicrous zone of metagaming.

Granted, that zone is blurred at best, and the edge varies from one DM to another. But there are some things that are clearly "out there". If a DM want to use those things simply because "the rules don't clearly forbid it", and the players don't mind that, then that's just fine and dandy for that particular group. Not for most gamers, I would beleive.

For example, a car's purpose is transportation. If a person wants to buy a car to use as a lawn ornement, the car-dealer will still sell the car to that person, but within a debate about cars and their efficiency, that person's particular use of her car would clearly be overlooked, and become non-relevant.

OK, maybe that was more than two cents... a dime, maybe ?

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, sure. That's like the wizard putting all his points in Int, leaving his Str at 8, and then carrying around 400 pounds of gear while conveniently forgetting that he can't lift it.

There's a difference between min/maxing, and --/maxing. You can attempt to minimise your disadvantages, but if you instead simply ignore your disadvantages, you are cheating.



But the guy you're describing wasn't a jerk because he was a mix/maxer. He was a jerk who happened to also be a min/maxer.

If you once met an obnoxious creep who wore a purple neckscarf, it doesn't automatically follow that everyone you meet in a purple neckscarf will be an obnoxious creep. There may actually be a statistical correlation - I don't know if anyone's ever done a study - but it's not a one-to-one correspondence.

As you noted, your roommate is a min/maxer who isn't a jerk. So it's not guaranteed that everyone who min/maxes is going to destroy a game. Your player above did that through his ignoring what was written on his sheet in the case of his fighter, and through being obnoxious in the case of his wizard. He didn't deliberately set out to create a character with a better Know:Rel modifier than the cleric, so it wasn't a min/maxing problem. It was how he behaved once he realised that caused the trouble.

-Hyp.

That is exactly the conclusion I was coming to as I read this thread and thought about people I have gamed with. That most of the problems (not all) that people have with min/maxers is more how they act when they play rather than the min/maxing itself.

Most of the people I play with do a lottle min/maxing and try to make their character as good as they can be and they do this without hurting the game and ruining others fun.

Unfortunately I think that min/maxers who are not jerks tend to get painted with the same brush because for some reason a lot of people who have bad habits at the table also tend to be min/maxing munchkins. They seem to be the type of player who wants all the advantages and none of the disadvantages with what ever choice they make for their character.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

I would just like to point out to you that you are all doing it and having a blast. That is the point of the game to have fun. What some of us are talking about is how if only one player is min/maxing it can cause some problems in the game for the DM and the other players.

 

[Elf Witch]

Boy, this comment seems to resonate another ongoing thread about how some gamers view other gamers, don't it?

No, I'm not trying to derail the topic. I'm just pointing out that, no matter what your style, tastes, or methods, someone with similar views that also happens to be a "jerk" will have ensured that someone out there isn't going to like you for it.

Funny how life is like that, ain't it?

I don't view someone as a jerk because they want to play differently than I do. To me a jerk is someone who has no respect for someone else and their style of playing. It is hard sometimes to find people who all play the same way so at the same table you have some who live for combat and some who want to role play more. This can work if everyone shows everyone else a little common courtesy.

 

[jester47]

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.

EGO BASED THREADJACK

Forgot to mention that Paladin is a PrC IMC (I love UA). As for Rangers and Monks- Rangers abilities are pretty variable enogh to where they don't NEED to have a High Str/Dex/Wis to be an effective character. But I would judge a wis sub ten to be debilitating to the class. IMO Str and Dex are more perks, but a lot of what makes the class more than just a fighter in the woods is based around wis. As for monks, I find their abilities while related to stats, are not so tied to them. So if you can have a ranger with a lower dex you can do alright with a monk with a lower str, dex or wis.

Basicly, if everything else is average, you are going to have at least two abilities at +1 or one at +2. If you have a -1 in one ability, then that indicates you would need a +2 and a +1, or a +3, or 3 +1 stats. So what the +2 bonus total does is makes it to where the more lower stats you have the higher the other stats need to be. This actually winds up generating some pretty decent stats. The beuty of it is that the system stil works even if you don't roll in order. So in practice it does not really hurt Monks and Rangers as much as you would suspect it to at first glance.

I encourage anyone to roll through a couple of times using this method just to see what they get and get a feel for the numbers that result with valid sets. (this is assuming that Rangers are really Wis based, and monks abilities still works even with lower (but still positive) modifiers.

Aaron.

 

[Gort]

I've had to "patch" my game due to min-maxers and points buy... I run a 25-point buy game.

We started out with a team of:

Human Barbarian with 18 str and very little else. 8s in int and cha.
Human Paladin, made by experienced player with a lot of 14s.
Elven Druid with a 14 wisdom and 14 charisma.
Halfling Rogue with good dex and con and 10 charisma.

Nothing amazing, perhaps the barbarian was a bit munchy but his low charisma and traditional barbarian stupidity led to him being chased by guards in towns sometimes...

Anyway, the paladin ended up dying through no great fault of his own, and announced that he wanted to play a new character. Came along with this:

Elf wizard, 6 charisma, 18 intelligence.

Of course, warning bells should have gone off in my head since this player is probably the one with the most forceful personality in the entire group, but it wasn't a major problem.

The major problem showed up when the barbarian decided to make a dwarf cleric.

Dwarf cleric, 6 charisma, 18 wisdom.

Now of course, you could say it's my fault for not rewarding the high charisma druid enough to encourage these players to have a high charisma, but it's a bit late for blame by this point... So, I decide to reward that character now - when the characters save the empire and the emperor meets them in person, he takes a great shine to the elf and rewards him a lot more than the low charisma characters.

Of course, this leads to the 6 charisma dwarf saying I'm screwing him, and saying that "if you gave us more points, you'd get characters with a higher charisma!".

Anyway, I ended up giving the druid a look at a book of wisdom that gave him a +5 to wisdom, to bring him in line with the other casters. Of course, now I gotta bring the rogue up to the same level, or he'll make a character with a 6 charisma as well...

*groan* What a headache - especially since the high-cha druid has the least forceful real life personality and the low-cha characters have the most forceful, so end up arguing down that player out of character anyway!

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

As a DM I feel that there is nothing wrong with min-maxing as long as...

• The choices they make for their feats, skills, etc. make reasonable sense.
• They take part in the roleplaying.
• They don't purposely try to outshine the other (non-min-maxed) characters or make them look bad.
• They take part in the roleplaying.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I haven't read much on this tread yet, but I aswer.

I don't hate min-maxing. I like it, at least in D&D and in some other systems.
My both dm:s like it, I like it as pc or dm. There is only one person who dislikes min-maxing and he kind of doesn't like 3rd Ed D&D. He does min-max his mechs at gurps/battletech though. I think it is about him liking tech more than magic.

We don't approve of certain person in group, who tries to twist rules when min-maxing characters (he ignores rules partially), some smack-treads here at internet are just funny, but too illogical. In our games, not everything found in some 3rd party book in even from WotC books mix since they didn't seem to be meant.

We don't like ac going impossible high. There are rules for everything not combining, but still a problem sometimes.

Min maxing is fun, characters survive and dm can make more nasty combat tactics without fear that characters will go down just because their abilities are so unusable.

Min-maxing for us is not only about combat. Some prefer to be avarage in combat, but good at skills. In group game it is possible to make very specialized character, because other characters help to balance lack of other abilities out. Sometimes min-maxing is about making someone real good at what he does, sometimes it is about getting to play jack of all trades, sometimes it is about getting as high saves as possible or something...

 

[Barak]

Min-maxers bother me much less then max-miners. In fact, min-maxers don't really bother me. Try as they might, they'll usually have to shine in one or two areas, leaving the other areas of their characters somewhat weaker, which means it'll give the other characters areas to shine in anyway.

Max-miners, however.. You know who I'm talking about. Those players who go out of their way to make weak characters, then claim they do so because they are "good role-players". First of, that bugs me because it shows a rather big ego, and a misunderstanding of the game. Role-play is not related to stats. And secondly.. Their characters suck. They bring little to the group, obviously, and drain party resources, making everyone a bit weaker. And you have the reverse problems as with the min-maxers. If you go with an "average" challenge, they'll die. And you have to go out of your way to make their characters feel useful (and then they'd probably get mad, since they apparently don't like being useful).

Give me min-maxers any day of the week (especially on friday, since that's when we game). But please keep those max-miners away from me.