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

[DragonLancer]

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?

Yes, it is a problem with the player but I have seen it happen more often than I like, with different groups.

I have never bothered to work out the points costs of any of my player’s characters, but I find that players will play to their statistic strengths. If Player A puts his best scores into Int/Cha then he will play an arcane spellcaster. If Player B puts his best scores in Str/Con and/or Dex then he will play a combat type. These players will play their characters to the best of their abilities (pun intended.). That’s not a problem.

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

My comment earlier about min-maxing being akin to cheating was not what I really meant to say (discussions on message boards are not the easiest in the world). The above quote by Trainz is exactly my view point. To combine everything and make the most powerful (min-maxed) character is not in keeping with the nature/spirit of the game.

I blame CRPG’s myself. They are too often based around a player getting as powerful as possible for the end of level baddie and I think this view has taken root in the psyche of many players.

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...

I find this quite odd, because unlike the prior two editions of the game, Charisma is a decent stat. Its not the dump for the lowest roll. Now a fair number of skills are based upon it, and a couple classes rely on having a decent number in it.

 

[Belen]

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?

Unless the combat superstar can also fill the other niches, or create situations that nullify the other niche characters in order to bring combat to the forefront.

Granted, you are correct in that a point-buy or equivalent stat-building system with limit the multi-class choices within the group and thus create a balanced party.

I do not believe that creating an effective character is wrong. Creating an unbalanced character, though, can be a problem. For instance, creating a character that can only be useful in combat or vice-versa can lead to problems.

Even a min-maxed character should have versatility.

 

[dreaded_beast]

A question with point-buy:

Why wouldn't someone be allowed to get an 18 in their favored stat and put low scores in other stats?

If I'm the fighter, I'm gonna fight, so I'm gonna put 18 in STR. Same thing for being a cleric. I'm gonna put an 18 in WIS, for spellcasting power.

In my opinion, this is balanced out because the character in question is good in one area but suffers in others. The fighter can fight, but may not be the sharpest nail in the shed. The cleric can cast all those spells, but may be as clumsy as a rock.

I feel that with point buy, if players are forced to create "balanced" characters in terms of stats, then everyone will soon have nearly the same type of character in terms of stats. If that was the case, then just assign all the players the same set of stats and let it go from there.

The only reason I have a problem with this is because that is not the type of game I would want to play. However, there is nothing wrong with playing that way, and if you do, more power to you.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

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.

Oh, I coudn't agree more. The person I mentioned liking min-max only tech, does his characters stupidly weak in every d&d game, that causes problems to dm and other players. His playing style is different. And he whines, if things get too powerful, and everything about everything with magical explanation. He likes things really low-fantasy realistic. His "crawling in dust eternally poor and weak" fantasy games can be fun, but they don't use D&D system/published worlds.

He also tends to ignore world-logic or his own character background in his quest to be "realistic" (yah, right) aka weak.

We call this 'peasant-playing'.

Hehe, not that we love that at dice-cheating/rules-mis-reading person either, who tries to get more roleplaying time/create party in-fighting/be best at everything and if he isn't, he whines. On the other hand, he is at times fun company and really likes to play.

I am speaking of 10 persons, but we only have one game where all of attend to (though rarely at same time).

Ah, anyway, I really disliked making new characters before 3rd edition. Min-maxing is for me, inspirational. Helps me think background for character. My characters aren't always so optimal, but they are good enough.
Anyway, I own too many books to use them all on one charcter. Oh, so many books, so few feats to get.

I don't like point-buy system. I don't even like in Neverwinter Nights, where that damn crgp makes me use the system. Yes, therein my same character class characters have exact same stats each and every time.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Uh... But that's what I'm saying...

"Some people think min/maxers are jerks because they played with a jerk that min/maxed."

Ya dig?

We have had min/maxers join us only to find it to be a situation of incompatibility, but such memberships end peacefully (often with a name/number of another game in the area that we feel the individual will fit better, thus not leaving them gameless). The problem arises when a "jerk" gets snobby about his uber-character being better than everyone else's or, when presented with the "we don't play that way here" speech, they get uppity about how we are playing wrong and they'd be happy to teach us how to "play right." Such memberships often end peacefully as well (that is to say, they are notified by phone or email not to come back).

 

[Psion]

My two cents on character optimization,

One time, back in second edition, I had a very enthusiastic player who was keenly interested in my world, my house rules, my creations, etc. This was all very flattering. But then, he would try to combine kits and races that didn't go together to make the character as efficiently as possible.

Don't be this player.

I also had, about the time that the psionics handbook came out, a player who was primarily a "personality and history" type gamer was taken in by all the pretty pictures. She grabbed all the powers and feats that "sounded interesting" (such as a number of psionic combat feats at low level, where psionic combat is largely inneffectual), and in the process, made a character who could not really hold up her weight in combat.

Don't be this player either.

Point being: D&D is a team game with many challenges that can't be overcome by mere roleplaying, so a certain amount of character optimization is desireable to make the game enjoyable by all. However, it is also a storytelling game and seeking combat performance over logic or consistency is antithetical to the gaming experience as well.

Players should, IMO, make competant, yet logical, and interesting characters. Either eschewing some measure of optimization or throwing it out the window will fail to meet that goal.

 

[cyr the mighty]

My group games once a month. We gamed darn near daily in college, and sometimes without even breaking to sleep. When we were in college, min-maxing happened, but only by the guys who had been playing for years. We also had alot more time to develop characters and plot lines then. Now, we don't have time developing plot lines. People tend to forget what happened last module because it was a month ago. Min-maxing has developed as the primary way of making our characters now because we play them for roughly 8-10 hours a month. We want to do something super cool while we play, and quite frankly, role-playing a business deal with a merchant just isn't super cool. Our characters don't have major backgrounds because we don't have alot of time in that 8-10 hours to develop them. In our situation, min-maxing is OK. If there is a group that meets weekly, or even more...I would say to minimize the min-maxing. A good DM can control this, and even still make it fun for the group.

 

[Elf Witch]

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!

I have a question when we do point buy taking anything below an 8 does not get you anything. A 6 cost the same as an 8 which is nothing. I was wondering if you allow extra points to be used for the lesser numbers

 

[Altalazar]

I have a question when we do point buy taking anything below an 8 does not get you anything. A 6 cost the same as an 8 which is nothing. I was wondering if you allow extra points to be used for the lesser numbers

In my games, numbers less than 8 did net points, but seldom (or perhaps never?) were any stats taken that low.

We always did 32 point buys. Enough so that there can be at least one really outstanding stat without having to gut the rest of the stats.

With points lower than that, you end up with a lot of bland, almost-the same characters or worse, those who do want one good stat end up being basically cripples in their other stats. This is not the stuff heroes are made of.

Ever since I've used 32 point buy, there has never been an issue of one player out powering another. Not once. And this is not a group of uniform min/maxers or non min/maxers.

I think min/maxing is really only a BIG problem where you have non-uniform stats (i.e. rolling for stats) and/or the use of lots of unbalanced supplements for feats and such. Using the core feats plus point buy it is basically not possible to min/max a character beyond the rest of the party in any significant manner.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Point being: D&D is a team game with many challenges that can't be overcome by mere roleplaying, so a certain amount of character optimization is desireable to make the game enjoyable by all. However, it is also a storytelling game and seeking combat performance over logic or consistency is antithetical to the gaming experience as well.

You've just been quoted.