Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?

[Rel]

I think that F5's examples are perfect illustrations of how min/maxing can be integrated into the character concept and it all seems to make sense. But without some kind of partnership between the two, min/maxing alone tends to make the player look like he is trying to simply "win" the game.

The best example I can recall was in a Champions game I played in many years ago. One player showed up with a character who had been min/maxed beyond all comprehension. He used every trick in the book to squeeze extra points into the character.

When the GM said, "So what is the character concept here. I see your powers and what they do, but how did you get them and how are they linked together?", the player replied (obviously having never considered the question before), "Um, I don't know. I was hit by cosmic rays or something. They're 'Cosmic' powers."

Let's just say that that player didn't last long in the group.

 

[Buttercup]

I guess it depends what you mean by min/maxing. Since we use point buy in my games, it would be possible for someone to play a fighter with the stats 18 18 18 4 4 4. That's what I mean by min/maxing, and I won't allow it. Any character with an intelligence lower than 8 would be mentally retarded. Wisdom lower than 8 would be a jerk. Charisma lower than 8 would be beaten with a stick anywhere he went (Maybe that's why we're always beating Hong!). No one with stats that low would be welcome in any adventuring party.

To me, min/maxing is something you do in a computer game, not P&P RPGs.

The other definitions of min/maxing that have been mentioned above seem more or less ok to me. Why wouldn't an adventurer do their best to acquire skills and abilities that would help them not only survive, but become heroic? That's the nature of the breed, after all.

 

[wighair]

My problem with min-maxing characters is the party imbalance it creates. My group is split about half and half and the characters who've maxed out are so much more effective in combat that the other guys almost needn't bother turning up.

also, If put something in that will challenge the power PCs it will likely cream an average joe.

I don't mind it in of itself, as a DM i quite enjoy the challenge, because my group do tend to to roleplay too. But it can cause problems when not everyone's character is quite so "focused".

 

[National Acrobat]

I don't mind min/maxing as long as it doesn't affect role playing, and to this point, it hasn't. I always remind my players that min/maxing can occur to the NPC's as well, so don't be surprised when the old can of whoop A*^ comes out on you as well by the fighter, etc. who has the really neat feats, etc. that you do.

 

[Gothmog]

There is nothing inherently wrong with min/maxing- everybody wants a useful character who is well designed and not a liability to the group. That said, when the min/maxing gets in the way of a plausible character or roleplaying, it should be smacked down like the bad dog it is. IME, most of the time when a player min/maxes, it is destructive to the game, detracts from the enjoyment of other players, and the min/maxer himself is often trying to compensate for other issues in his life. I'm not saying this is true of all min/maxers, but for probably 80% of them I have met, it is.

I don't so much have a problem with min/maxing as a concept, but the people who feel a compulsive need to do it EVERY TIME THEY GAME in any game system. You know the type- the guy who has to have a ninja/something, or needs to be the "bestest fighter" or the "wizard prodigy who will ascend to godhood and has no family". I suppose it wouldn't be as disruptive in a dungeon hack game, but in a game where the other PCs are trying to interact with NPCs in a believabe fashion, a min/maxer can wreck things very quickly and cause animosity. If I see min/maxing now in a game I run, I now always ask the player to come up with a reason why his character is the way he is, and no claptrap such as "My character's family was murdered by unknown attackers one night. He hid in the cellar while they burned the house above him. Once the fire had died down, a stange man in black dug through the rubble and rescued him, took him to a monastery, taught him to be a ninja/ranger/wizard, and told him to go kill the family's murderers." Feh.

Sorry- nothing against anybody on here- I've just been burned too many times by extreme min/maxers.

 

[Pielorinho]

I approach it differently: I try to minmax in character. Two examples:

1) Goroshko, a dwarven druid. This was my beginning character concept, before I started looking at the stats, and I built a backstory around his exile from the dwarven mines ("hippy!" they shouted at him as he left.) As I played him, I built him around being an animal-based druid, and got him the augment summoning feat and natural spellcasting so that he could stay as an animal, and bring more animal companions, as often as possible.

As for minmaxing, I figured that Goroshko well understood the prowess of various animals and vermin and studied them, and accordingly, I studied the stats for animals and vermin. Goroshko and I learned that giant wasps have a very potent venom, and that if you're gonna cast giant vermin on something, it should be on a wasp. We learned that brown bears are much more effective fighters than earth elementals, and that if you're gonna summon something for fighting, it should be a brown bear. We realized that summoning a lot of creatures and then casting animal growth on the lot was more effective in combat than summoning a single creature and casting animal growth on it.

2) Oleander, a halfling rogue7, started off in concept as a pirate. I minmaxed him as a pirate: gave him a ring of swimming, a rope of climbing, several ranks in sailing and rope use and swimming. Although he was efective in dungeoncrawling, he wasn't really minmaxed for it. But hoo boy -- when fights occurred in rooms with chains dangling from the ceiling ("sure, they're close enough to ship's riggings," my DM generously ruled), or when they occurred in rooms with water, he could clean up.

My theory is that PCs are going to train themselves to survive well in the environment they're used to. Making in-character decisions to maximize your effectiveness is cool and appropriate. But making out-of-character decisions to do so is a wee bit annoying.

Daniel

 

[Dr. NRG]

I think that the heart of most people's objections to min/maxing is that many people take it to an extreme. Any tendency, taken to the extreme end of its possible range, is going to alienate people. An extreme tendency to roleplay to the detriment of the party's survival is going to irritate other players just as much as an extreme focus on the "whup-ass" factor to the detriment of roleplaying is going to alienate some people.

The key here is that implied within criticisms of min/maxing is the notion that it's taken to the extreme. The implications of extreme min/maxing can not only hurt other players by making them feel impotent (and thus required to min/max to keep up), but can also put a huge burden on the DM to handle the potentially disruptive uber-character created. If one character clearly outstrips the rest of the party due to the player's min/maxing, it becomes very difficult for the DM to judge encounter levels and combat situtions. If it takes a truckload of damage to challenge the min/maxed character, what happens when the damaging agent is directed against his "normal" comrades, for example?

Min/maxing, and particularly extreme min/maxing, is one of the ways one player can excercise undue influence on a game or even campaign. I think that's why you see such an outcry about it on the boards.

NRG

 

[Zappo]

I, too, find that min/maxing is justified when done without bending the rules. The reason being, most people (and all D&D heroes) do try to be as good as they can at what they do, especially if what they do is extremely risky. Not min/maxing at all, taking extremely suboptimal feats, I generally consider bad roleplaying actually unless backed by a background (doesn't that sound good?).

 

[Nifft]

IME, most of the time when a player min/maxes, it is destructive to the game, detracts from the enjoyment of other players, and the min/maxer himself is often trying to compensate for other issues in his life. I'm not saying this is true of all min/maxers, but for probably 80% of them I have met, it is.

I'm sure you can find people who do the same thing with Rules-Lawyering or other "compensatory" behaviours.

I'd like to see a term for these people, so us happy, healthy and fun min-maxers can be left alone.

"RP-Compensators" perhaps?

-- Nifft

 

[Henry]

Min/maxing, and particularly extreme min/maxing, is one of the ways one player can excercise undue influence on a game or even campaign. I think that's why you see such an outcry about it on the boards.

Exactly - and same could be said for anyone who attempts to monopolize the game table, either with metagaming or with excessive roleplay. Any time the character is paid more attention than the game itself, you alienate; it just strikes me that most people seem to see it by out-of-control min-maxing, rather than by out-of-control roleplayers. But people who wish to roleplay hour-long chit-chats with extended relatives frustrate me as much as someone who wants to play the Gargantuan Axiomatic Half-dragon Ninja Myconid of Legend...