Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?

[hong]

Now, if he always takes one level of ranger for every character just for twf then I can see what you're saying...

And the solution to that is to houserule the ranger so that it gets something else than just the TWF schtick. Which is what I've done IMC.

 

[Victim]

I generally min max my characters to some extent. I have fun just messing around with rules.

Also, sometimes you need to min max some aspects of a character to make the game more fun. For example, I don't like having characters killed instantly, so I try to have pretty decent saving throws. Or it might be important to take cool character idea, and make it good as well. If one aspect of a character is subpar due to concept constraints, then you have to force effectiveness elsewhere to compensate. For example, someone playing a monk with unexceptional stats probably needs to find everykind of miscellaneous bonus to hit and damage possible in order to counter the monk's "Flurry of Misses" abilities.

Some of my coolest character ideas have come from characters concieved on a purely mechanical level.

 

[La Bete]

generally i find that minmaxing is only really offensive if:

(a) the player is trying to get rules added/changed to fully max out the character.

(b) the player is minmaxing to be better than the other players.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Ah. You play your players' characters for them, do you?

Who gives a damn if someone always plays the same type of character? As long as they're having fun, that's nobody's business but their own.

No...what would give you that idea?

Who gives a damn? Well, if you don't give a damn, then there's no sense in posting to this thread since it doesn't matter to you.

I DO limit what the players can do and can't do...as any good DM/GM should. It's about the enjoyment of the gamemaster as well as the players. To have something carefully planned for the maximum enjoyment of the players as well as yourself ruined because one guy who you didn't control steps up and does some funky feat combination (worst part of 3E) that he's figured out from reading Power Plays in DRAGON or something really bites. There is no reason to GM unless you can have some control over the world.

 

[hong]

No...what would give you that idea?

Oh, I dunno.

if you allow min/maxing to any great extent in your game, then you will end up doing the same things over and over again.

So who's "you" in this sentence? You as DM (the one who's allowing minmaxing), or your players (who are playing the same characters over and over again)? Or are they both just different aspects of the one hivemind?

Who gives a damn? Well, if you don't give a damn, then there's no sense in posting to this thread since it doesn't matter to you.

Worst. Non sequitur. Evar!

Go back to my post, and discern the context of that comment. Return when you manage to comprehend it.

To have something carefully planned for the maximum enjoyment of the players as well as yourself ruined because one guy who you didn't control steps up and does some funky feat combination (worst part of 3E) that he's figured out from reading Power Plays in DRAGON or something really bites.

Oh, you poor thing, your precious plotline got muddled. If what you want is to write stories, then write stories. If what you want is to run a game, then run a game. Not to confuse the two, is the pinnacle of wisdom.

There is no reason to GM unless you can have some control over the world.

Second worst. Non sequitur. Evar!

Control over the world at large does not translate into control over individual events in a gaming session.

 

[Harold Mayo]

So who's "you" in this sentence? You as DM (the one who's allowing minmaxing), or your players (who are playing the same characters over and over again)? Or are they both just different aspects of the one hivemind?

Ah, but I DON'T allow min/maxing to any great extent. Totally off-limits.

Same characters over and over? Well...I suppose...the current campaign started in 1994, so they haven't really rolled up new characters since then. I was referring to characters that they played previously...in the early 1990's and all throughout the 1980's. Were you alive then?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who gives a damn? Well, if you don't give a damn, then there's no sense in posting to this thread since it doesn't matter to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Worst. Non sequitur. Evar!

Go back to my post, and discern the context of that comment. Return when you manage to comprehend it.

I guess that comprehension MIGHT come to my poor little mind when I learn what you're trying to spell..."ever", perhaps? Not sure, but probably. To attempt a put-down like that when you can't even spell is downright PATHETIC.

Oh, you poor thing, your precious plotline got muddled. If what you want is to write stories, then write stories. If what you want is to run a game, then run a game. Not to confuse the two, is the pinnacle of wisdom.

Hmm...I've played games and published stories. Not confusing the two being the pinnacle of wisdom (at least you spelled that right) is incorrect...knowing how to MERGE the two IS the pinnacle of rpg wisdom.

Second worst. Non sequitur. Evar!

Control over the world at large does not translate into control over individual events in a gaming session.

There that "evar" word is again. Is English your native language?

I dare say that that is a lesson that I learned long before you were aware of the existence of rpgs.

 

[Sanackranib]

same ol' types

Ah. You play your players' characters for them, do you?

Who gives a damn if someone always plays the same type of character? As long as they're having fun, that's nobody's business but their own.

when my wife playes she always runs an archer because she is interested in archery. Let people play what they want and everyone will be happier

 

[John Smallberries]

There is nothing wrong with Min-Maxing.

Roleplaying, on the other hand, is highly over rated.

 

[hong]

Ah, but I DON'T allow min/maxing to any great extent. Totally off-limits.

THIRD worst. Non sequitur. Evar!

Justin Bacon does this obfuscatory tactic much better than you, even if he does misspell "fallacial" from time to time.

Same characters over and over? Well...I suppose...the current campaign started in 1994, so they haven't really rolled up new characters since then. I was referring to characters that they played previously...in the early 1990's and all throughout the 1980's.

Answer the question, d00d. Are your players part of the hivemind, or not?

Because I know _I_ am! All of us are part of the hivemind, whether we know it or not.

Were you alive then?

Well, obviously YOU might have been sleepwalking through the 80s, but others weren't.

I guess that comprehension MIGHT come to my poor little mind when I learn what you're trying to spell..."ever", perhaps?

No, I don't think you'll ever beable to learn what I'm trying to spell.

Not sure, but probably. To attempt a put-down like that when you can't even spell is downright PATHETIC.

Hello, fish. How's life in that barrel?

Hmm...I've played games and published stories. Not confusing the two being the pinnacle of wisdom (at least you spelled that right) is incorrect...knowing how to MERGE the two IS the pinnacle of rpg wisdom.

Which you, unfortunately, have clearly not reached. Try again.

There ^is that "evar" word is again. Is English your native language?

Is it yours?

I dare say that that is a lesson that I learned long before you were aware of the existence of rpgs.

You misspelled "existance". HTH!


Hong "I swear, they'll let all sorts of loosers on the intarweb these days" Ooi

 

[Creamsteak]

The answer is rather simple.

It's not the action. The action itself is guiltless and justified. It's the mentality some people develop from it. In turn, as it's a subject of mentality, the reverse is true. Some people assume that the action implies the mentality. I think the vast majority of us understand better that you can have your cake and eat it too under these circumstances, as long as everyone is having fun.

I have a player on these boards named Janos, and he's a complete munchkin, but he's fun, and he's having fun, so I can overlook his works of mass munchkining. Some DMs cannot have fun once they feel a player is attempting to 'beat' them, and I think that's the root of the matter for some DMs. They can't stand to compete with the players, and rightly so.