Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?

[Gothmog]

I agree with you Harold, the DM can and should limit what kinds of characters the players can play for various reasons. For examply, if the character race/class do not fit with his world, or if the character wants exquipment that doesn't exist (*coughmercurialgreatswordcough*), or if the combo happens to be overpowered. For example, I do not use ANY of the PrCs from the DMG or WoTC splatbooks because they are too general for my world. That and the fact that having easily available PrCs means powergamers try to map out the optimal route for a superpowered character at first level. That is one of the worst metagame examples of powergaming I can think of, and I won't allow it. If a character wants a PrC, he needs to prove himself capable/heroic enough to qualify, and become affiliated with someone who is of that class to be trained. Likewise, I don't use ANY of the standard PHB spellcasing classes, instead opting to make my own magical traditions which require years of training to become even mildly competent in.

Likewise, I don't allow non-human characters in my world except for halflings, and VERY rarely a half-orc or dwarf. Sorry munchkins, no half-dragon drow. This is not just because I think such combos are stupid, but because these races have no place in my world.

So Harold, I understand completely where you are coming from and sympathize with you. The game is about everyone having fun, but many times people forget the DM needs to have fun too, or he gets burned out in a big hurry. The DM won't have fun if a player(s) is trying to pull munchkiny powergaming combos constant- its that much more work the DM has to place into making stats up for the critters to challenge that PC, while the non-twinked PCs have to face different opponents- and in the end, such a situation hurts suspension of disbelief. The story is important, but its more a framework that the players are placed in- then its totally up to the players how they want to handle things (including becoming the villians if they want).

 

[hong]

Re: same ol' types

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

Yep. There's no sense in forcing someone to play a character they don't like or can't identify with. Looking over the PCs I've had since 3E came out:

- male half-orc barbarian (CN)
- male human fighter (NG)
- male human martial artist (LN)
- female spirit folk martial artist/blade dancer (LG)
- female human sorcerer (N)
- male human martial artist/archer (LG)

Four of the six characters have been LN/LG/NG warrior types. That probably makes me a "specialist", if you use Robin Laws' gamer classification scheme.

(The seven types of gamers are:
- powergamer: likes collecting crunchy bits
- buttkicker: wants to blow off steam via lots of fights
- tactician: likes solving puzzles and outwitting enemies; turning an adventure into an anticlimax is the best possible outcome for them
- specialist: always plays one type of character, eg ninja, magic girl, knight, faceman, etc
- storyteller: likes feeling like he's part of an ongoing story or work of fiction
- method actor: the "real roleplayer", wants to be true to his character over everything else
- casual gamer: the guy who's there just to hang with friends)

 

[hong]

That and the fact that having easily available PrCs means powergamers try to map out the optimal route for a superpowered character at first level.

So?

That is one of the worst metagame examples of powergaming I can think of, and I won't allow it.

Why?

If a character wants a PrC, he needs to prove himself capable/heroic enough to qualify, and become affiliated with someone who is of that class to be trained.

How does out-of-character planning invalidate any of this?

 

[John Smallberries]

...The DM won't have fun if a player(s) is trying to pull munchkiny powergaming combos constant- its that much more work the DM has to place into making stats up for the critters to challenge that PC, while the non-twinked PCs have to face different opponents- and in the end, such a situation hurts suspension of disbelief.

I guess that's true of some DM's...but not all.

Myself, I run a very 'gamist' game, heavy on balance and the rules-as-written (including the unwritten rule of 3e, "Keep the DM Out of the Equation")

If some players want to roleplay, fine---but don't complain if the rest of us are gaming.

 

[DDK]

To me, it isn't, to a certain extent. If it goes to the extent that it interferes with the other players who wish to play the game, then it needs to be moderated, just as excessive roleplay does.

-snip-

any players have a vision of the heroic underdog, taking on all odds with all his foibles showing - and there's nothing wrong with the style of play. But it should also be recognized that plausibly, no sane group would risk life and limb daily, and more importantly without every advantage they could get hold of.

My sentiments exactly.

That's the gist I was going for in this post. Adventurer's are putting themselves in danger and thus shouldn't be Mr. Joe "I'm nothing special" Average because if they were, then they wouldn't be going adventuring in the first place!

 

[Harold Mayo]

That and the fact that having easily available PrCs means powergamers try to map out the optimal route for a superpowered character at first level. That is one of the worst metagame examples of powergaming I can think of, and I won't allow it. If a character wants a PrC, he needs to prove himself capable/heroic enough to qualify, and become affiliated with someone who is of that class to be trained. Likewise, I don't use ANY of the standard PHB spellcasing classes, instead opting to make my own magical traditions which require years of training to become even mildly competent in.

EXACTLY...

Thanks, Gothmog. Very similar to what I do.

From Columbia, MO, huh? You wouldn't happen to know a guy named Job Roberts, would you?

 

[DDK]

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.

Exactly!

If anything, the min/maxers should be praised for creating characters who are actually capable of adventuring whereas the people who created farmers should... well... roleplay farming...

 

[Gothmog]

hong: I suppose to me that having a PrC and character abilities mapped out from first level leave little room for character development that deviates from the pre-appointed path. Also, I don't think that players should have absolute free access to all available class, spell, and magic item info- it leaves little mystery to the game and encourages metagame thinking to the extent that it interferes with roleplaying. While that might not bother some people, it does seem extremely artificial to me. The people I have always gamed with have been more interested in roleplaying, character development, and exploration of the game world rather than number-crunching, mechanics, and optimizing characters- and on the few occasions when a person would game with us who was more interested in making a powerhouse character, they completely neglected what the other players and I enjoy about gaming and were disruptive. I'm not stating that this is an invalid way to game, just that it won't fly in my game because its not what we enjoy.

 

[DDK]

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.

As the DM, it is his business as it gets dull and frustrating to see the same thing done regardless of campaign style. DM's are not mules to be ridden to work and used to cart wagons; they're people who have to enjoy the game as well.

 

[Mort]

That and the fact that having easily available PrCs means powergamers try to map out the optimal route for a superpowered character at first level. That is one of the worst metagame examples of powergaming I can think of, and I won't allow it. If a character wants a PrC, he needs to prove himself capable/heroic enough to qualify, and become affiliated with someone who is of that class to be trained.

I will have to strongly disagree. I think it is great when a player maps out what he wants his character to be down the line classes, abilities and all.

1. It gives a sense of purpose: the player can really play the character as having a focus which is a great aid to role playing.
2. It gives the DM a large amount of material to play with: if the DM knows where the player wants to be – BOOM instant campaign hook and multiple adventure ideas.
3. Since the player already knows what he wants (or thinks he knows) he can have fun with the campaign as opposed to have to focus on character details.
4. It’s great after a while to pull out the idea you initially had and see how close you kept to it or how far you ended up deviating.

It’s not the route to always take but it can be great fun, and in the end that’s the whole point.