Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?

[hong]

As the DM, it is his business as it gets dull and frustrating to see the same thing done regardless of campaign style.

Does it really?

I can say as a DM that I couldn't give two hoots if Joe the player always plays a ninja, or a paladin, or a super flying cow, or whatever. As long as Joe has fun, and manages to keep things interesting for the rest of the group (which is quite possible, believe it or not), then what he plays is his business and his business alone.

 

[hong]

PS: Hong, your campaign sounds like loads of fun. Is Britannia 3E being written up for publishing? Or is it posted on your website?

Publishing it would be hard, given that Ultima is still technically owned by EA.

But you can see my take on things here:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/britannia/

Imbued magic:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm

 

[MGibster]

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.

You forgot to mention the other players as well as the person running the game. Believe it or not it can be frustrating and boring to others when a player runs the exact same character over and over again.

Marc

 

[hong]

You forgot to mention the other players as well as the person running the game. Believe it or not it can be frustrating and boring to others when a player runs the exact same character over and over again.

Said players should butt out and mind their own business, then.

 

[jdavis]

Well this could go on forever, once again everybody forgets that your opinion doesn't matter in somebody else's game. What is important is that the people who game together agree. Where this becomes a problem is when 5 people want to play roleplaying driven characters and one person makes his character up on a spreadsheet with the steps listed he needs to become a god. The same goes the other way, if 5 people in the group want to play the greatest heroes the land has ever seen and one guy wants to roleplay buying grain for the horses then you got problems. It is important that everybody in the game enjoys the game, it is not important if anybody outside the game approves of how they game.

You are going to min/max to a certain extent regardless, you are making a character who does something good, it's when people go overboard and want to make a character who does everything good that we get into this discussion. I only have a problem when one player tries to hog the game, when other players stop having fun then you have a problem, as long as everybody is having fun you don't.

 

[barsoomcore]

When other players stop having fun then you have a problem, as long as everybody is having fun you don't.

It all comes down to that, doesn't it?

My campaign: no non-humans. No spellcasters. No "standard" magic items. No dragons. Yada yada yada.

As long as we're all having fun, who cares?

What always makes me giggle is people who pretend that one type of play is somehow objectively better than another. It's as though people have difficulty just saying, "I like A." They need to phrase it externally, saying something like, "A is superior to all other letters. A is the best letter. Everyone likes A best."

I don't know if it's because people have been trained to denigrate their own opinions and think they need to add more weight to what is an entirely subjective matter, or it's because people are unable to see that their opinions are in fact just their opinions and don't carry any weight whatsoever.

There are no dwarves, elves, halfings, orcs or gnomes in Barsoom because I don't like them. There's lots of dinosaurs in Barsoom because I think dinosaurs are cool.

If you don't like prestige classes, cool. If you love game balance, right on. I like hearing about people's tastes. I just find it silly when they pretend their tastes have an objective basis.

 

[Buttercup]

You would give extra points when they drop them below 8? My interpretation of the DMG is that they spend/get zero points for any score 8 or lower. If they want lower than 8 for roleplaying reasons, that's fine but they get no compensation in return. I don't mean to sidestep your point, but I think this is a mechanism already built into point buy to reduce this type of min/max behavior. Sorry for the tangent. I'm just wondering if I read that part of the book wrong.

I probably shouldn't have called it point buy, since I really just give them a certain number of points to assign to stats, 1 for 1. House rule. Anyway, it hasn't been a problem, because none of my players have even tried to create an unbelievable character.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled argument....

 

[Pielorinho]

Your opinion doesn't matter in somebody else's game.

Short, sweet, to the point. Beautiful! I'm gonna quote you on this, jdavis, next time someone tells me I'm a jerk for not allowing lantern archons to be used as messengers in my campaign, or whatever.

Daniel

 

[BOZ]

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.

actually, that guy could be the party's attack dog. of course, he would need to be led around on a leash...

 

[barsoomcore]

actually, that guy could be the party's attack dog. of course, he would need to be led around on a leash...

Now, are you referring to the 18 18 18 4 4 4 guy in Buttercup's example, or hong?