Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?

[Anabstercorian]

Actually...

That could be a pretty interesting character concept, if you roleplayed it well. The degenerate human, incapable of interacting like a true man, forced to depend on others to survive despite an unbelievably potent body... creepy.

 

[Harold Mayo]

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.

Well...yes, but there is no reason to post to this thread unless you want to answer the original question that was posed..."Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?"

People have advanced and defended or put down opinions in this thread...no different than any other forum discussion.

Yes, everything is subjective, so we might as well just never read or post to this forum ever again. Individual game worlds and styles of play ARE subjective but reading all of the opinions is what is fun.

Perhaps your opinion of other people's opinions doesn't carry any weight whatsoever...?

 

[KitanaVorr]

I personally don't like min-maxing, but if the PC can actually roleplay his stats, then its alright with me.

I don't like it when someone with the aforementioned 3 in INT is roleplayed as an intelligent character. why did they put a 3 in INT if the PC is not going to be an idiot? That shows me that they're not interested in roleplaying, only in playing a game, in that case, go elsewhere. It ruins the fun for everyone else who is roleplaying their stats.

I mean it is roleplaying right? Not gameplaying?

All in all, it depends on the DM. If you like being a min/maxer with no roleplaying, find a DM and a group where it works for you.

The best way to counteract? Go ahead and DO all those rolls that involve their lower stats. See how fast they realize its a bad idea when they can't even figure out how to tie their shoes with a 3 in INT.

 

[barsoomcore]

Well...yes, but there is no reason to post to this thread unless you want to answer the original question that was posed..."Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?"

Perhaps I find it amusing. Perhaps I like the sound my fingers make when they hit the keys on my keyboard. You have your reasons for posting and I have mine. Funny old world, innit?

Yes, everything is subjective, so we might as well just never read or post to this forum ever again. Individual game worlds and styles of play ARE subjective but reading all of the opinions is what is fun.

Did you not read the bit in my post where I said, "I like hearing about people's tastes."? Or have you just become addicted to non sequitors?

Perhaps your opinion of other people's opinions doesn't carry any weight whatsoever...?

You'll notice I haven't insisted that it does.

Defensive much?

 

[shadow]

The problem is with the semantics. Min-maxing (as well as many other slang terms, such as the much maligned "munchkin") don't have a clear meaning. They have become an umbrella term to criticize whatever type of behavior a person disapproves of. In the most basic definition, I support min-maxing. If min-maxing simply means trying to create a powerful character, I don't see what the problem is. After all, I'd rather have powerful characters that are able to survive and make their own in the game, rather than weak characters put together for some artsy novelty purpose (I won't even begin to discuss the bi-polar elf a friend played once in a 2e game!)
However if min-maxing means being an annoying player, whining that his character isn't the most powerful bad-@$$, I can understand the arguments against min-maxing. The whole problem boils down to how min-maxing is defined.

 

[F5]

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

Ah...I knew the name sounded familiar...

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[Sanackranib]

min/max

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

I guess the real question for this board should be how much is overboard, because almost anything can disrupt a game.

 

[Nail]

Re: min/max

I guess the real question for this board should be how much is overboard, because almost anything can disrupt a game.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Actually...

That could be a pretty interesting character concept, if you roleplayed it well. The degenerate human, incapable of interacting like a true man, forced to depend on others to survive despite an unbelievably potent body... creepy.

Kinda reminds me of Richard Corben's Mutant.

 

[jdavis]

Well...yes, but there is no reason to post to this thread unless you want to answer the original question that was posed..."Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?"

People have advanced and defended or put down opinions in this thread...no different than any other forum discussion.

Yes, everything is subjective, so we might as well just never read or post to this forum ever again. Individual game worlds and styles of play ARE subjective but reading all of the opinions is what is fun.

Perhaps your opinion of other people's opinions doesn't carry any weight whatsoever...?

If we all kept our opinions to ourselves then you would be able to hear crickets around this place, but when you fight over who's opinion is correct on a matter that is purely subjective then you are fighting over nothing. If I said, "I like Dodge cars" then you should not get angry if you don't like Dodge cars, you could disagree and we could discuss it but why would you get angry about what I like? Conversations like these are very helpful as they allow people to compare thoughts or opinions and exchange views about how to deal with these problems, and they are fun to read, but fighting over who is right is just silly, this is a subjective question not a objective one.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program. I just started a new campaign, the characters are starting out at 5th level. I was worried about some past problems we had with unbalaced parties in the last campaign so I started with two new house rules: 1. Everybody has to agree on and give input on everybody else's character, as DM I will accept any character concept given as long as the whole group ok's it. 2. I want to know at least a level ahead of any multiclass levels being added or prestige class beiing added, so I can work it into gameplay, so think ahead where you are going and come up with a in game reason for it. These two things were latched onto by the group and worked very well, nobody complains or makes fun of anybody elses character, everybody has a better understanding of everybody elses character and if somebody does have a problem then they had their chance to speak up and they know it. This actually was fairly painless (it was done in e-mail, people sent their concepts out and everybody commented) and actually got one guy who always self handicaps his characters to make a character that will add to the party instead of being a load. Of course I game with friends and didn't have to worry about rude replies to concepts either.