Why is Min/Maxing a bad thing?

[Celebrim]

In my experience, the problem is that it occurs to the exclusion of all other activities.

I'd really prefer to separate min/maxing from ego gaming, even though they often go together. An ego gamer doesn't have to be someone who is a good min/maxer, and a good min/maxer doesn't have to be an ego gamer. The ego gamer has character backgrounds filled with phrases like "powerfully built", "master of the ancient art", "kicks ass", "moves with cat-like grace", and "so handsome he takes women's breath away". The ego gamer doesn't try to get into character. The ego gamer's character is who he or she wants to be.

But that is a whole other topic.

Min/maxing doesn't bother me that much, provided it is taken in perspective, provided the system isn't that broken, and provided that the DM is pretty good at insisting that a disadvantage a real disadvantage (which I am). Min/maxing is to a certain extent part of the game. No one expects fighters to take subpar Con, Dex, AND Str. There is expectation that the character will be highly skilled at something and will be built with a certain ammount of appropriateness to the expected challenges.

Where it becomes a problem is when the character devolves into a spreadsheet and has just as much personality. It becomes a problem when the player in question starts treating the game like a CRPG and stays OOC all the time and only interacts with me in an OOC fashion. That just doesn't entertain me (and probably doesn't entertain alot of dungeon masters for long.) Typically, alot of these players spend half the night talking with other players about thier plans for thier characters and trying to get approval for some feat they saw in some book that they have calculated will give them an extra +1 attack bonus. It's just dull.

If you spend as much time developing your characters personality as you do his abilities, whether you min/max or not, I usually don't have a problem. Interact with your fellow gamers (DM's and PC's) in a IC manner, and be entertaining and the rest will take care of itself.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

I'm probably in the "min/maxing is bad" camp, but I usually try to frame it in a "that's not the sort of game I want to play" context than the "people who play that way are dumb" context.

Also, when most people talk ill about mix/maxing, they're usually not talking about Half-Orc Barbarians with 20 Strength and 6 Int/Cha...It's more the Half-Orc Ftr8/Rgr1 who wants S&F without errata so they can duel-wield keen bladed gauntlets yadda yadda...

Basically, you can say there's a gradiation in character creation, between having effective stats and having an interesting background/personality/whatever. And sometimes the two bleed into each other: A distinct fighting style, for instance, can be part of what makes a character interesting, and you need to back that up and make that effective. Which is okay.

What frustrates me (and other DMs) is when character concept drops entirely out of the picture, and players want to play a really strong stat-block, because the numbers work out really well. Players who have no concept of their characters' personality, even on the battlefield, just aren't interesting to game with, by my standards. Basically, I want players who start with a character concept first, even if it's as simple as "I want an elven archer who totally rocks, like Legolas in the movie!" At least then they're playing a powerful character... If someone wants to play a character because they figured out a way to do a lot of damage, I'm not so happy. We're not playing the same game, or they're not playing the whole game, or however you want to frame it, the two things we're doing just don't jive.

Then, of course, is the extreme case of people making characters that are just too damn powerful, or at least two damn min-maxed... This is kind of independent of the above, but occurs less often with people pursuing a character concept (especially when that concept is more RP-oriented). The DM can always create something that can defeat a character, and the DM can always create something that can lose to that character: Neither of these are all that interesting, and for most encounters you want this to be somewhere in-between. Now, that range is normally pretty broad, but I've found that it gets narrower and narrower with increasing power level, until you reach the point that you can't design an encounter where the outcome is not predestined. And that's no fun to DM, for me, and I can't honestly see how that's fun for the player. Not to mention, of course, the difficulties of in-party balance this brings up...

 

[Harold Mayo]

The problem with min/maxing is that it is done...PERIOD.

If everyone did it, there would be little variety in the game because there are certain feats, spells, classes, etc. that, in combination, do better than others. Why take something that is weaker than something else? Role-playing.

I have a player who will take two-weapon fighting no matter what when he plays a fighter-type. This has been true for the decade and a half that we have played together. He tries to make up some reason for it and weasel into it all the time, no matter what his character is. It's fine when there is a reason...like when you are from a particular culture or fighting school. When no one uses it and it is actually somewhat against the commonly-used styles in the area, then there is no justification.

In my world, fighting styles belong to certain areas/cultures/schools. If you see someone using one of them, then you know where they're from or where they've trained. The same with different sorts of magic. A guy using charm-type spells is from culture X and a guy using a bunch of fire spells is from culture Y and the guy using necromancy is from secret society Z. None of the good, old every 1st level mage having a sleep spell and every 1st level fighter having a longsword and shield. None of looking at a group and seeing the guy in plate mail with a shield and sword ("He's a fighter"), another in the same armor but carrying a mace ("Gee, he must be a cleric), another in leather armor with a short sword ("He's a thief"), and another in robes with a staff ("Hmmm...I'll wager he's the mage"). Just too basic, predictable and totally "blah".

Play the way you like but, 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.

 

[Sanackranib]

min/max

I usually have several concepts in mind. the problem for me is I DM most of the time so when I finally do get to play which of the half dozen classes or concepts I want to explore do I use?

Thats why this character (see above) is basically dual classed as a lasher/temple raider the combo works well though

 

[kenjib]

I have a player who will take two-weapon fighting no matter what when he plays a fighter-type. This has been true for the decade and a half that we have played together. He tries to make up some reason for it and weasel into it all the time, no matter what his character is. It's fine when there is a reason...like when you are from a particular culture or fighting school. When no one uses it and it is actually somewhat against the commonly-used styles in the area, then there is no justification.

Is this a different phenomenon you are talking about? I wouldn't call having a fighter take the ambidexterous and two weapon fighting min-maxxing, as it's not better than just using a two handed weapon and costs two feats. It sounds more like someone who just likes playing the same character over and over, not someone who is min-maxxing. Now, if he always takes one level of ranger for every character just for twf then I can see what you're saying...

 

[Sanackranib]

Re: Re: min/maxing

That's why I like the idea of letting players create their own new classes if the current ones don't work for their concept, so they don't have to jump through hoops like this.

for me I had to jump through the hoops because any class that allowed everything I wanted to be able to do would be grossly overpowered. the fact that I had to multiclass into 4 classes and thus dilute the character as a whole is the only thing maintaining
game balance. I could have not taken the fighter levels but to do so would have ment I would have needed to be 12th level rather then 8th to be where I am now(due to BAB and feats). I like to be able to set a concept forward and achieve it asap weither this means I have to plan my feats min/max skills and multiclass or not.

 

[clark411]

To move in a different line (unless I missed it above), min-maxing players often run out of character concepts far far faster than their counterparts who do not. It takes a good while, years maybe, but the combinations are limited, the characters cookie cutter/stereotypical. Instead of thinking "Oh, I have yet to play a mercenary," a min-maxer may end up saying "I've already done the Fighter / Rogue." or "The Sword and Fist or Merc PrCs are too weak / too heavy with prereqs that will drop my character's power."

This is a long way off for a new min-maxer, and possibly something many will never face if their DMs do not seek to challenge them sufficiently (and subsequently killing off their characters).


Also, there's another issue with min-maxers- in order to present them a challenge (lest they go Ah-Ha! Nothing can stop me!... I'm bored) a DM is forced to use bigger and badder combos and tactics. The traps laid forth are more powerful, more lethal.. the enemies use tactics or have double their usual hit points simply so the min-maxing raging spiked-chain barbarian Spellsword (well.. Spell Chain?) doesn't wipe them all out in the first round of combat. This in effect, makes the game far more lethal for the others in the group who do not min-max, and the DM has to (or maybe does not have to) make a conscious effort to avoid killing the standard players less than he does the min-maxer over the course of the entirety of the campaign (say 1 fight in 4 or 8 the MMer is the prime target or most hit). Enemies will head to the most powerful character, they'll gang up- kill him. The player, perhaps noticing the attention, will feel resentful. He or she will also feel that his character was not powerful enough... and will build another character even More powerful than before, using whatever means possible perhaps to get just the slightest of edges. Vicious circle

 

[hong]

Play the way you like but, 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.

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.

 

[hong]

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.

First, point buy going by the book has a floor of 8 per stat. Lower stats simply aren't supported, so going any lower would be a house rule.

Second, no powergamer worth his/her salt would put a 4 in Wis, and blow every Will save they make.

Third, what, exactly, is wrong with a character with below-average Cha or Int? If you want dump stats not to feature in your game, the solution is to provide in-game challenges (lots of skill checks) or rewards (feats, prestige classes) that require those stats. Outright banning of low scores is silly.

 

[hong]

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.

To a certain extent this is a self-correcting problem. The characters who are maxed out will also attract the attention of the bad guys, and so are at much higher risk of death or serious injury. In the end it really doesn't matter how much whupass you can dish out, because the DM can always dish out more.