Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Janx]

Here's some random thoughts.

How is planning out a 20 level progression any different from 1st ed's classes, where every 20th level fighter was the same (becasue there were no skills or feats)? There's nothing wrong with having a plan, and the nice thing about d20, is you can change you plan at any time.

Min/maxing is really another term for optimization.

I'd expect some optimization to occur with any character. if you're building a fighter, you're a stupid player if build him so he can't fight. You've defeated the purpose of the class. Now somebody's going to take offense that I called somebody stupid, but the fact is a fighter who can't fight deserves to die in the first CR1 encounter the party meets.

What it really says, is that I expect optimization to occur within the spirit of the class and character.

What I don't like to see, is where somebody has analyzed ALL the rules in the game, and only plays a Forsaken Monk with Vow of Poverty because they see it as the optimal path. It becomes a problem, when they're right, and that PC outperforms the other characters by such a degree that it detracts from the game.

Since combat is a big part of D&D, the problem tends to stand out when a PC is VERY good in combat. All the other situations tend to be avoidable in some form (or can be transformed to combat, where the PC has no weakness).


So I expect to see a player make the best character they can, and for those decisions to logically reflect the character and game events. It's a balance.

 

[Umbran]

Please explain how mechanical disadvantages translate into good-roleplaying. A STR 8 fighter, a DEX 8 rogue, and INT wizard--how do these sacrifices in effectiveness constitute good-roleplaying?

I hope another "read my previous posts" cop-out is not forthcoming. Your previous posts didn't answer the question.

Imagine you were DM'ing Lord of the Rings as a campaign. How strongly do you agree with the following assertion: Aragorn, Legalos, and Gandalf are munchkins because they're outstanding at what they do. Meanwhile, Gimli and the hobbits are all commendable characters by dint of their physical shortcomings.

I think you may be missing half the logic.

Sacrifice alone, for no purpose, means nothing for roleplaying. Sacrifice for the purpose of increasing depth of character may be a good thing. It isn't as if in human lives everything goes well, and all the energy you spent was spent wisely and well in terms of advancement in power.

I note that, as characters we can identify with, both Gimli and Legolas are pretty darned weak. Sam Gamgee, however, has depth to him. And you'd not have the Shmendrick the Magician from The Last Unicorn if the player aimed only for the optimum of power.

 

[Elf Witch]

Ehhh, I don't know. In order to have enough skill points for "a lot of cross-class skills in things like Diplomacy", she's also going to need to have a high Int. In a Point Buy system, a Fighter who buys, say, 16 Charisma and 14 Int is doomed unless the Point Buy is very high.

Well when I did it I rolled and I rolled pretty well. I also used all my skill points in cross class and I took a feat in the Kalamar setting that allowed me to make certain classes class skills.

Also having a high charisma helps. The point is that the character was fun to play she was good in a fight and good at some social skills. Now she was not a combat monster nor was she as good at social skills as the bard but she was fun to play and in the ned isn't that what is the most important?

I also used magic items to help make her better in a fight as she got higher level she got things like gauntlests of orge strength and powerful magical sword and I also got a circlet of charisma.

There are ways to do it if you have a good DM who works with the players and you are patient because things improve as you get higher levels.

 

[Odhanan]

There will come a point in any min/maxer's gaming experience when the time will come when they will have to make a decision between doing something that makes sense for their character in the context of the setting or ongoing campaign, or make their character better. If they make the choice to min/max more at that point, then indeed they have taken a step down that path to the dark side of min/maxing.

Emphasis in the quote's mine. I don't agree. It's not about one or the other automatically. I can always do both, in my own experience. Making a choice on character design can always be translated in both advantages and flaws on the character sheet. I can choose to create a blind character and give this character some supernatural sense like the feat Sense the Unseen (AE) or True Seeing at high level and tweak it to make it work flavorwise. I can create a character without magic items whatsoever, ever, and use the Vow of Poverty. I mean, there's always a way for me to make it work both mechanically and RP speaking. I don't consider myself to be the smartest min-maxer of the bunch, so I guess pretty much anyone can do it, really.

Min/maxing isn't the contrary of RPing.

 

[ruleslawyer]

librarius_arcana:

You keep asserting that [x] is the One True Purpose of D&D without anything to back it up, and, on top of that, suggest that players should intentionally gimp their characters in order to conform to said true purpose. I emphatically disagree.

Making optimal decisions is a fundamental aspect of playing any game; heck, it's a part of basic economic rationale. In D&D, many of those decisions have to do with the appropriate roleplay, but many of them have to do with character design, since most mechanical gameplay other than character design is a product of chance (the roll of the dice). Making sub-optimal decisions "because I'm roleplaying!" is an ostentation that seems rather suspect to me. I don't like people who constantly try to break the system, because they eventually will and it tends to lead to bad player-DM interaction. I don't like people whose characters are mere sets of numbers with no personality, because that's just... well, boring. But I also think that, to paraphrase Felon(?), this sort of behavior is orthagonal to character optimization; it's not immediately correlated. As shilsen said, perhaps my greatest concern as a DM is that one player is simply so much better at optimizing his character that it starts to skew the survivability of the party. It's not much fun for anyone when one PC can do everything better than everyone else, or when an encounter strong enough to challenge one PC is likely to wipe out half the other PCs.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Ah, I see now so then your beef really isnt with the players but with the mislabling of D&D as a role-playing game?

What? lol, what colour are the skies in your world,

Eer.. that would be a NO

Were do you get this from?

Because the role-playing game does encourage the use of mini's and a battle mat and other elements of wargaming (duration effects and ranges for weapons and spells). I mean it's right there in the PHB. and wargames dont have anything to do with role-playing games. I know I actually play a few wargames myself so these are two different animals with no room for mixing, right?

Where do you think the game evolved from before it became a rpg?

Or are you still sticking to anyone who doesnt focus on characters as opposed to characters+character builds or just character builds is playing the game wrong?

(real) Character builds are good for Characters, system builds (just to use the system at the cost of character) are bad

is that simply enough?

 

[librarius_arcana]

The term "roll playing" has passed its expiration date and is now curdled and fetid. Please deposit it in the nearest dumpster.

That would be nice if true

 

[Psion]

I don't agree. It's not about one or the other automatically.

Did I say it is automatically? No, that is emphatically not what I am saying.

I can always do both, in my own experience.

You may be able to always justify it to yourself, but there will eventually arise a situation in which there is a character choice that makes more sense or is more compelling choice for campaign reasons for the GM and other players is not the one that is the most powerful.

If you approach me with a character whose PrC and feat choices look like they are out of a smackdown build from the WotC optimization forum, you would have a hard time convincing me that most of those builds are a good fit for the feel of the campaign. Your choices, when taken to that extreme, "break the fourth wall" and the characters scream that they are made as a mechanical construct, not a role playing one.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Building a character who is different and not taking the obvious advantages say for example building a fighter who is very charismatic so you have a higher chrasima stat then stregth and you take a lot of cross class skills in things like diplomacy and the leadership feat is a very valid character and not as sub optimal as some would have you believe.

Ah, the high rolls are key. If you get good rolls, that opens up vistas for all sorts of interesting combinations like the high Charisma fighter (and hey, I like taking high Charisma for characters who don't need it too ). That's the main reason I like using rolls instead of Point Buy--if you get high rolls, you can try something interesting, and if the rolls are low, no harm done either. What I'm saying, though, is that while you certainly can say to yourself "I just got some pretty good rolls. I'm going to use that to make this interesting concept I've been thinking about with a high-Charisma fighter who is a brave commander" and it works great. But you can't just look at 28 Point Buy and purchase 16 Cha and 14 Int for a Fighter concept or say before the roll "No matter what I roll, I'm putting the highest roll in Charisma and at least 14 in Int so I can try a Charisma Fighter concept", or you risk becoming irrelevant like the Rogue you mentioned.

 

[Psion]

That would be nice if true

Oh, no, it is true. It is a trite and outdated term, and does not reflect well on those that use it.