Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Elf Witch]

Or if the stat rolls ar good(same difference). But yeah. 'A lot' of cross-class skills for a fighter is '1 or more', I would think.

Instead of a lot of cross class akills I should have said only cross class skills.

I also should have said that with decent rolls you can do it. I rolled an 18, 14, 14, 13, 12,12. I put the rolls as follows Str 13, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Chr 18. I choose to build the character this way because I wanted to play an educated nobel who was a knight.

Now the min/maxer powergamer of our group went nuts that I did this he was like noooo the 18 has to go into strength you are playing a fighter it is a waste to put it into charisma.

Now if I rolled not as well I most likely would have played something different because I want my characters to be somewhat good at what they do.

 

[librarius_arcana]

librarius_arcana:

You keep asserting that [x] is the One True Purpose of D&D without anything to back it up, and,

er, it's a Roleplaying game, you "Role"-"play"

what else do you need?

on top of that, suggest that players should intentionally gimp their characters in order to conform to said true purpose. I emphatically disagree.

And such is your right, but that doesn't also make you right

 

[Scribble]

Eh... I'm not a big fan of min/maxing in my own characters. I just find it... boring. Too much focus on numbers for me.

As far as what other people do... Hey whatever floats your boat I guess...


The only problem I've seen with this approach, however, is when you have a mixed group. If there is a group with a few min maxers and non min maxers, it can be hard to keep the challenges appropriate.

Do you make the monster tough enough to stand up to the megadamage powerhouse, and make the non min/maxers feel innefective, or do you make the monster more suited to the non min/maxers and let the powerhouse trounce through it?

Just adds a level of DM complexity, that can be annoying at times.

 

[librarius_arcana]

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 It is a trite and outdated term, and does not reflect well on those that use it.

Sorry but the evidence proves the contrary

 

[Felon]

See, I have read your posts and it's difficult to get past the snark and you trying to be clever instead of stating pretty plainly what you mean in some of those cases. But I get enough of what your trying to say, I just disagree with you as do a few others here.

The system is there to be used to play a GAME. A Role-playing Game, but a game none the less. Characters are a componet of the game. If you dont have "characters" you dont have much of a game, although technically you can still play. How? Make a bunch of stats which by your terms would normally be "characters" and play wargame style or DDM style. You still have a game hence without characters.

Well-said. All of it.

If a character's concept is that he's devoted to becoming the best swordsman in the world, or he's dedicated to slaying some powerful enemy, doesn't it make sense for the character to be as good at fighting as the player can possibly be? Can he be a min-maxing good roleplayer? Is he still a munchkin? Really, the anti-munchkin role-playing "purist" point-of-view is a total dead end.

As a DM, the only aspect of min-maxing that I object to is a player who clearly outshines other players. This is where I run into issues with a lot of druid builds and why I'll veto prestige classes like the frenzied berserker or fist of razael.

 

[Psion]

er, it's a Roleplaying game, you "Role"-"play"

what else do you need?

This is an entirely semantic argument. Someone could just as easily and fairly say "it's a GAME, what more do you need?"

Alas, it's more complex than either of those. I think one of the most widely accepted take on what people play RPGs for is that derived from Robin Laws Laws of Good Gamemastering, duplicated in the DMG II. IIRC, it identifies no less that seven different things players pursue in games.

"Roleplaying game" is just a convenient label for this shared hobby of ours that many people play in many ways. It does not encompass everything the game is or could be about.

This is the very reason that the term "roll playing" has been so widely rued since, oh, the late 90s. It in two words passes judgement on those who dare to enjoy different things in a game than you do.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

Not to hijack the thread but I don't play with DMs who insist on 28 point buys I dislike point buys because I think it is a real killer when it comes to being able to create creative different characters at lest that is how I have seen it. I think min/maxing is far more encouraged with point buy then with rolling.

And as I said before lame ducks hurt the game as bad as out of control powergamering min/maxers.

I often have a concept that I might like and then I have changed it when I have rolled. Example I sort of wanted ro play paladin of the Silver Flame in our Eberron game but I didn't get the roles I wanted so instead I went with ranger who is heading for the prestige class of Cyrean Avenger and I am having a blast. Now that paladin character from Thrace is in the back of my mind and who knows one day I may player her.

 

[Goblyn]

Instead of a lot of cross class akills I should have said only cross class skills.

I also should have said that with decent rolls you can do it. I rolled an 18, 14, 14, 13, 12,12. I put the rolls as follows Str 13, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Chr 18. I choose to build the character this way because I wanted to play an educated nobel who was a knight.

Now the min/maxer powergamer of our group went nuts that I did this he was like noooo the 18 has to go into strength you are playing a fighter it is a waste to put it into charisma.

Now if I rolled not as well I most likely would have played something different because I want my characters to be somewhat good at what they do.

With those ability scores, you wanted to make an educated noble knight. Good. High Int, High Cha. You wanted a social character, so you maxed your social attibutes, to the detriment(because you could have put the high scores there) of the physical attibutes. This is what I see as min/maxing. Maybe it is not so extreme as the views of others and thus my wondering why it is such a contentious issue.

 

[librarius_arcana]

This is an entirely semantic argument. Someone could just as easily and fairly say "it's a GAME, what more do you need?"

Well for starters, it's a RPG,
not a video, or board, so you can see the type tends to make all the difference

 

[hong]

Well for starters, it's a RPG,
not a video, or board, so you can see the type tends to make all the difference

Ah yes, rocket-propelled grenades. Very different.