Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Jupp]

I think the whole issue is more about what exactly is min/maxing, powergaming, munchkinism.

There is one faction that defines MinMaxing as hardcore powergaming with no regard to the roleplaying aspect game. Faction 2 defines MinMaxing as character optimization to survive what the Evil DM (tm) might put their path and they perhaps like to have nice numbers on their character sheets. I would have no objections to have players of Faction 2 in my game.

This discussion only got 4 pages long because people define min-maxing differently. The question of the OP hasn't really been fully answered yet, though

Edit: If the term min-maxing would be defined in the core books we wouldn't have such a heated debate *g*

 

[Elf Witch]

fWitch - I've gone completely the other way. I dislike intensely stat-rolling because of the obscene bohemoths that people usually roll up. And, IME, when the player rolls a 27 point character, he or she whines until they get a reroll. It just throws the game so far out of whack when one PC has a 56 point character and the others have 32, just because of the luck of the dice. OTOH, I do play a 32 point buy game, so it's not like my lot are pansies.

I would NEVER complain about any player using any option from the game. If the choice is there, then they should be able to take it. If you don't want that particular option in your game, that's groovy, remove it. But, don't whine when players make the best characters they can. Adventuring is dangerous. I fully expect PC's to be created with that in mind.

I have heard of people whining but I have rearely seen it. We had only one player who whined and he was our to the max powergamer. He hated point buy as well unless it was at least 36 points.

In our long running Kalamar game we had rolls from the top which were 58 points to 27 points. It worked everyone had fun. Now our DM came up with away to balance it he gave any one who was under 40 points an extra feat and under 30 two extra feats. This was rather funny because when we got a new player he wanted to roll lower so he could get the extra two feats.

Adventuring is dangerous which is why I dislike lame duck characters who don't offer the party anything to enable them to succed. The party should be stronger with you not handicapped because you are there.

 

[OstogVin]

My point was that if you try to lose focuc or ignore the most basic element of this, that this is an RPG instead of just any other game etc, you not only try to make this a more foggie issue, but worse intentionly confusing

We are talking about RPG's not any other type of game,

A game about Characters, Hence the "Role"

But it is just another game. There are characters, and there are roles, but there are also adjustable statistics and other game mechanics. How much you want to put in the different parts of the game is up to you.

 

[Odhanan]

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

Well, when you said that's a dilemma that would come to any min/maxer, that's what I understood. Sorry.

So, you're saying that to some min/maxers, there will be a time to choose between a character concept/background decision and one that mechanically makes sense, and this choice represents an extreme situation. So whether your min/maxing impedes RP depends how far you're into min/maxing. Okay.

What I'm saying is that you don't have to choose in most cases. I can have it both ways in many, many instances. Ergo, min/maxing in and by itself doesn't impede RPing.

Further, lots of things can go against RPing by virtue of being extreme: you like to socialize outside of the game, or make out with your girl friend at the game table, or need to take a piss every 15 minutes, hell, a whole host of other things can impede your RPing when taken to the extreme! I think we agree on that.

So the issue isn't really about "Min/maxing vs. RPing", is it?

At best, that's taking extremes for actual average instances that demonstrate a point, which they don't.

What it's really about, I think, is control and ego. It's about telling your fellow gamer you're more mature (I don't mean you, Psion, I mean "you" generally), or just plain "better" than other players, show off some aspects of your gaming/personality, or controlling these pesky players who disrupt your grand vision as a DM. That's what it's really about in many -not all, but many- cases.

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.

Wait, you're talking about something else here, it seems to me. Are you saying that in some cases you may make some choices that make sense within the fictional world but aren't mechanically sound? Sure you can. Just like you can have an optimized character that makes sense within the fictional world.

As for the "hard time" I would have to justify some feats choices to a GM and how they make sense in the campaign world, I guess it'd depend on the GM. I can certainly use some optimized build and explain how it makes sense in some particular game to a GM. How the GM will take it from there will depend on the opinions of said GM.

 

[Psion]

My point was that if you try to lose focuc or ignore the most basic element of this, that this is an RPG instead of just any other game etc, you not only try to make this a more foggie issue, but worse intentionly confusing

And my point is fixating on the name IN ANY WAY is not productive as "proof" of what the game is about.

Again, do you care to digest the rest of my post where my point actually lies?

 

[Felon]

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

what else do you need?

An intelligent, well-reasoned arguement would be pretty nice. Your current approach, which is based largely on the semantics of the term "role-playing game", doesn't cut it. People don't play a game to meet standards of literal correctness.

People play a game to enjoy themselves. In order to advocate your position that quixotic devotion to role-playing (character, setting, yadda-yadda) and utter disregard for mechanical advantages is the one, true form of role-playing, you should then explain how it's more enjoyable than all other ways the game is played.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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

what else do you need?

"Game," perhaps?

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

I see. So there's a "right" and "wrong" way to play, then?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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

I know EXACTLY where the game evolved from, which was kind of my point. It's an RPG that EVOLVED from a WARGAME and still retains it's WARGAME elements.

(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?

As long as you just state that as your opinon, that's fine. When you start stating that as definitive truth is when you start making yourself look bad.

 

[Elf Witch]

There is one faction that defines MinMaxing as hardcore powergaming with no regard to the roleplaying aspect game. Faction 2 defines MinMaxing as character optimization to survive what the Evil DM (tm) might put their path and they perhaps like to have nice numbers on their character sheets. I would have no objections to have players of Faction 2 in my game.

This discussion only got 4 pages long because people define min-maxing differently. The question of the OP hasn't really been fully answered yet, though

Edit: If the term min-maxing would be defined in the core books we wouldn't have such a heated debate *g*

My roomate is a hardcore powergamer she wants good stats and to be excellent at what her character is supposed to do. She builds her characters to do this. But when she is in game playing she role plays even if that means not always making the best powerful decision if you know what I mean.

 

[librarius_arcana]

What evidence would that be?

You may be new to gaming fora, but you really need to trust me when I say that outside of the most elitist self-backpatting circles, bandying the term "roll playing" about like it was new and clever will instantly create an air of elitism in your posts that you do not want associated with you.

It goes even further than that, really. Personally, someone contacted me in an email last week about getting involved in my game that dared to invoke that term. It immediately led me to the suspicion that he was going to be the sort of judgemental and difficult-to-get-along-with player that I did not want in my game.

You may persist in using whatever terms you please, I can't stop you. But you need to trust me when I say it does not paint a good image of you.

Being gaming since I was aliitle kid, I will still use the term "Roll play" for when it applies, it has nothing to do with elitism, And I find your implied connection to such thing to be very narrow minded, and a constant cry of those that try to dismiss that it's going on,

And it seems to be that there are only certain types of "player" that think that term is a problem,

why is that?,