Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Hussar]

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.

QFT

 

[librarius_arcana]

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. .

EVOLVED being the word here

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.

And the differance?


........Assumption

 

[Umbran]

So you are now the sole arbiter of how to play, then?

Folks,

Things in this thread ar going furiously fast. I am perhaps going to have to make this explicit - please keep your comments focused upon the stated position, rather than the person of poster. If you make things personal here, folks are going to start getting offended quickly, and that won't be good for the discussion.

 

[librarius_arcana]

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.

I already did many times over, I can't dumb it down any further without it going through the floor

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.

Yeah and like I said before, you could also use your books for a chopping board, doesn't make it Roleplaying now does it?

I don't think that was too subtle for you?, or was it?, because I'm starting to wonder if you really don't get it or just making out you don't

 

[Felon]

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.

And Psion's point is that you haven't talked about the game itself much at all. You've been working the semantics angle almost entirely.

"They're called BUFFALO wings. Does that mean they should be made out of chicken? No, then they would be called CHICKEN wings. They should be made out of buffalos."

"But they would taste terrible. Besides, buffalos don't have wings..."

"They're called BUFFALO wings. As in BUFFALO. What more do I have to say?"

Let's pretend for a second that the label isn't what's important. I know it sounds crazy, but trust me, it'll pay off.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Folks,

Things in this thread ar going furiously fast. I am perhaps going to have to make this explicit - please keep your comments focused upon the stated position, rather than the person of poster. If you make things personal here, folks are going to start getting offended quickly, and that won't be good for the discussion.

Sorry about that, missed this post (took a call)

Will modifie prev post if needed

 

[Psion]

Being gaming since I was aliitle kid, I will still use the term "Roll play" for when it applies,

How long you have been gaming is irrelevant, and something that I have not addressed at any point.

My point is that this term only has any meaning in print duscussion mediums like forums and email. That is where I suspect that your experience is limited, because few people still bandy about this term and fewer still cling to it as appropriate. Heck, even at RPGnet, which is as full of self aggrandizing posters as they come, the term has fallen into disfavor.

it has nothing to do with elitism,

You can say that all you like; people are still going to see it that way, and it carries the conotation of elitism. It's hard to argue that any term so loaded with mocking belittling could be anything but.

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,

And what type of player would that be?

Take a look upthread at my responses to other folks. Am I arguing on the side that min/maxing is just fine as is and should be tolerated to any extent? A casual perusal will reveal otherwise.

The type of player I am is one that recognizes that different people expect different things out of the game and displaying a little tolerance -- whether that be reigning in your "power builds" or refraining from mocking preferences you don't share -- goes a long way towards ensuring that everyone at the table has fun.

 

[librarius_arcana]

How long you have been gaming is irrelevant, and something that I have not addressed at any point.

Well it is when you think you can inform me of "whats-what",

either you think I'm new to all this, or simply being rude

My point is that this term only has any meaning in print duscussion mediums like forums and email. That is where I suspect that your experience is limited, because few people still bandy about this term and fewer still cling to it as appropriate. Heck, even at RPGnet, which is as full of self aggrandizing posters as they come, the term has fallen into disfavor.

You are so wrong, again,

 

[Psion]

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.

Odhanan, I don't want to fence semantics. Take it that I am talking more about choices/options/builds that people. The variety that exists as part of D&D are rich and diverse. I do try to regulate the more abusive options, but some combinations are not immediately apparent and sneak through.

I allow a lot of options in my games. But I, like many players, note that when there is a "spotlight hog", it exists to the expense of the other players. Further, I like character options to relate to the character's role in the campaign setting. I beleive that, were you part of my game, if you saw no such situation that you felt you couldn't justify to me and would not disrupt the game with spotlight hogging and clashing with the setting as presented, I suspect that you would be wrong.

I can and will spot-rule on combinations that seem unreasonable to me, for either spotlight hog reasons or campaign consistency reasons. But I hate playing whack a mole (which is why I avoid certain... um, other rules heavy games) with characters and expect a little restraint on the part of the players to make it fun for everyone.

 

[Goblyn]

librarius_arcana, this is for you: I believe what folks here are asking for is a rationale for your assertion that M/M is contrary to designing a character as opposed to a set of numbers for a wargame. While I do respect this sentiment, I believe that what you see as M/M is seen by others here as something known by more extremem terms, such as munchkinism and/or powergaming. This is my view as well. I see M/M as purposefully making a character to be highly skilled at one(or two) general skills obviously to the detriment of other skills in order to be a functional member of a party.

I suppose a t this point I am simply bandying words about, but I think it is somewhat important that these inflammatory terms be defined by us ENWorlders, as a group.

Your basic point, about not sacrificing character for mechanics, is solid, but the built-in 'flaws' of personality must be dealt with in order for a character to survive in the deadly world presented by your DM.

As you say, character is important in order to play a role, but the exciting part of that role is to overcome the obstacles presented by that character and its personality.

Maybe I'm just rambling now; what do you think? About the entire argument, not just me rambling