Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[mmu1]

Mhmm... Coming into this really late, but I figured I'd take a stab at it.

Min-maxing isn't a bad thing, as such - however, it has far greater potential to be a bad thing than a more casual style of play. Most things can become disruptive when taken to extremes, and min-maxing, by definition, has some tendecies towards extremism.

In addition, while you can always change and fine-tune the way you role-play your character to make it fit a particular game, a Str 20 Int 6 killing machine (to use an exaggerated example) is not exactly a flexible character design.

Finally, I think incompetent min-maxers that make awful characters are a lot more common (in my exeprience, at least) than incompetent role-players who disrupt the game for everyone else to the same extent.

All that being said, this is to a large degree me playing devil's advocate, since I've always been strongly in favor of optimizing characters, provided that isn't taken to mean making them social cripples or psychopaths.

 

[Goblyn]

(snip) But I hate playing whack a mole (which is why I avoid certain... um, other rules heavy games) (snip)

I need to know which games you mean here. Because I'm a nerd.

 

[Psion]

I need to know which games you mean here. Because I'm a nerd.

Maybe I'll PM you (or maybe not if you are not a community supporter). I deliberately did not name names because I know how fora such as these are. Someone who likes said game would use it as an excuse to derail.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I remember, many moons ago, I had just started in the "Roleplaying Game hobby, I was a member of a Shadowrun group.

One of the players was a munchkin*, powergamer and min-maxer. His character owned two Ares Viper Slivergun II (which were obviously house-rule weapons with special super abilities) and a military spec armor. He was cybered out with high grade (probably Delta, though my memories are fuzzy) cyberware and bioware. He also had high ability score (including willpower, IIRC, so even magic was not his weak spot...)
Correctly played, he was probably unstoppable.

But I remember a situation - i don't know the specifics anymore, but I still know it. He wanted /had to kill a NPC (as usual for Shadowrun), maybe it was a guard, maybe it was something more dangerous, I don't know. Anyway, he had the surprise on him - the other side was unsuspectiv, turning his back to him. But then, the character said: "Damn it. I can't just shoot him in the back." and confronted him in person, clearly stating his intention. I don't rememer anymore how the story ended (probably in a bloody mess for the other side, as usual).
Don't tell me a munchkin can't roleplay. He can, if he wants to.

----------------------------------------------

Our group consists of powergamers, some more experienced, some less, but everyone wants to play a powerful character.
But it's not that we sit down and think "What is the most powerful character I can create".
We sit down and think "What kind of character do I want to play?". If we have decided that, we ask "How can I make him good at what he does?"

Once we start the game, we make adjustments to our grand scheme for our characters - take feats that seem useful due to the campaign setting (and thus make sense to take), we multiclass (or "prestigeclass") to cover weak spots of the party setup and so on. Maybe this is also min/maxing. But it might also be good roleplaying, because the members of the group notice they are lacking something, and they will need to compensate, even if that is not what they "really" want to do. Min/Maxing can, seen in-game, also be just a compromise. Even if it makes the character or the group as a whole more powerful.

There are probably some lines we don't cross - heavy multiclassing or cherrypicking PrCs is rare among us. I think I remember only one character that was very heavy on it (multiclassing Fighter, Paladin, Cleric and Hospitaler), but even then, it thematically fit well.


*) I think I am using this according to Montes definition of munchkin 1,2 and 6.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

EVOLVED being the word here

No, I think the "retaining it's WARGAME element" is the key factor here since youre the one pushing the "if it's not roleplay, then youre not doing it right" shtick.

My point is this and I'll make this simple for you:

D&D is a role-playing game.
D&D got it's roots from a wargame.
Those Wargame elements are still part of the game.
So despite your claim/insinuation/halfbaked argument/statement that it's a Role-Playing Game and character and role playing are paramount, it still retains it's wargame element for use in PLAYING THE GAME.

Now you can choose to focus on character. That's fine.
Or you can choose to focus on the GAME/Wargame parts of D&D. That's fine too.
Or you can focus on a mixture of both. That's fine as well.

But saying that D&D is a ROLE Playing GAME, focusing soley on the ROLE-PLAYING part and ingnoring any argument that discusses the GAME part of it comes across as you being willfully ignorant or dodging the argument.

 

[Goblyn]

Maybe I'll PM you (or maybe not if you are not a community supporter). I deliberately did not name names because I know how fora such as these are. Someone who likes said game would use it as an excuse to derail.

D'Oh. I'll have to remedy that. If any service deserves my dinero it's ENWorld. But in the meantime I am my username AT hotmail DOT com. My username being goblyn; sorry if that's an insult to your intelligence. I've been awakw for a really long time.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Now you can choose to focus on character. That's fine.
Or you can choose to focus on the GAME/Wargame parts of D&D. That's fine too.
Or you can focus on a mixture of both. That's fine as well.

No, no, it is not fine. You are having bad, wrong fun and should have your gaming license revoked.

There is no bad way to play, just ways that may conflict with other people's style. When that happens, the only bad play is when people try to force their style on someone else.

 

[Remathilis]

here is my 2 ep

Min-Maxing has to do with character OPTIMIZATION, not role in story. D&D requires a level of optimization in its core. Fighters who want to be good in combat put a high score in strength. wizards who like to learn additional spells dump ranks in spellcraft. Certainly, the advent of feats, free multi-classing, and prestige classes have allowed a new level of optimization 1e/2e didn't dream of. For example, if I want my cleric to be the best healer in the world, I choose the healing domain. And Augment Healing feat. And take levels in Combat Medic. Etc. Now, I've sacrificed some ability in other areas to be awesome at healing. m/M.

D&D ENCOURAGES THIS. Classes are good at one thing (combat, skills, magic, healing) and usually only ok or poor at another. Generalists tend to suck compared to a specialist. The whole system of checks and balances force certain characters into certain roles, and it IS the number one complaint about D&D's class-system (compare to True d20 or a classless like GURPS).

There comes a point though, when you can become TOO optimized. The fighter has sank every feat, skill and level into rocking a boat-load of damage, or a socerer who has found a way to make the Save DCs for his spells unbeatable. That is powergaming. When you become SO goot at one thing that you cannot lose when dealing with it, it becomes hard and/or boring for the DM to challenge that aspect, cuz he knows your going to win.

Powergaming is common in combat (since its a heavy aspect of D&D) but spellcasters, social-gadflys (do you know how easy it is to get your diplomacy sky-high?) and even sneakers (hide/move silents) are not unheard of. However, despite the fact you have juked the system for every-last +1 bonus, you can still role-play that character. Perhaps he has an obsession to be the best, perhaps he is unnaturally good at that element.

Munchkinism is when you have crossed from being good at one thing into being good at a whole-lot of stuff and your character is practically unchallengable. 2e was the field day for this, but I've seen it across all editions. Some mix of race, template, class, prestige, feat, spells, and magical do-hickys have rendered this character an incredible AC, immunity to most forms of death, easy ability to hit/damage, good spells, and good enough skills not to fail all but the most insane DCs. He never outstrips the Powergamer in the PGs forte (the munchkins Hide/MS is not as good as the dedicated powergamers) but he's better than everyone elses who didn't focus on that. Thus, the munchkin steals the spotlight because he CAN, he's fast enough, smart enough, skilled enough, and tough enough to survive most anything the DM can throw at him, and is never really "challenged" by the game at all. Like playing "DOOM" with the god-mode on. (and I wager the same players who build munchkins play DOOM with the cheats on when they claim they "beat it").

Interestly, NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH ROLE-PLAYING. m/M, Powergamers, and munchkins are all capable of coming up with unique, interesting, and even touching characters. I gamed with a group of them: the powergamer had one of the most interesting and rp-full backstories I've ever seen. The munchkin was an amazing method actor. However, neither of them liked to LOSE! So they rigged the system (this was 2e) to make sure they could live against anything short of a demon-lord. On the other hand, my newbie g/f gamer had sub-optimized scores and abilities and role-played her like "what would I do if I was here" and not as a character... m/M and r-p have a negative correlation, but that does not that imply causation, as some people believe.

So, m/M is a key element to the game, but it can become too key for certain players. However like most things, a little in moderation isn't bad, and probably has some health benefits as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I feel the need to assist a fellow poster who gave a great link.
I read the rant a few years ago, and rereading it now makes me think it can be called a "Evergreen".

Maybe I should write a letter:

Dear Moderators,

is there a way to force everyone to read Montes rant on "The Evolution of Munchkin"?
Link: http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html

Greetings,
M. Ridcully

 

[gizmo33]

IME munchkins threaten thespian DMs because a thespian DM needs to railroad the players and a munchkin player might be able to kill that BBEG that the DM was hoping would scare the players, escape at the last minute, tell the PC he's his father, etc. Plus a Thespian DM hopes that the munchkin will give away all his treasure to the local orphanage so that it furthers his plot line, and the munchkin keeps it and wrecks everything.

Thespian DMs should probably find another way to handle their inadequacies rather than send munchkins to the back of the class. Munchkins can probably be viewed as playing a role - power-hungry conquerer is a role, and munchkins probably play it as well or better than thespians play their flower-sniffing dandy character. Granted, sometimes I get tired of DMing power-hungry conquerers (as well as flower-sniffing dandys), but that's not the player's problem.

Munchkins can be as rude and as condescending as Thespian DMs though. That's a different issue. Thespian DMs just need to house-rules their games so that flower-sniffing dandies get a +5 on all of their rolls. That way they don't need to guilt-trip munchkins or get angry at them. Anger is a sign that you're not in control, and it's an odd thing for a DM to be that way, who presumably is in total control of the game.