Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Montague68]

In my experience:

Munchkin = A player who is totally concerned with how much mayhem and destruction he (and it's ALWAYS a he) can cause. Roleplaying is nonexistant, with the exception of intimidating NPC's with his uberness. Flavor is thrown out completely in favor of exploiting rules. Rules are bent to the point of breaking, and beyond. This is the sort of player who tried to tie a kobold around his waist in order to take advantage of the wording to the old Expert Tactician feat.

Min/Maxer = A player who tries to make the most effective character he can within the framework of the rules. Stats are distributed in cookie cutter fashion for the character selected. Certain Feats are "must have" for certain classes. The player has a goal in mind and builds his character class, prestige class, feats and attributes with that in mind. The end-result is usually a powerful, efficient build that can challenge inexperienced DM's. Usually roleplays well.

Min/Maxing is ok with me. Munchkinism is not.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally I don't see min/maxing as bad, myself. Making sub-optimal choices for your PC is all well and good, as long as the rest of the group does it as well, but if I want to create a PC with legs and staying power, someone who might actually reach mid-high level without relying almost completely on the skill of his compatriots, then my choices are going to be as close to optimal as makes no odds.

I have to dive in here: part of the idea of the adventuring party as opposed to the one-man adventuring gang is reliance on the rest of the party. If I'm a fighter, I rely on the Cleric to patch me up, the Thief to open the doors, and the Wizard to...well, do whatever Wizards do. They, in turn, rely on me to protect their asse(t)s. That said, if my character idea for said Fighter is to be smart and wise enough to become - later in life - a military genius, then I'll put good stats on Int. and Wis. instead of Dex. and Con. perhaps, and let the min-max types complain all they like.

*edit* I see the terms min-maxer and powergamer as meaning the same thing, and never use the term munchkin (though if I did it'd also mean the same thing).

Lanefan

 

[Rystil Arden]

a. rather than allocating points to cross-class skills that the character had the chance to develop, the player either spends the points on class skills that the character has not used in adventures over the past level or on a skill that the player had no chance to learn.

Are you saying that if the GM throws some encounters that levels up a Noble Diplomat without time to actually use Diplomacy in that level that you would consider putting a rank in diplomacy min/maxing? What if the Bard solved a mystery and leveled up and didn't have to use Bardic Music throughout that level, would she not get to put a rank in Perform?

 

[Barak]

I still don't see how min/maxing and roleplaying can even affect each other in a meaningful way (and yes, librarian_arcanum, I did read all your edifying posts).

Min/maxing solely relates to character building/levelling. That's when it happens. I don't know about you guys, but I create characters/level them not during actual game time. It happens before gaming sessions for creation, and in-between them for levelling.

Roleplaying, on the other hand, solely happens during game-time. I don't roleplay before gaming sessions, or between them (my wife would kill me if I started talking in-character at such times).

So.. Why does one exclude the other? They never happen simultaneously! Are the "roleplayers" out there telling me that they couldn't properly roleplay a character made by someone else? They might as well have been.

As for the "proper roleplayers sacrifice character efficiency for story!" argument.. Why? Why would a less efficient character enhance the story in any way? Sure, playing a one-legged fighter -can- be fun, but so can be playing a two-legged one.

 

[Greg K]

Are you saying that if the GM throws some encounters that levels up a Noble Diplomat without time to actually use Diplomacy in that level that you would consider putting a rank in diplomacy min/maxing? What if the Bard solved a mystery and leveled up and didn't have to use Bardic Music throughout that level, would she not get to put a rank in Perform?

I'm saying that if the character did not get a chance to use that skill *at all* the last time he leveled then yes some groups will see that as min-maxing. As for myself, I would take into account the number of adventures and the amount of time since the character last leveled. If the party has been trekking around for months in some wilderness without encountering other races for the noble to have used diplomacy, I would say yes it would be min-maxing.

As for the bard, they would not have had to use Bardic Music just whatever perform skill in which they already have ranks.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'm saying that if the character did not get a chance to use that skill *at all* the last time he leveled then yes some groups will see that as min-maxing. As for myself, I would take into account the number of adventures and the amount of time since the character last leveled. If the party has been trekking around for months in some wilderness without encountering other races for the noble to have used diplomacy, I would say yes it would be min-maxing.

As for the bard, they would not have had to use Bardic Music just whatever perform skill in which they already have ranks.

I don't think I've seen anyone else express this opinion before--that's why I was curious. Would it be okay if the Noble talked to his own party members diplomatically in an effort to placate the GM into letting him take ranks of Diplomacy? Could he hire an NPC hireling to debate with so he could raise the Diplomacy. These seem like metagaming of a far worse sort than taking another rank in Diplomacy for a character who already has the skill. Say he was practising his technique at night in front of the mirror. Now, if he randomly picked up an trained-only skill like Knowledge: The Planes without starting with a rank or ever doing anything related to planes or talking to anyone who knew anything about the planes, that would be a different story. As for the Bard, what if he didn't get a chance to play his instrument? What if you threw a Wizard with Fireball at him and he rolled a 1 and lost his harp until the end of the adventure but got it back just before leveling up to, say, level 9? Would he have to miss out on his Inspire Heroics class ability for a full extra level (it requires him to take that last rank in perform).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Bah min-maxing. Max-maxing is far more potent.

On a related note, a player in my game thinks of Iron Will (and its ilk) to be powergaming. It's very subjective.

 

[gizmo33]

As for the "proper roleplayers sacrifice character efficiency for story!" argument.. Why? Why would a less efficient character enhance the story in any way? Sure, playing a one-legged fighter -can- be fun, but so can be playing a two-legged one.

(Gizmo puts pompous professor hat on) Because, as my over-simplified post above explained:

Thespian DMs need to keep their NPC villains alive because it's how it works in the literature from which they adapt their stories. Munchkin players are adept at killing said NPCs, and so it angers the DM. If the munchkin's PC only had one leg, then he wouldn't be able to chase down the villain, and it would keep the DMs plot line alive. So the munckinism is affecting the game and getting in the way of roleplaying (ie. letting the villain escape).

If you want to recreate Dracula, for instance, then everyone has to run around confused and over-powered until the last minute. That's "exciting". Thespian DMs count on manipulating the abilties of the players in order to produce this effect. But adapting the novel to DnD runs the risk of someone taking their optimized Undead Hunter though it, and killing Dracula in the first 5 rounds. Not exactly as exciting as the novel.

But rather than force everyone to make up a 1st level commoner (which is probably the honest thing to do to simulate Dracula), the Thespian DM just blames the munchkin for not having read the same novels as him. The munckin probably doesn't know that Dracula is a book - but he's seen the Van Helsing movie!

To be fair to the Thespian DM, the munchkin player is usually oblivious to anything not having to do with XP or GP going on in the game. What you're saying is logically true - min-maxing doesn't happen during the game - but IME people that are heavily focused on character development (stat wise) tend to have a hard time comprehending the rest of the game.

Go up to a munchkin and say "quick, name one NPC in last weeks game!" and you'll likely get a blank stare. I don't know why that it is - you wouldn't think that ignoring NPCs names would help your BAB any, but apparently it does.

 

[Izerath]

Similar Sentiments

There are different levels of powergaming from light optimisation to the most overt min/maxing.
Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts. There is also the reverse of these as the flipside of the same gold coin (possibly gamers who look down upon those who prefer rules-lite game systems).

Because it is a dynamic that can greatly affect gameplay, it can quickly become an issue. Put a powergamer in with a a group of roleplayers and what is going on outside of the game starts to become more of a focus than what is going on inside the game.

My own way of thinking is to not look down upon anyone in this hobby of ours. Respect different playstyles but at the same time, take into account such things when forming a group or a particular campaign. An experienced DM will know who will mix well and who will not.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Hopefully this topic won't self-implode too quickly. Considering how personal this topic is to some people though, I'm sure somebody will take something the wrong way at some stage.

I echo the above. The general reputation and "dislike" of min/maxing is the fact that many powergamers I'VE ENCOUNTERED take the abuse to a level of dishonesty that degrades trust. Lemme give apersonal example to help clarify.

I have a powergamer in my group. He's VERY GOOD at it. I actually appreciate his ideas, because they help point out to me areas where I should be watchful. For a while he min/maxed his PC and it became obvoius to others that he had some insane modifiers to skills, attacks, etc. that far outstripped their own. They cried foul. I examined the PC at the group's request and found, that while everything was legal according to published rules, he had expolited rules that by themselves look innocent enough, but when combined with others produced synergetic aftershocks that actually disrupted play.

Now I also agree that this is something all DM's have to deal with as a reality, but should it be? No. Better playtesting would show us that these combinations prove disruptive to balanced play, but who's responsibility is it? the DM? the players, the publishers? I'm not entirely sure.

What I do know is I asked the player to run things by me before he just used some rule or combination. I began to "approve" material before it was allowed into play and often gave new rules "trial periods" so I could assess the impact on the game. I reserved the right to change my mind or change the rules so things would be fair to all.
I also flat out asked the "powergamer" to help me manage this aspect of the game because the other players felt cheated. Fortunately, we're really good friends, he agreed, and now the entire group asks him for ideas, while at the same time, if he sees something that's "too good to be true", he points it out to me and even writes up some notes on how it can really create advantages that are mind boggling.

So I don't mind min/maxing - I think it can actually help a game, but what I don't appreciate are people trying to "pull the wool over my eyes" by not being honest about how they generated the PC they play or being selfish in not sharing the same advantages with other players so they too can enjoy the game in the same ways.

In this sense, the powergamers I've encountered don't "disclose" their "trade secrets" like it's some competition over who can do the most with the least. Some view it as a "me vs. the DM" scenario and that too is unhealthy. As a DM I try to challenge my players, not kill them. If everything was a cakewalk, it victories would not be rewarding and the game would become boring for all involved. The bottom line - get your powegamer to share and alert you to things he thinks are "cool" and not only will the rest of the players have a little more fun trying to find the golden nugget, you as the DM will have a built in alert system to head off any disruptive mechanics.

I think that's where the doubt and suspicion is generated - by just a few bad apples. A shame really.....

 

[zypherillius]

maybe the greater good is being missed?

youd probably have to decide from the onset of the campaign if you want that kind of play style. i mean, even if you decide to run certian races, illumians for example, they play to the min/maxing aspect of the game for sure. every second level of a class, you get another sigil. then in your savage species, they give a prestige class for mind flayers where you can acquire all skill points in one skill that your victim had, even if it puts your ranks above the level max. how could it not be an aspect of the game when right inside every book they give you ideas on how to min max? heck, even if you decide not to specalize in one thing, if you run a druid sorcerer, then use the arcane hyrophant and then mystic theurge, thats using whats right in front of you, and by level 20, youve got 9th level druid and arcane spells.
also, everybody raves about the unearthed arcana, and right inside that, they give the gestalt idea for a campaign variant. min maxing is a fun aspect of the game, it wallows the dm to throw heavier stuff at the players, and the plaers can respond in kind with a large dose of encounter slaying.
--- added more ---
and depending on your version of min maxing, you could even say that bonus spells granted by a high modifier would be 'min maxing' because youre getting more than the base charater allows you to have. madding feats or becoming a specialty mage or domain mage could be taken as min maxing too, so depeing on haw much you look between the lines would be yoru aspect of min maxing. id have to say overall its a good thing, it rewards people that read their books and makes people that dont read want to go start scanning how they can make their pc bette.