Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Geoff Watson]

The problem with the "min-maxers don't roleplay" argument is that min-maxing is orthogonal to roleplaying.

It's just as easy to role-play a focussed/min-maxed character as an unoptimised character.

Geoff.

 

[wayne62682]

Short answer: It's only bad to someone who is unable or unwilling to do it.

Long Answer: Because there's always someone, somewhere who loathes the idea of *gasp* planning a build out or *double gasp* NOT bumping up a useless skill even if your character might have been exposed to it in his/her background. IMXP my group has two players who are of this mindset (one who believes it's a form of metagaming to build a character based around the theme of the campaign. e.g. if you know the campaign is going to heavily feature undead, it's metagaming to make a cleric optimized at turning as opposed to a cleric with some turning ability but not everything focused on it), and I routinely argue with them over my characters (my characters have a concept which I then build and expand upon to make them good at what they do) because my characters are normally better than theirs and they seem to think I am min/maxing because of it.

In short, it's viewed as bad because people aren't comfortable with the idea and think that every little detail should roll out of the way the campaign progresses (e.g. if your character had difficulty in a social situation, you should up his Diplomacy score), and seem to think it's a mortal sin to have a 20-level build all planned out beforehand because it doesn't allow for any flexibility to change during a campaign. These are the same people who would, IMO, change the rules if they could so that the DM should be allowed to deny character progression if the choices don't reflect what "[your] character would do".

 

[librarius_arcana]

Because we roleplayer should be enlighted people that are more concerned about motivation of people and interaction with each other than about numbers?

Here, Here,

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm one of those gamers who hates min/maxing and powergaming. Its acceptable to a point because as people have said in the past, you have to have some degree of competancy or your characters will get killed or worse. However, there is a point were it destroys the fun in the game.

My gaming group is one where we build good characters but we don't overdo it just because we can. In the past we have had a player (who no longer plays with us) who was a consumate powergamer and he could never get his head around the idea of just playing the game and did actually spoil the enjoyment of everyone else in places.

One of my group said it best when he said that he wanted every combat to be an edge-of-the-seat, fear of being killed style of encounter. Thats not to say that I as DM should be making the encounters more powerful, just that the players arn't going to go silly with their character builds.

In closing I will say that it is an aspect of D&D that I wish wasn't there. I know people will point out differences but in prior editions we never had to worry about it and we had great games.

 

[librarius_arcana]

The problem with the "min-maxers don't roleplay" argument is that min-maxing is orthogonal to roleplaying.

It's just as easy to role-play a focussed/min-maxed character as an unoptimised character.

Geoff.

"orthogonal" ? had to go look up that word LoL

Not true the difference is in the game focus, stats and trying to rip the system, or character colour, setting and story,

systems should support character/setting etc not be the be all end all,


thats like the "cart before the horse", yes sure it can still push the cart instead of pulling it as it should, but do you really want to?


As some one once said "that is the difference between Roll Playing and Roleplaying

A Good Roleplayer will sacrifice a system advantage for better characters and more colourful story


A munchkin can't even imagine that

 

[Felon]

Because you are playing the "system" and not the "game" you are trying to take advantage of the rules crunch (and loop holes) instead of being concerned with your character, setting, etc,

Because it's trying to exploit the system at the cost of character/setting/story etc

the rules should be a supportive vehical to playing a role (hence roleplay),
instead of trying to number crunch numbers for system effect, that have nothing to do with
character/setting/story etc

The system is part of the game. And the ability to kick butt plays directly into the character and with a setting that inevitably revolves around confration.

You got anything else?

 

[librarius_arcana]

The system is part of the game. And the ability to kick butt plays directly into the character and with a setting that inevitably revolves around confration.

You got anything else?

You seem to have complete missed the point lol

see my last post

 

[Goblyn]

The system is part of the game. And the ability to kick butt plays directly into the character and with a setting that inevitably revolves around confration.

You got anything else?

Well, as I understand min/maxing, the term itself doesn't assume a combat focus, just a distinct one. A bard or rogue with bukku social skills but little to nothing in the way of pointy stick waving ability is just as min/maxed as a combat monster, but maybe that's the rub. It is quite often used to refer to combat monsters and many take exception to said monsters.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Short answer: It's only bad to someone who is unable or unwilling to do it.

Sorry but thats the biggest load o crap, lol

thats like saying you have to take steroids just because you think everyone else is,


Wrong wrong wrong, go to the back of the class

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

In short, it's viewed as bad because people aren't comfortable with the idea and think that every little detail should roll out of the way the campaign progresses (e.g. if your character had difficulty in a social situation, you should up his Diplomacy score), and seem to think it's a mortal sin to have a 20-level build all planned out beforehand because it doesn't allow for any flexibility to change during a campaign. flect

I agree with most of what you say mate - but am going to take the opportunity to disagree with this one. I don't think planning a 20 level build for a campaign right from the start is a 'poor' style, but I do think that rigidly sticking to that plan in spite of what happens in the campaign is. Yes plan where you think the character wants to go from the start, but if something big happens along the way then you should reflect that in your character. Rigidly sticking to your build to optimise the character in a way that doesn't reflect on what's happening in the game is (IMO) the difference between the roll and role of our hobby.

That said - I'm not opposed to min-maxing... absolutely you should work toward your character being as effective as he should be. But if the campaign has a significant impact on your character then a player should respect the effort their DM has put into the campaign enough that they will reflect it in their character.