Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Barak]

Are you hitting on me? This isn't MySpace!

Darn it! While I have a wife, I'm always looking for a bit on the side! And that's not min/maxing, since it shortens my lifespan.

I don't see a trope as being any easier, really. If it is it's negligible. Is coming up with base stats that distracting to deciding on character? And what is a trope if not a stereotype?

As regards my herbalist, yes some other stats may suit him, but I was just pulling an example out of my butt. My point is that the player had a story and personality worked out, and made his character to fit that mould, even if it was "inefficient". That seems more sensible to me than coming up with a cool story and draping it over a preset munchkin build.

Take it a bit further. Lets say my herbalist/fighter makes it to Metropolis and as reward for saving the village of Dunghill gets a choice of commission in the Imperial Army, or a scholarship to Hogwarts to study alchemy. Following his childhood dream, he decides to study Alchemy, from whence he begins an illustrious career as a wizard. From a min/max perspective he's farked. At the end of his career, he's got a basically useless fighter level which will stop him being the wizardly equal of the other lvl 20's. But it reflects where he's been, helps tell his story.

And really, if you maintain that stats do not affect the roleplaying aspect of the character, than I can generate as many backstories for my gimpy fighter as for your trope-y one.

You're right D&D does favor specialization, if only in a game mechanics sense. You are looking at it as a success/fail proposition. The pleasure in telling a story, if you enjoy that and not just the tactical game, is not dependent on success or failure. And as a gm noone has me shackled to an arbitrary DC/CR system. If I know my party is less than "optimal" I can adjust accordingly, or give non standard means to accomplish goals.

Edited for missing sentence!

Granted. And I've played such characters, too! But that doesn't mean that a min/maxed character can't be just as full of story, which is sorta the whole point.

 

[billd91]

Min-maxing, in-depth role playing, munchkinning, community theater reject acting, heavy intrigue, railroading story, open plots, and beer-and-pretzels gaming are all different styles perfectly acceptible and equally legit as far as I'm concerned. The main trouble only starts when people emphasize one of these styles in contrast to the rest of their fellow players, other than that, they're all golden and fun ways to play.
I don't see much point in whizzing on someone else's play style just because I don't favor it.

 

[Hussar]

(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.

Again, QFT. Well said!

As far as min/maxing in 2e, well, all I can say is, I only ever saw two weapon fighters after the Complete Fighter hit the streets. Why not? Double your strength bonus, with penalties offset by a dex bonus and a couple of NWP's. Nothing like being able to deal out 50 points of damage at 1st level.

 

[woodelf]

Alright, before I begin the tirade, I'd like to clarify what I am understanding min/maxing to be:

minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another. 'Area' in this case means either combat, socializing, spellcasting; things like that.

Why the hate for it? Is it not good to be good at one thing and bad at another? To be good at everything is to be powergaming(right?) and to be bad at everything is to be a bard(fecetiousness here. replace 'bard' with 'useless')

Two specific situations that i think are generally seen as bad, rather than the general case you describe:

• Taking a penalty in an area that never gets used in the game in order to get a benefit in an area that gets used all the time. The wizard who takes a limitation that she can't wear armor (as opposed to the default situation of it being a very bad idea, because of the penalties), in return for increasing her spellcasting. Thus, she gives up nothing (she wasn't going to wear armor anyway), and gains something.
• Breaking role in order to maximize power. Most often demonstrated by dipping a level of a class whose flavor is anathema to the character's flavor.

The first i only rarely worry about--if it's an issue, i make sure the character ends up in a situtaion where the penalty actually matters. The second is, to me, a bigger deal. But mostly the problem is the classes with too much flavor attached, combined with abilities that can only be gained through those classes. Classes that are purely functionalist, and/or more abilities as feats/skills, so that you don't have to take a class to take them, solves this problem--which seems to show up less in purely skill-based systems.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I am not really a min/maxer in the sense that I dont plan my character a lot. I am happy as long as I am effective in the group.

 

[Numion]

I think that the difference between a min/maxer and a munchkin is the following:

A min/maxer chooses a greatsword for his weapon, after calculating it to yield greatest damage quotient.

A munchkin wants two greatswords hinged together, to use them scissor-style.

Min/maxers operate within rules. Munchkins slip anything they can under the DMs radar. Scissorswords, triple-wielding with juggling skill, etc..