librarius_arcana
First Post
Felon said:
Needless to say, but you are missing the point
Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?
- Thread starter Goblyn
- Start date
Needless to say, but you are missing the point
Goblyn
Explorer
librarius_arcana said:
I see your position seems to be summed up quite nicely here, and there's nothing wrong with this opinion. In fact, it is also mine.
However, MM, as I see it, is not sacrificing character for system advantage, it's sacrificing one system advantage for another. Optimization, and/or munchkinizing(is that a word?) would be, I think, sacrificing character for system advantage.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
librarius_arcana said:
To be honest, I don't believe there is any correctness to roleplaying. Some people like myself really enjoy both aspects of the game and so I obviously don't see them as mutually exclusive. This is why I'm not really getting your point. I'd prefer to enjoy both rather than exclude one for the sake of the other.
If you're saying what the game "should" be about, then I think you're treading on dangerous ground. Your opinion is obviously valid. Surely though you can see that this is just an opinion and not fact, no matter how forcefully you express it?
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Nac_Mac_Feegle
First Post
A munchkin will use any and all advantages, usually conveniently "forgetting" some disadvantages, a munchkin=powergamer
Why is min/maxing munchkinism?
I roll a 12 and an 18, I envisage playing a warrior, do I go 18 str, 12 int, or 12 str, 18 int?
Sure I can play the hyper smart fighter, but looking at the skill list, whats the piont. At the end of the day, my job as warrior is to be on the front line dealing and taking damage. The 18 in strength makes sense, pure and simple.
Its playing to your strengths.
As for metagaming, the instant you lok in the PHB your metagaming. You have a system, you build a character based on the options. Is it assumed I cannot roleplay a warrior because I maxed his strength and constitution, while letting his intelligence and charisma fall to the way side? I dont tihnk so.
Stats and skill help define a character in a "role" play environment, how good looking he is, how big he is, is he imposing, does he have a low slung forehead and drag his knuckles? all these are helped by his stats and skills. Likewise they have a very real bearing on his "roll" play. How hard he hits, how much damage he can take, how NPC's interact with him.
Thing is, the DMG & PHB give you everything you need to "roleplay" and "rollplay" and its up to your individual group to decide how best you want to play.
I plan my character out 20 levels in advance, I tend to play characters with a focus, a skill set or build I want to try, does it matter where the campaign leads? I might change my focus depending on the campaign, but certain groups play certain ways, there the high espionage and political intrigue, and then theres the dungeon delving mob killing, steal of the gold from the minorities games. You know how your group tends to play, so any character you take is going to be geared towards that 90% of the time, even if you dont know it.
I am not going to take a spy or nobleman agent, because our campaigns revolve around saving the day from the BBEG, so I can plan my character ahead of time, because whatever base class I pick, by 20th level, he is going to be an extension of that, be it melee, stealth, magic or support, thats who the character is at concept, and 90% of the time, thats who he is at the end, albiet with a little bit more versatility.
If you want rules lite, you ignore some rules, drop feats, let people know in advance thats AoO's and other stuff dont matter, and "roleplay" your hearts out, or if you love combat, tell your guys, and "rollplay" your hearts out.
Either way is viable, the rules do not tell you how to play, they are a guildine on how to play, but only you at your table can decide how best to use the rules.
Thinking you have some sort of right to actually tell poeple thier gaming style is wrong is vanity at best, downright bigotry at worst. You dont like someone elses play style? fine, no one is forcing you to, so accept people are different the world over, and be happy your gaming group plays to your "gaming" strengths. In fact, if your gaming group does play to the style you like and are good at, arent you min/maxing your playstyle?
Feegle Out
Why is min/maxing munchkinism?
I roll a 12 and an 18, I envisage playing a warrior, do I go 18 str, 12 int, or 12 str, 18 int?
Sure I can play the hyper smart fighter, but looking at the skill list, whats the piont. At the end of the day, my job as warrior is to be on the front line dealing and taking damage. The 18 in strength makes sense, pure and simple.
Its playing to your strengths.
As for metagaming, the instant you lok in the PHB your metagaming. You have a system, you build a character based on the options. Is it assumed I cannot roleplay a warrior because I maxed his strength and constitution, while letting his intelligence and charisma fall to the way side? I dont tihnk so.
Stats and skill help define a character in a "role" play environment, how good looking he is, how big he is, is he imposing, does he have a low slung forehead and drag his knuckles? all these are helped by his stats and skills. Likewise they have a very real bearing on his "roll" play. How hard he hits, how much damage he can take, how NPC's interact with him.
Thing is, the DMG & PHB give you everything you need to "roleplay" and "rollplay" and its up to your individual group to decide how best you want to play.
I plan my character out 20 levels in advance, I tend to play characters with a focus, a skill set or build I want to try, does it matter where the campaign leads? I might change my focus depending on the campaign, but certain groups play certain ways, there the high espionage and political intrigue, and then theres the dungeon delving mob killing, steal of the gold from the minorities games. You know how your group tends to play, so any character you take is going to be geared towards that 90% of the time, even if you dont know it.
I am not going to take a spy or nobleman agent, because our campaigns revolve around saving the day from the BBEG, so I can plan my character ahead of time, because whatever base class I pick, by 20th level, he is going to be an extension of that, be it melee, stealth, magic or support, thats who the character is at concept, and 90% of the time, thats who he is at the end, albiet with a little bit more versatility.
If you want rules lite, you ignore some rules, drop feats, let people know in advance thats AoO's and other stuff dont matter, and "roleplay" your hearts out, or if you love combat, tell your guys, and "rollplay" your hearts out.
Either way is viable, the rules do not tell you how to play, they are a guildine on how to play, but only you at your table can decide how best to use the rules.
Thinking you have some sort of right to actually tell poeple thier gaming style is wrong is vanity at best, downright bigotry at worst. You dont like someone elses play style? fine, no one is forcing you to, so accept people are different the world over, and be happy your gaming group plays to your "gaming" strengths. In fact, if your gaming group does play to the style you like and are good at, arent you min/maxing your playstyle?
Feegle Out
librarius_arcana
First Post
FireLance said:Well, most of us can't cast spells, rage, smite evil, sneak attack, or use bardic music in real life. So, for some players, controlling a character who can within the framework of an imagined world is "role" enough for them. Especially if they also decide that he's a driven over-achiever that works hard to gain any and every advantage possible.
But it's not really a "Role" anymore if you are just playing the system, for the systems sake,
librarius_arcana
First Post
Goblyn said:
yeah thats what I mean "sacrificing character for system advantage" but thats bad within a game about "Roles" ie Characters
librarius_arcana
First Post
Herremann the Wise said:
Thats fine, but the game in question is meant to be a "Role" playing game,
Presto2112
Explorer
DragonLancer said:
If you never saw min-maxing in previous editions then you weren't looking hard enough.
Similar Threads
