Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[librarius_arcana]

You are quite agressive in your posts.

No honestly it was an innocent question,

what was it you are after Role or board game, if board gaming it doesn't really matter as in board gaming you just try to squeeze every point of advantage you can from the system,

nothing suffers for it

 

[shilsen]

I think we've already established the basic reason why min/maxing is viewed as bad: because it's a particular play style which doesn't suit some people. Almost anything beyond that will be even more subjective.

For me personally, I'm fine with a reasonable amount of min/maxing. I define "reasonable" almost purely on the basis of the group. If one PC is min/maxed to a degree that he overshadows the others and/or requires me to use things to challenge him that would destroy the other characters, then it's too much. As my players will probably vouch, I run a very tight ship as far as what's allowed or not (I run a "mostly core rules" game), but I also work with them so that they have powerful, mechanically strong, well-constructed PCs. And we have a roleplaying-heavy, character-driven game where we've never had balance problems in-game. In short, I think min/maxing is just fine, within reason. And I can judge "reason" to a nicety in my game, which is as much as any DM can hope to do, I think.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Min/Maxing and Munchkinism are not the same thing. You're suggesting the OP posited something that he didn't.

Explain to me the term "Munchkin" as in use by gamers

 

[Goblyn]

Min/Maxing and Munchkinism are not the same thing. You're suggesting the OP posited something that he didn't.

I think, though, that is exactly the 'problem' with min/maxing(which, from now on, I would like to type as mm). It's associated with this very nebulous 'munchkin' term which has various different meanings, all of which are negative for those who understand it to mean them.

What is a munchkin? Someone who wrecks the game for others. How? That's the variance. MM is one of them.

 

[FireLance]

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

This reminds me of the "fun" versus "story" thread we had a while back. There is a similar conflict here that I believe fuels much of the dislike for min/maxing: "character optimization" versus "story".

Just as with "fun" and "story", it is possible to run a game where "character optimization" and "story" do not conflict. This happens in several narratives where the hero gains some special ability, finds some powerful item, or just happens to have the right mix of skills to overcome the challenges he faces.

Of course, there will be games where the two do come into conflict. In those cases, players who favor "story" get annoyed that the min/maxers prefer "character optimization" instead.

On the other hand, from the min/maxers' perspective, choosing "character optimization" will result in a better "story" for them. Namely, one in which they utterly crush the opposition with their finely-tuned characters . So, maybe it's not so much a conflict between "character optimization" and "story" but a conflict between preferences for different types of "story".

 

[librarius_arcana]

This reminds me of the "fun" versus "story" thread we had a while back. There is a similar conflict here that I believe fuels much of the dislike for min/maxing: "character optimization" versus "story".

Just as with "fun" and "story", it is possible to run a game where "character optimization" and "story" do not conflict. This happens in several narratives where the hero gains some special ability, finds some powerful item, or just happens to have the right mix of skills to overcome the challenges he faces.

Of course, there will be games where the two do come into conflict. In those cases, players who favor "story" get annoyed that the min/maxers prefer "character optimization" instead.

On the other hand, from the min/maxers' perspective, choosing "character optimization" will result in a better "story" for them. Namely, one in which they utterly crush the opposition with their finely-tuned characters . So, maybe it's not so much a conflict between "character optimization" and "story" but a conflict between preferences for different types of "story".

I don't have a problem with that,

But I believe that it's Good Roleplaying for a player to sacrifices their system advantage for the sake of character

rather than sacrifice character for system advantage

 

[Felon]

No completey wrong, I can see where you're coming from, but you can't see mean, can you?

You shouldn't judge something you don't understand

I know what a "munchkin" is,

but the point was do you,

Once again, instead of providing anything substantial to advocate your position, you simply cop a smug, derisive attitude without demonstrating any erudition back it up.

If you have any rational arguements to support your belief that the emphasis of an RPG should be away from combat and dice-rolling, then by all means share it with us. You haven't as yet, you've merely asserted your belief as the correct one and insulted anyone who actually expects you to explain yourself.

The point many of us has tried to get across to you is that the term "munchkin" doesn't need to be understood, because it's just a hogwash, narrow-minded term.

 

[Felon]

But I believe that it's Good Roleplaying for a player to sacrifices their system advantage for the sake of character

The one has nothing to do with the other. A character's STR score, be it low or high, doesn't have anything to do with that player's role-playing ability.

 

[FireLance]

A roleplaying game should be about roles, the character, am I correct?
or is this my misunderstanding of years and years of roleplaying?

Roll players on the other hand have little to non at all desire to play a "Role"
but rather simply roll the dice for the sake of the system,

where is the "Role" in that form of play?

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.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Once again, instead of providing anything substantial to advocate your position, you simply cop a smug, derisive attitude without demonstrating any erudition back it up.

Again assumption, assumption, assumption, and rather negative assumption at that

If you have any rational arguements to support your belief that the emphasis of an RPG should be away from combat and dice-rolling, then by all means share it with us. You haven't as yet, you've merely asserted your belief as the correct one and insulted anyone who actually expects you to explain yourself.

The point many of us has tried to get across to you is that the term "munchkin" doesn't need to be understood, because it's just a hogwash elitist term.

LoL QED

Please reread what I have already written in other posts, if you still don't understand it would be pointless to try, as you would think I was repeating myself, and you would be non the wiser