Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[OstogVin]

if I was looking for jelly been that would be okay, but if expecting baked beens, not so good

But black beans, brown beans or refried beans would be okay? The kind of beans you want is not necessarily the kind I want.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Yes. The fact that it is a cliche means nothing about if the statement is valid or not. A cliche can be good or bad. It can be neither or be both good and bad at the same time.

Now you seem to "get it" so why focus on it being a cliche?,

does it matter one way or other, it only matters if it's true

I had replied to the impression that I had gotten that you thought that a cliche was inherently not true and a bad thing. If I was mistaken then I appologise.

I was attempting to point out why being cliche was not in and of itself a bad thing. It COULD be a bad thing but being cliche does not guarentee it IS a bad thing. Like my views of min-maxing.

Actually - I think your question highlights the entire problem with threads like this one. People misunderstanding others and using different definitions of the same term(s). I gave my definitions of Min-Maxer/Powergamer/Munchkin. What are some others? Before we can answer "if/why min-maxing is bad" we need to know what min-maxing is and hopefully quickly before the thread gets closed. So to try and get better ideas of others definitions I have some questions (for pretty much everyone):

Is having your cleric having really powerful turn-undead stats in an undead-heavy campaign min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is having your character have high spot/listen scores because your DM/GM likes ambushes min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is raising your combat ability because you know that is your weak point and it caused you problems in the last few sessions min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is munchkining even a word?

 

[Odhanan]

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

It's your misunderstanding indeed.

For any of the points of "min/maxing is bad because it is against role-playing" to be valid, you first have to demonstrate that min/maxing impedes role-playing. In my experience, that's said a lot but isn't true. I know people who min/max and play great role-playing moments, and I know people who care for the actual role-playing only and just suck at it.

Then, if you demonstrate this, you then have to justify your statement that role-playing is all that matters or the main thing that matters or should matter in a role-playing game. Otherwise than just using the name of the hobby (i.e. "it's a ROLE-playing game, isn't it?" does not prove anything whatsoever). You'll then find out that RPGs aren't all about role or game, even worse, they involve other components than these two as well.

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

That's a self fulfilling sentence, and a wrong one at that. That's like saying "Fishermen don't like to go to the park but rather fish instead, just for the sake of fishing something". ... WTF?!

 

[Rystil Arden]

Building a character who is different and not taking the obvious advantages say for example building a fighter who is very charismatic so you have a higher chrasima stat then stregth and you take a lot of cross class skills in things like diplomacy and the leadership feat is a very valid character and not as sub optimal as some would have you believe.

Ehhh, I don't know. In order to have enough skill points for "a lot of cross-class skills in things like Diplomacy", she's also going to need to have a high Int. In a Point Buy system, a Fighter who buys, say, 16 Charisma and 14 Int is doomed unless the Point Buy is very high.

 

[Felon]

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

I've read what you're written. Now I am explaining to you that you have not supported your assertion.

Case in point:

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

You state your belief. You say nothing to support it.

Please explain how mechanical disadvantages translate into good-roleplaying. A STR 8 fighter, a DEX 8 rogue, and INT wizard--how do these sacrifices in effectiveness constitute good-roleplaying?

I hope another "read my previous posts" cop-out is not forthcoming. Your previous posts didn't answer the question.

Imagine you were DM'ing Lord of the Rings as a campaign. How strongly do you agree with the following assertion: Aragorn, Legalos, and Gandalf are munchkins because they're outstanding at what they do. Meanwhile, Gimli and the hobbits are all commendable characters by dint of their physical shortcomings.

 

[Psion]

For any of the points of "min/maxing is bad because it is against role-playing" to be valid, you first have to demonstrate that min/maxing impedes role-playing. In my experience, that's said a lot but isn't true.

To circle back around to the point that I made a few posts ago and turn it loose into the ongoing thread midstream... it really depends on the extent of minmaxing.

There will come a point in any min/maxer's gaming experience when the time will come when they will have to make a decision between doing something that makes sense for their character in the context of the setting or ongoing campaign, or make their character better. If they make the choice to min/max more at that point, then indeed they have taken a step down that path to the dark side of min/maxing.

So again, it's a matter of degrees.

 

[Goblyn]

Is having your cleric having really powerful turn-undead stats in an undead-heavy campaign min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is having your character have high spot/listen scores because your DM/GM likes ambushes min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is raising your combat ability because you know that is your weak point and it caused you problems in the last few sessions min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is munchkining even a word?

I think these cases are cases of metagaming, which, while I may be destroying the thread here, is also not an inherently bad thing. Why? Because you're adventurers are doing what they do because they do it well. To fix electrical problems, you don't just go find a journeyman. You find an electrician. The more specialized and skilled eectrician the better. You don't care if he can do absolutely nothing else.

As for 'munchkining', I've no idea, though I used it however I think if it were there would be two n's: 'munchkinning'.

Oh, and: a cliche is simply a theme or idea that repeateadly comes up or gets used. Cliches are the thematic equivalent of stereotypes(PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong here).

 

[Goblyn]

Ehhh, I don't know. In order to have enough skill points for "a lot of cross-class skills in things like Diplomacy", she's also going to need to have a high Int. In a Point Buy system, a Fighter who buys, say, 16 Charisma and 14 Int is doomed unless the Point Buy is very high.

Or if the stat rolls ar good(same difference). But yeah. 'A lot' of cross-class skills for a fighter is '1 or more', I would think.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Like most things, its not 'either/or', it's a continuum.

On the one end you have the player that makes a one-legged, one-eyed pirate with max ranks in Profession (Sailor) for a desert-based game "because the character has personality".

On the other you have a player that combines 12 different splat books, 3 base classes and 4 prestige classes to create an uber undead slayer that wouldn't survive three minutes in a normal environment, and there is no remotely feasible in-game explanation for how that would all come about.

As a DM, I'd rather not have either. But if I had to pick, I'd take the former, because likely all he's going to do is regret his choices and ask to make a new character. The latter is going to be a constant pain in the ass. Encounters will have to be boosted to challenge him, which endagers the rest of the party. Every level-up is going to be an arguement about allowing some new potentially broken feat. He's going to irritate the rest of the players by telling them what to do in combat because they "aren't making smart decisions".

Then he'll get bored, too, and want to make a new character. Except whereas the first guy learns and moves a little towards the middle, the consummate min-maxer is never satisfied, needing ever higher doses of munchkinism to get his fix. Before you know it, he's demanding that he be allowed to make a half-dragon, half-troll with a Vow of Poverty. And at that point, you just basically have to put him down or kick him from the group.

Moderation in all things is key. If you entire group is composed of the same type, then you can get away with the extremes. But if you've got different players with different motivations for playing, the extreme min-maxer isn't worth the hassle. Fortunately, most people lie somewhere in the middle. Players with a sense of group responsibility and a modicum of maturity can adapt. Those with neither, I have no interest in playing with.

 

[Felon]

Now you seem to "get it" so why focus on it being a cliche?

Because your question asked whether or not is was a cliche.

does it matter one way or other, it only matters if it's true

But you haven't demonstrated that it's true. You have to present facts in order to be right. It's called critical thinking.

Your approach to a debate is to walk up to the podium, say "I think such-and-such is bad. I believe another things is much better than such-and-such. If you can't understand that, I guess it's pointless to discuss it further. Peace out" and then walk away.

Do that if you please. It doesn't make anyone else look foolish.