Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Goblyn]

I feel the need to assist a fellow poster who gave a great link.
I read the rant a few years ago, and rereading it now makes me think it can be called a "Evergreen".

Maybe I should write a letter:

It could be made a sticky on the boards. Maybe that wouldn't be much, but it would be more.

 

[DragonLancer]

If you never saw min-maxing in previous editions then you weren't looking hard enough.

A couple instances from the 2nd ed Complete Guides and thats it. I played 2nd edition a hell of a lot, and compared to 3.X any min-maxing was non-existent. It never impacted the game to the level that it does now.

 

[Crothian]

A couple instances from the 2nd ed Complete Guides and thats it. I played 2nd edition a hell of a lot, and compared to 3.X any min-maxing was non-existent. It never impacted the game to the level that it does now.

The kits of second edition were very easy to min max and that is where I saw most of it then. I am not sure how to judge the impact it has had on editions though.

 

[Turjan]

Just a comment regarding the term "roll-playing games", and why it doesn't make sense:

Nearly all roleplaying games I know are implicitly "roll-playing games". There are very few RPGs that don't use dice rolls for task resolution, like Amber or Everway, and a few others use methods similar to dice (like cards (Everway also uses cards, but in a less decisive way)). Games like D&D are based on the rolling of dice for most of their actions. The bulk of the rulebooks solely deals with how to adjucate numbers that modify your dice rolls, and these are hundreds of pages. Calling the game or a playing style "roll-playing" doesn't add a single bit to the discussion. Of course, D&D is a "roll-playing game". It's a statement that is so banal that it's basically meaningless.

The roleplaying aspect is just put on top of this. This aspect is enjoyable for most D&D players, I suppose, though not for all.

Regarding munchkinism, it's mostly a problem of distribution within a group. A group of all munchkins will play wonderfully together; the DM just has to adjust the power level of the campaign. A group of lots of players without any sense of making mechanically "optimal" characters will also go well together; again, the DM has to adjust power levels of the enemies. Problems arise in mixed groups. This seldom ends well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A couple instances from the 2nd ed Complete Guides and thats it. I played 2nd edition a hell of a lot, and compared to 3.X any min-maxing was non-existent. It never impacted the game to the level that it does now.

I wonder if this is your personal experience or just an observation from all the talk on Internet Boards?
(I have only 3.x experiences, and they were all with the same group. I can say that the situation hasn't changed here, and if I look on how we play our rare Torg, Shadowrun or Warhammer adventures, I think our powergaming style is not limited to 3.x)

If it is not from personal game experience, I think the Internet might skew perspectives.
People with similar interests gather on boards like this one.

Rules forum (like one of the probably mostly frequented forums on this board) are all about the rules, and character realisiation or optimisation is a part of that. Rules Forums are probably also very frequented because rules aren't always easy to understand, and you can get somewhat reliable answers from more experienced players on such a forum.

I must admit I have never read any of the Story Hours, but I wouldn't be suprised that, if I concentrated my readings on that, I would belive all roleplayers are storytellers and love engaging in long narratives or dialogues, or solving complex riddles.

I notice that their also constantly coming up threads on Alignment Issues, which might indicate that a lot of people are not only concered about character optimisation, but also on roleplaying (what does it mean to be a lawful good character? Would a Chaotic Neutral character do this?) I think that might be "thespian" (If I may borrow that word from gizmo33) equivalent of munchkinismn.

In other words, the Internet (figuratively) gives people a forum where they can discuss their interest.
Before the Internet was as widespread as it is now, Min/Maxers and thespians were basically isolated from many likeminded.
But the Internet now gave both sides a room where to gather and chat about their hobby.
But: A thespian might not be as focussed on a single system as others. He might also care more about forums and sites that concentrate on storytelling aspects like a forum on literature and/or cinema. Min/Maxer has no alternatives, his hobby will always be related to the specifics of a game sytem. So, you naturally see more Min/Maxers on a D&D board than thespians, despite both being as common as ever.

 

[LostSoul]

Min-maxing is bad because there's only one right way to play RPGs.

If you don't play that way (and that way ain't min-maxing), then you're playing wrong. Even if you are having fun and enjoying yourself.

Because we all know that the real goal of the game isn't to have fun, but to conform to someone else's idea of what's good.

 

[The Shaman]

Gimped characters annoy me. So do characters that are hammers searching for nails to drive.

Optimize with regard for the party and the setting, and I'm cool. Optimize without regard for the big picture, and we'll cross at some point.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

No, no, it is not fine. You are having bad, wrong fun and should have your gaming license revoked.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad wrong fun, mmmmmm, yummy.

Like...Brains.

 

[Aus_Snow]

librarius_arcana:

I'll second Psion's recommendation (re: roll vs. role). And, on a free-to-leave-it basis, I'll add that the information and advice he has given you is totally sound.

Unless of course you are just trolling in some extraordinary fashion. In which case, never mind.

 

[Greg K]

Where I am coming from:

Min-Maxer: A player that centers, stat-wise, in one area of the character (combat, social, spell save DCs, etc.) to the detriment of other areas of the character. Not inherently a bad thing.

Powergamer: Almost the exact same thing as a min-maxer though almost exclusively referring to the players that min-max for combat. Not inherently a bad thing.

Munchkin: A min-maxer (usually a powergamer) that 'powers-up' his character that bends or breaks the rules of the game. The really annoying ones being players being ones that find loopholes in the ruleset that allows them the benefits that, while obviously going against the spirit of the rules, do not actually break the rules thus requireing DM/GM intervention to 'block the combo'. Inherently a bad thing.

As players in different regions and group have differing definitions, there naturally will be some differences. However, the above are pretty close to the definitions that the people I have played with over the years, but we would add the following to the power gamer

Powergamer: as you wrote, but also the power gamer cares not for rp, but for power and loot. Not a bad thing for kick in the door dungeon crawl type games. However n a campaign that includes plenty of role, powergamers become a problem, because when the other players are roleplaying (social interaction, mystery games, etc.) the powergamer either refuse to take part, sulk, whine/demand that the gm and players skip over or handwave the rp stuff so that he or she can get on with killing things or tries to kill whomever the rp'ers are trying to interact with socially (It is this addition that seperates the powergamer from a min/maxer among the people with whom I have played. Hence, we consider it to be possible to minimax/optimize for combat without being a powergamer).

There isn't anything wrong with min-maxing as long as they don't bend/break the rules. There is nothing wrong with having a half-orc barabarian that crushes skulls to the best of his ability. There may be something wrong with a druid that worships a specific deity in order to be able to wear a certain type of armor and being a certain race for X benefit when said race usually doesn't worship said deity (depends on backstory and campaign - it could be a munchkin or it could be really cool set-up for the DM to have fun with).

Actually, depending on the group, min-maxing can be a problem depending on the extent of min-maxing. In some groups, minimaxing would be a problem for the following reasons:

1. Allocation of starting skill points that does not reflect the character's background and/or the cultures of the GM's setting. For example, you want the to be a particular class which can only be found among a certain herding culture and then fail to take at least one rank in handle animal.

2. Upon leveling
a. rather than allocating points to cross-class skills that the character had the chance to develop, the player either spends the points on class skills that the character has not used in adventures over the past level or on a skill that the player had no chance to learn.

b. multiclassing when there has been nobody available to train you in the new class.

c. Taking a PrC, because it was part of the player's planned build despite the party having chosen to spend their time adventuring in another part of the setting where the PrC does not exist.