Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[morrolan]

I don't think min maxing is wrong or bad, just boring. As a GM (or even as another player) I just get bored knowing what feats and weapons a pc is going to take, just because they allow most power. Min-maxing tends to lead to cookie cutter characters, which is dull. Someone at the start of the thread mentioned Longbowmen, who focused their training and equipment to a specific goal, which is great. But I don't want to be one out of hundreds of identical longbowmen. They don't get their names recorded in the annals of immortal valor. I'd prefer to play someone unique, even if flawed.

Game systems encourage certain builds, which is fine. It just comes down to what you want out of the game. To me it's more fun for a party to not be able to take down a baddie, cos they're not optimised in a certain area, to have to come back and find another way to deal with the problem. But ymmv as they say.

It's the same with the Dribble clones. It's not bad to want to play a misunderstood dual scimitar wielding outcast elven ranger, especially if your excited cos you just read the books and thought he was a cool character. It's just it's the 783rd time everyone else has see one, so the bloom is off the rose, so to speak.

 

[ThirdWizard]

As for the "proper roleplayers sacrifice character efficiency for story!" argument.. Why? Why would a less efficient character enhance the story in any way? Sure, playing a one-legged fighter -can- be fun, but so can be playing a two-legged one.

I have my own answer to this one.

Because its martyrdom. It's proof of your values, a sacrifice you are making to show how devoted to anti-munkinism/powergaming/min-maxing/etc you actually are. If you're willing to make a Fighter with an 8 Str and 16 Cha, all ranks in diplomacy, and who fights with his fists, regardless of how well you actually roleplay the character you are showing that you value "roleplaying" more heavily than combat, regardless of your ability to do either one. It shows where your priorities are, and you can hold that up as a torch to your beliefs and what you're willing to sacrifice for them.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Folks,

Things in this thread ar going furiously fast. I am perhaps going to have to make this explicit - please keep your comments focused upon the stated position, rather than the person of poster. If you make things personal here, folks are going to start getting offended quickly, and that won't be good for the discussion.

My apologies, Umbran. I was intending to comment upon the other poster's stated position: Namely, that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to play. I'll edit the offending post to clarify that.

 

[DM-Rocco]

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')

IMXP, one attempting to make one's character be adept at too many things leads to said character being mediocre and thus unsuccessful at those same things.

OK, so tell me if this is post sensical enough, or it seems I am off-base or missing something;

Why is it seen as bad?

Interesting topic.

I would like to comment before I read others opinions so as not to bias my answer.

If you think about it, it is not a bad thing. If you are good at something, why shouldn't you be the best at it. If you are a spell caster, would you take a 12 in your prime spell casting ability? Of course not, why? Mainly because, if you plan on casting spells beyond 2nd level spells, then you need a higher score. This is not the days of AD&D when you could cast just about any spell with a 13 or higher score. Heck, back in the day, Raistlin only had a 17 INT, but as a 26th level black wizard he would not be able to cast 8th and 9th + level spells by todays standards.

If you were a spell caster, would you take anything less than 4 ranks in conentration at first level? Would you take anything less than 4 ranks in spell craft? If you do then you are a min/maxer, if you don't then you are not only not a min/maxer but you really are stupid or ignorant of the game as there is nothiong else in the list of skills that a spellcaster must have ranks in in order to be efficient.

From my prespective, you need to min/max your character because if you don't, you have a lesser chance of survival and first and foremost, in game as in life, living is what it is all about. When you go to school, do you study art as a major if you are going to be a laywer? Maybe if you are going to be an art laywer, but you certainly would put most of your credits in it.

Man, err, okay, women too, have a basic primal instict to survive and they will do that every time. Whether it is in a game or life, you will find yourself min/maxing all the time. Ever drive around a few blocks to find a better price on gas? Then you are min/maxing. Ever ask around on where is a good place to get good pizza? Then you are min/maxing. Ever date one person and then decide that it is not working out the way you would like or cheat on them or any other of a thousand senerios that could take? Then you are min/maxing.

In D&D it is not a bad thing to want the best for your character, just like in Monopoly you obviously want all the propoerties, including the elusive Park Place and Board Walk. Now, that said, a game that has Monty Haul aspects to it, is no fun, trust me on that, but that doesn't mean that a 1st level wizard with a 18 INT and max ranks in spellcraft and concentration and spell focus evocation is a wrong design. What would you prefer? 14 INT, no ranks in spellcraft and concentration and skill focus craft (basket weaving)? That would fall under the stupid or ignorant catagory I refered to earlier. Just cause you got good stats and a well thought out plan for how you want your character to progress doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game as someone who is more into role-playing and has a "lessor" character concept.

It is the way people, all people, are programmed. Watch out for those that think min/maxing is bad, cause they are the ones trying to sell you the Brooklyn bridge or swamp property in Floridia.

In the end, does it really matter if someone has a well thought out plan for their character. If it makes them happy, and it doesn't ruin your basket weaving career, does it really matter if his spell resist DC is 1 or 2 higher than yours?

 

[Barak]

I don't think min maxing is wrong or bad, just boring. As a GM (or even as another player) I just get bored knowing what feats and weapons a pc is going to take, just because they allow most power. Min-maxing tends to lead to cookie cutter characters, which is dull. Someone at the start of the thread mentioned Longbowmen, who focused their training and equipment to a specific goal, which is great. But I don't want to be one out of hundreds of identical longbowmen. They don't get their names recorded in the annals of immortal valor. I'd prefer to play someone unique, even if flawed.

Game systems encourage certain builds, which is fine. It just comes down to what you want out of the game. To me it's more fun for a party to not be able to take down a baddie, cos they're not optimised in a certain area, to have to come back and find another way to deal with the problem. But ymmv as they say.

It's the same with the Dribble clones. It's not bad to want to play a misunderstood dual scimitar wielding outcast elven ranger, especially if your excited cos you just read the books and thought he was a cool character. It's just it's the 783rd time everyone else has see one, so the bloom is off the rose, so to speak.

That argument is a tad flawed, to my mind. There isn't "one ultimate build". The game is balanced enough to accomodate a lot of different characters that are built optimally, or semi-optimally. As for the..

But I don't want to be one out of hundreds of identical longbowmen. They don't get their names recorded in the annals of immortal valor. I'd prefer to play someone unique, even if flawed.

But who gets their name recorded? Robin Hood was a masterful archer. Conan was a optimized character. Rand Al-thor is actually a character created by a munchkin. You don't read stories about somewhat average characters that are middling about what they do. Characters that do make it in the annals of immortal valor -are- min/maxed. They also have character. One doesn't exclude the other.

 

[Psion]

That argument is a tad flawed, to my mind. There isn't "one ultimate build".

Indeed. There are many wincingly bad (inappropraite or unbalanced) builds for a variety of situations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It should be noted that the class system itself is a form of min/maxing. I'm good at fighting, you're good at healing, and Bob over there sneaks around.

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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).

Interesting. Your definition definitely differs from mine, since I see the members of my group as Powegamers most the time, and they are quite willing to accept hours of roleplaying, mistery, social-interaction and so on. But we defnitely enjoy it when we go back to killing our enemies and taking their stuff, too.

 

[morrolan]

That argument is a tad flawed, to my mind. There isn't "one ultimate build". The game is balanced enough to accomodate a lot of different characters that are built optimally, or semi-optimally.

No there is not "one ultimate build", but instead a series of well trod paths. Sure there are say different fighter specs you could follow, but not many fighters would choose to take say a skill focus or even quick draw over maybe great cleave etc. And most of the Dribble clones finesse fighters are going to take the chain of two weapon fighting feats over something maybe less tangible but more uncommon and interesting. The system rewards them for taking those feats by being more effective in combat, thus getting xp and gear more easily etc. That's the way a lot of people play, and how they judge whether they are "winning" at the game, but the same could be said if you played a diplomacy heavy game. You can min-max for that too, and what might be regarded as an "ultimate" build changes.

Notice, I say there's nothing wrong with that, it just bores me. YMMV. But I always had a fondness for those gimpy WHFRP characters who started out with a crappy background and had to duck, run, scheme and scrabble to survive, and maybe croak in spite of it. It's just what you find fun.

You don't read stories about somewhat average characters that are middling about what they do.

Death of a Salesman, anyone? Ulysses (L. Bloom I mean, not the greek dude)? Tony Soprano maybe? Frodo?

Characters that do make it in the annals of immortal valor -are- min/maxed. They also have character. One doesn't exclude the other.

I think some of the characters you mention are actually Max/Maxed Rand does it all. I only read a few books intothat series before I got bored with it. Maybe I just have a short attention span!

Min- maxed characters are by defenition one dimensional. they do a certain thing well to the exclusion of others, right? Which doesn't mean they can't have character, but in a novel you have greater leeway to explore that than in a game. And frankly, I've seen a lot more people define characters based on class/weaponry/skillset than on any kind of "novelistic" development. Which is not to say you can't do it, im sure there are better gamers than I out there who can do both. I just don't see it a lot.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Because we roleplayer should be enlighted people that are more concerned about motivation of people and interaction with each other than about numbers?

Ah, but as a person, my motivation is deeply rooted in numerical applications! Thus, I strive for interactions as a means to determine what extent of statistical superiority my characters possess versus those of characters I'm interacting with!