Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Doctor Shaft]

Whether Min/Maxing is good or bad is moot point without establishing what kind of "game" you are playing in the first place, and I"m surprised that so many posts in this thread completely ignored that facet. We can complain until we're blue in the face, all day long, about whether min/maxing sucks or not, but it makes absolutely no sense unless we define what type of "game" we are playing.

There is nothing wrong with min/maxing, in and of itself. By itself, min/maxing is just that... specialization. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's the context in which it is used.


As a player, I min/max constantly. I want my character to be good at what he does. However, I'm not a complete combat freak, so I like to make my character "good" at a variety of things, rather than just being the "best swordsman in the world." I want a character that is smart, at least somewhat charismatic, and capable of doing other skills beyond "Strike the tree... hard."

I also like to play games that make use of these different facets. The minute I encounter a game where its clear that my BAB is an issue 90% of the time, as opposed to just 80 or 70, then I'm out. I like games that make use of balance checks, jumping skills, the ability to hide, and other facets that seem to be of little or no issue in a lot of games that I hear about on forums.

Still, it depends on the game type being played.

So long as the DM establishes the rules for "how the game shall be played," then there is no powergamer or munchkin. If you establish how the class system, the alignment system, the magic system, and the rewards system works in your games, then there is no problem. If you make it clear that powergaming won't reward you with more xp, more kills, and more magic items, then there is no problem. Establish the atmosphere for your game before you play, and there is no problem or even question about "good or bad."

The only reason Min/Maxing is viewed as bad is because two groups of players, who play with radically different rule sets (not the D&D rulesets... the extra rules that they apply to their worlds, and are unfortunately left unspoken for some reason), see how each other plays, and can't fathom why they do so in that manner based on the D&D rules. But who gives a hooey about what the D&D rules say? I mean, yes, we use them because we know they are balanced and reliable in most instances, etc., but it's not life or death. If you think a guy should be able to take Improve Natural Attack, who cares in what form of legalese you use to PROVE that it's against the rules? Do you think Wizards had such an infallible insight as to whether IMA would break the game when monks started employing its usage? It's just unarmed attack. Wizards can nuke cities!

But enough of that. My viewpoint is this: Who cares if its bad or good. We're playing a game.

EDIT: Way too long of a post.

 

[Barak]

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.

My problem with this is the "more uncommon and interesting. While the uncommon part is self-evident, I don't get the interesting part. How is having "Skill Focus (diplomacy)" or "Quick Draw" more interesting than having "Power Attack"? My character's stats/feats/skills don't determine my character's personality, they determine what he can do. And if you play long enough -everything- is done to death stats-wise.

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

Here I'll be cheap and say "Exceptions that prove the rule"..

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.

I actually hesitated before including Rand, since I hated that serie after a few books as well. And the Max/Max comment is well-taken, but the point was that despite that, they -still- had a story going, and in most cases an interesting one. And they weren't one-legged farmers!

And I disagree that min-maxed characters have to be one-dimensional. As I said before, the numbers on the character sheet tell me what the character can do. The personality.. That's something else entirely, and is not bound by numbers. That's where the roleplaying comes in.

And sure, people define their characters on class/weapon/skillset, because that's the easy way that everyone who plays D&D can relate to. It's much easier to say "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!" than "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath (that's a merchant house in my DM's custom world) was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet (that's like, that really deserted territory) where he met the tribe of Caluther. What? Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs. Anyway. So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough. But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too! So.. Well, we fought, and I killed him."

 

[WayneLigon]

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')

Well, there was hate for it before 3E. It was seen as a way to purposefully unbalance the party through synergy effects and specific 'sweet spots' in the rules. (Dwarf with maxed CON using a belt of giant strength, gauntlets of ogre power and hammer of thunderbolts is the only one that comes to mind but there were others).

There was little in the Rules As Written to deal with the consequences of such things even though the RAW took pains to mention and spell out such combinations, so people thought they had to (1) come up with some cheesy way of getting rid of certain items (You teleport to safety. You didn't say differently so you all arrive naked, with no weapons or magic items), (2) initiate 'the arms race' (You see 66 trolls; they attack).

The fact that there was little in the way of quality GM advice didn't help matters much. I still see people trying to throw off the shackles of the adversarial GM approach. Pretty much the only advice given was to be overly stingy with magic items, not on how to actually manage a campaign's power level. You still see that attitude today, passed down like a poisoned fruit from GM to GM.

 

[Warbringer]

Throws a couple of pennies in to the hat ...

For me, min/maxing makes me wince.

A simple point:The game is about an inherent balance between challenge and ability. The appropriateness of the challenge is determined by the average ability of characters and their various power at any given level. I think that's why we have "levels" to establish appropriate power.

The key though is "average".

Min/maxing looks to change the balance by being "better than average". As a DM, for those players not min/maxing I have to strive to recreate balance for everyone in the party.

Just as I don;'t want 5th level players and 9th level players together, I don't want imbalance by taken advantage of the rules of the system.

No, if every one is min/maxed, in the immortal words of Messer Bush.. "Bring it on"

 

[Satori]

I've found that the best people to play with are a mixture of munchkin and roleplayer.

They build in-depth characters with complete personalities, backgrounds, and goals.

They design the mechanics around these characters to make sense with their concept and to better work within a team atmosphere.

An elven archer that maxes out dexterity and loads up on ranged feats while pursuing archer prestige classes is NOT a min-maxer or a munchkin. They are building their character to serve a specific purpose.

Without a bit of crunch to your otherwise complex, brooding, highly detailed character...what good are you to the group? Sure, you can spend hours detailing your tortured childhood or argue about the current politics of modern Thay...but will you survive when a horde of orcs attack?

There are only two types of PCs that NO ONE can stand...at least in my experience.

1. Game Breaker
-Ftr/Rgr/Barb/Cheezit/google/furby/soccerball of doom. You have more prestige classes than fingers, and you've found a way to cast every single spell persistent while maintaining full fighter BAB, immunity to everything, and the ability to mimic any class feature written in a WotC book. You're name is something generic like "Bob the Destroyer", and your background consists of "Pure Awesomeness". Your character description says, "Imagine a mixture of terminator, Highlander, and the Superbowl", and you put "Maximum Cool" in your personality block.

One strike kills everything the DM throws at you, and you grow bored and fall asleep if anyone tries to roleplay. In you're mind, DnD is a video game without cool graphics, and you're determined to unlock "God Mode".

2. The Fluff Monster
-You're the guy that creates a pixie frenzied berzerker with a tiny two handed sword, or a wizard with an intelligence of 8. You get frustrated when you can't talk your way out of combat, or when you have to be bothered to roll a dice. You want to be the guy that talks to everyone...everywhere...in every situation. You often stop the game for an hour at a time so you can unleash a heart wrenching solo about your experience in the poorest part of Waterdeep. You're known to burst into tears for no apparent reason at all...and when asked, you reply...in character..."I don't want to talk about it."

You consider the other players to be less artistic than you...and you scoff at anything bearing a statistic. You seem to forget that you'd be dead several campaigns ago if these players didn't continually waste all their healing spells on "Valexius Von Vudervador", your midgit Troll Paladin that secretly wants to become a Bard...and so refuses to wear armor or use heavy weapons. You're a burden to the party, an attention hog, and you view DnD as an informal Drama group...for which you are obviously the lead actor.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Is that the only way it can be played?
Is it the only way it should be played?
Is defining a role playing game so narrowly missing out on half the fun?
Are you dismissing a whole heap of players out there because they don't share your focused view?

I think we will have to agree to disagree which is a shame. I think you would enjoy playing at my table.

if I buy a can of beens, I expect "beens" to be in the tin,

To extend your analogy, you get beans in the tin but you also get sauce/juice/game mechanics or whatever happens to accompany the beans. As such, your analogy is glib at best.
What I'd prefer you to do is actually consider my questions above and answer them if able. The whole semantic thing of your "role" playing versus others "game" seems silly too. Both parts of the game that I like and enjoy are semantically represented here. I don't see why you're emphasising one and ignoring the other.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[DragonLancer]

I wonder if this is your personal experience or just an observation from all the talk on Internet Boards? .

Personal experience. I played 2nd edition from the time it was released until the release of 3.0

 

[Remathilis]

I've found that the best people to play with are a mixture of munchkin and roleplayer.

They build in-depth characters with complete personalities, backgrounds, and goals.

They design the mechanics around these characters to make sense with their concept and to better work within a team atmosphere.

An elven archer that maxes out dexterity and loads up on ranged feats while pursuing archer prestige classes is NOT a min-maxer or a munchkin. They are building their character to serve a specific purpose.

Without a bit of crunch to your otherwise complex, brooding, highly detailed character...what good are you to the group? Sure, you can spend hours detailing your tortured childhood or argue about the current politics of modern Thay...but will you survive when a horde of orcs attack?

There are only two types of PCs that NO ONE can stand...at least in my experience.

1. Game Breaker
-Ftr/Rgr/Barb/Cheezit/google/furby/soccerball of doom. You have more prestige classes than fingers, and you've found a way to cast every single spell persistent while maintaining full fighter BAB, immunity to everything, and the ability to mimic any class feature written in a WotC book. You're name is something generic like "Bob the Destroyer", and your background consists of "Pure Awesomeness". Your character description says, "Imagine a mixture of terminator, Highlander, and the Superbowl", and you put "Maximum Cool" in your personality block.

One strike kills everything the DM throws at you, and you grow bored and fall asleep if anyone tries to roleplay. In you're mind, DnD is a video game without cool graphics, and you're determined to unlock "God Mode".

2. The Fluff Monster
-You're the guy that creates a pixie frenzied berzerker with a tiny two handed sword, or a wizard with an intelligence of 8. You get frustrated when you can't talk your way out of combat, or when you have to be bothered to roll a dice. You want to be the guy that talks to everyone...everywhere...in every situation. You often stop the game for an hour at a time so you can unleash a heart wrenching solo about your experience in the poorest part of Waterdeep. You're known to burst into tears for no apparent reason at all...and when asked, you reply...in character..."I don't want to talk about it."

You consider the other players to be less artistic than you...and you scoff at anything bearing a statistic. You seem to forget that you'd be dead several campaigns ago if these players didn't continually waste all their healing spells on "Valexius Von Vudervador", your midgit Troll Paladin that secretly wants to become a Bard...and so refuses to wear armor or use heavy weapons. You're a burden to the party, an attention hog, and you view DnD as an informal Drama group...for which you are obviously the lead actor.

I've never said this to a person I've met on the internet, but I think I love you. Its... different this time...

 

[Agent Oracle]

hey folks: here's the core of the problem...
THere's the argument between powergaming, min/maxing, and munchkinisim.

The problem is:
All munchkins are min/maxers, but not all min/maxers are munchkins.

It's one of those non-mutually exclusive things. Here, take a look at this chart:

The grey area is munchkins. The white area in Min/maxers, the black area is a portion of (gamers). The lighter grey areas surrounding the central grey area is min/maxers with munchkin tendencies.

Now, here's the complication:

Many Min/Maxers see themselves as Real Men roleplayers, but when you come right down to it: what is Min/Maxing about? It's about getting whatever gives you the most plusses. Very munchkinesque.

That said, min/maxers, we could argue, are one step above munchkins in that thye are not overt in their quest for power. often, it will take several combats, or even game sesisons before the GM realizes how strong a min-maxer is becoming, as opposed to the "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie" nature of a munchkin.

Powergamers could be said to be several steps above Min/maxers, in that the GM may NEVER realize how strong they are, until they reveal their brilliant build in all it's glory.

Really, I think that's the difference, why powergamers are accepted more than min/maxers. Underplaying their own abilities to keep in line with the other players, until the moment merits their full might. Like demigods walking among mortal players.

 

[morrolan]

My problem with this is the "more uncommon and interesting. While the uncommon part is self-evident, I don't get the interesting part. How is having "Skill Focus (diplomacy)" or "Quick Draw" more interesting than having "Power Attack"? My character's stats/feats/skills don't determine my character's personality, they determine what he can do. And if you play long enough -everything- is done to death stats-wise.

They are not inherently more interesting. They are uncommon, thus unexpected, thus interesting. As a gm, if a player comes along and says "I wanna be a fighter, 18 str, power attack etc etc," I'm fine with that. I expect it because the system encourages that to a degree.

But if he comes along and says "I wanna be a fighter with 12 str and 16 int, and skill focus herbalism', I say "hmmm, well that's interesting, why?" And the player might say "well, dude wanted to become an apothecary, but couldn't afford to go to school, then was conscripted by the militia to fend off raids by the foul myrmidons etc, etc". I know he's put some thought in and wants his stats and skills to reflect that, and i'm more interested in how he's gonna do against that first group of goblins or whatever. Will his party be optimised for that combat? maybe not. But what happens when they meet will be more interesting to me as GM, and hopefully that will translate to what I put into the game.

Min/maxed fighter takes down goblin warchief is dog bites man, really. You expect it, and can even statisticaly predict it. Whoop de doo. It might make him a hero in the village, but to us jaded types, it's just another day in D&D-land. Time to make the donuts.

But if our hapless apothecary finds he can't take down king gobbo, and the party has to come back later? Maybe he can find some lesser fartbloom, and have the rogue sneak it into the gob's stewpot, so that the next time they meet, King Gobbo's not feeling so good.

But you get my point. It's the same for me with backgrounds. If someone comes at me with the old "my village was burned by orcs and swore revenge", I can roll with it, it gets the job done, but it's ho-hum.

I actually hesitated before including Rand, since I hated that serie after a few books as well. And the Max/Max comment is well-taken, but the point was that despite that, they -still- had a story going, and in most cases an interesting one. And they weren't one-legged farmers!

As I said above, though, the same story wears thin quick. Interest in stories (novels) comes from conflict and limitation. You bite your nails when the character is up against something you know they can't get out of, and applaude when they find a way. The Jordan books were kind of fun despite the characters, just from a world building aspect (ok, really just for the magic system). But the characters themselves were sort of stock and boring really.

And I disagree that min-maxed characters have to be one-dimensional. As I said before, the numbers on the character sheet tell me what the character can do. The personality.. That's something else entirely, and is not bound by numbers. That's where the roleplaying comes in.

Well I meant by defenition min/max means one dimensional, ie you focus all development in one area at expense of the others. Which sometimes does affect personality. If every barbarian buys points in str and con at the expense of cha and int, and people play characters accordingly, you have a bunch of dumb thugs who sit around picking their nose at dinner parties. Maybe some have axes, and some greatswords, but you know...

And sure, people define their characters on class/weapon/skillset, because that's the easy way that everyone who plays D&D can relate to. It's much easier to say "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!" than "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath (that's a merchant house in my DM's custom world) was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet (that's like, that really deserted territory) where he met the tribe of Caluther. What? Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs. Anyway. So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough. But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too! So.. Well, we fought, and I killed him."

But which is more interesting? if someone tells me "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!", well, ok, bully for you. If he says "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet where he met the tribe of Caluther. What? Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs. Anyway. So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough. But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too! So.. Well, we fought, and I killed him",
Well then I've learned something of his story, and the gameworld.

The OP wanted to know why min/maxing is regarded as bad, and I don't think it is really. It's a valid play style. I'm just thinking through under which circumstances I would find it "bad", and when things get stale, thats bad to me.

edited for grammar