Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doctor Shaft" data-source="post: 2911769" data-attributes="member: 25737">Whether Min/Maxing is good or bad is moot point without establishing what kind of &quot;game&quot; you are playing in the first place, and I&quot;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 &quot;game&quot; we are playing.There is nothing wrong with min/maxing, in and of itself.&nbsp; By itself, min/maxing is just that... specialization.&nbsp; There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's the context in which it is used.&nbsp; 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 &quot;good&quot; at a variety of things, rather than just being the &quot;best swordsman in the world.&quot;&nbsp; I want a character that is smart, at least somewhat charismatic, and capable of doing other skills beyond &quot;Strike the tree... hard.&quot;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;how the game shall be played,&quot; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;good or bad.&quot;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&amp;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&amp;D rules. But who gives a hooey about what the D&amp;D rules say?&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; It's just unarmed attack.&nbsp; Wizards can nuke cities!&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doctor Shaft, post: 2911769, member: 25737"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification