Title says it all, really.
What is the difference between min/max'ing and character optimization? Where is the line crossed between one and the other?
|
A good question.
In my mind, min maxing is when the player is trying to just play mechanically while character optimisation is where the player a RP idea and develops the character to match.
Min max is a negative term in my mind. Player optimisation is positive and implies that a player is developing a character and not a set of numbers.
A good question.
In my mind, min maxing is when the player is trying to just play mechanically while character optimisation is where the player a RP idea and develops the character to match.
Min max is a negative term in my mind. Player optimisation is positive and implies that a player is developing a character and not a set of numbers.
I think Masika put it perfectly.
It also has a little to do with play style...Munchkin syndrome tends to go hand in hand with Min/maxing.
Interesting..
Actually my assumption was that they were one in the same; only charater optimization was the term used by people who engaged in it, and defended the practice, who wanted a less negative label for it.
You know, like a gambling addict who squandered their kid's college fund referring to it as 'entertainment risk taking'. Or someone cheating on their girlfriend/boyfriend calling it 'diversification'. A term designed to mitigate an unwholesome practice.
I HATE mini/maxing, so if character optimization is something else, I'd love to know. Then I'll stop ignoring those threads.
Interesting..
Actually my assumption was that they were one in the same; only character optimization was the term used by people who engaged in it, and defended the practice, who wanted a less negative label for it.
You know, like a gambling addict who squandered their kid's college fund referring to it as 'entertainment risk taking'. Or someone cheating on their girlfriend/boyfriend calling it 'diversification'. A term designed to mitigate an unwholesome practice.
I HATE mini/maxing, so if character optimization is something else, I'd love to know. Then I'll stop ignoring those threads.
Min/maxing is the number crunching end of optimization. It figuring out where you break even for what gain and what loss when placing stats, skill points, and feats. The level of min/maxing involved always differs too. MOST people Min/Max a little bit -- For example A person playing a fighter has to balance how much strength he wants, compared to how much Con, Dex, and Wisdom -- He wants the extra damage and to hit bonus from a high strength, but he must compare that to the advantages of a good Dex, good Con, and the problems of having a low Wisdom. Same with skill points -- he might want ranks in seven different skills (for what you would probably call "legitimate" reasons... he's a Dex based swashbuckler, he wants ranks in acrobatics, bluff, diplomacy, stealth, sense motive...) but he only gets so many ranks a level to spend... he has to Min/Max (i.e. Decide) where he's going to put those ranks.
Min/Maxing is the decision making process.
Character Optimization is based on the premise you know what you want from the character as far as your theme, background, and desired growth goals. Optimizing is simply making him the best you can at what you want the character to be. This can be as simple as figuring out if you want to take your melee bard and make him a Dragon Disciple, or as complex as trying to figure out how to play an Ice Mage without shafting your team for your spell usage else where. It doesn't have to involve "Power Level 9000", it's simply making sure your character is effective in the role you choose for him.
Theoritical Optimization is the art/psuedo-science of determining what is "best" in the whole game. This is where a lot of the numbers crunching comes in, and where most of the arguments start about "if the fighter is in a room naked, with a negative Wisdom bonus, nothing to use his feats on, and can't move while the wizard is outside with all his gear and plenty of time to memorize the exactly correct spells, with an infinite amount of room to dodge the fighter..." stuff is.
|
I'm on the side of "they're one in the same", but I do think you could argue a very subtle difference.
Min-Maxing by definition is where you max out certain attributes and character aspects while dropping the parts of the character you consider to be less "worth it" to the absolute minimum possible. This allows you to build specialized characters who are capable of doing more in very specific areas than the more generalized characters.
Character Optimization is exactly that, creating your character in the manner which will produce the best results in the are you consider important. Now while this doesn't imply inherent min-maxing,it is a possible side-effect. Sometimes this is tied to a concept, sometimes it is not, but the point is basically the same, be as capable as possible in specific qualities.
I personally do think "Character Optimization" is the PC description of "Min/Max" a character. Whenever I've hit campaigns where the DM's style basically forced Min/Maxing, the Character Optimization forums are where you find the information (and that's the term you do the Google Searches on).
They are one and the same, 'character optimization' is just the term that clever self rightious players use to describe it when they do it.
So, let's just cut through the pretense and call it all min/maxing.
That said, min/maxing is a perfectly natural thing for all players with any experience and brains to try to do. It even happens in the animal kingdom. From an evolutionary point of view, all animals evolve traits that allow them to gain the most benefit from their environment by expending the least amount of energy. They are min/maxing!
When people go shopping, smart shoppers are looking to gain the most benefit by spending the least amount of money. They are min/maxing!
IN REAL LIFE, EVERYONE TRIES TO MIN/MAX EVERYTHING IF THEY ARE SMART!
So why is it so odd or so bad when it is done in a fantasy setting?
When a player makes a character, they are trying to make the most effective character they can by spending the least amount (or a limited amount) of points. That is also min/maxing, and the act of doing that is not a bad thing in and of itself. I expect players to try and min/max their characters.
Min/maxing takes a turn for the worse when there are game breaking flaws in the game mechanic that allow the player to completely over power everything in their path. It is kind of like 'magic:the gathering', you know that card game. Every now and then there is this killer combo that someone plays that just totally owns everyone at the table.
Expect your players to min/max, because they will. The more intelligent and creative in the bunch will hide their min/maxing behind things like character optimization, or sayings like "it fits with how my character should be roleplayed". blah blah blah, they are just better BS'ers than the rest of your players, but they are still min/maxing little ho' bags. Actually, they are often the worse offenders.
Here is the solution the the problem. As GM, you should take an active role in making the character. Players don't make their characters, the player and the GM make the character together. Nip game breaking combos in the bud from the very start. If a particular trait is obviously too powerful, JUST SAY NO! If a game breaking combo is discovered during game play, then change it/ban it/modify it, etc. Reward the player who found the flaw in the game mechanic for being clever. Often times, problems with min/maxing arise because of a flaw in the game mechanic.
As GM, you should have a clear vision of what kind of campaign you want to run, and the power level. When players pick abilities that are beyond the scope of that power level, it is the GM's job to regulate those things.
As GM, don't be shy about taking command of such things. Players will whine from time to time, but let them. As GM, you also act as therapist/babysitter for the players, so you have to learn to deal with these things. The care and feeding of players is a fine art after all. The players will accept your rulings so long as you strive to make their experience more fun and you are fair.
That is my opinion on the whole min/maxing thing.
Very interesting, thanks for the input thus far.
So, is the following sentence:
"All character optimization is a form of min/max'ing, but not all min/maxin'ing is character optimization"
a. True
b. Mostly true
c. False
d. Mostly false
e. None of the above
They are one and the same, 'character optimization' is just the term that clever self rightious players use to describe it when they do it...
A lot of good stuff in that post, thanks. I would define what you described as 'power gaming', however, not min/max'ng.
So what is the difference between power gaming and character optimization?
So what is the difference between power gaming and character optimization?
I asked first :)
In my opinion, a power gamer exploits loopholes to gain the biggest advantage and therefore breaks the game using RAW as a common defense.
I consider it min/maxing when you start taking absurd flaws in order to buy almost equally absurd gifts, so to speak. Like making your fighter character a one-eyed deaf mute to get extra bonuses to attack or the ability to wield a greatsword in each hand, that kind of thing.
Character Optimization is when you have a concept for a character to roleplay, and want to select an array of feats that best express that concept.
I think that's a pretty significant difference.
I consider it min/maxing when you start taking absurd flaws in order to buy almost equally absurd gifts, so to speak. Like making your fighter character a one-eyed deaf mute to get extra bonuses to attack or the ability to wield a greatsword in each hand, that kind of thing.
Character Optimization is when you have a concept for a character to roleplay, and want to select an array of feats that best express that concept.
I think that's a pretty significant difference.
But how can we trust a lyingbastard?? =P
j/k
Insightful post, thanks.
No Problemo.
Also, it can be when you start looking at the sort of things your character does in-game and choosing feats to optimize that. Like, for example, if the Sorceror of the group tends to do a lot of the talking, due to their high charisma, taking a feat like "Persuasive" when your next feat is available would be an example of optimization.
Saying "Well, my character now has some defect/disease so I can put extra points into CHA" is min/maxing.
Very interesting, thanks for the input thus far.
So, is the following sentence:
"All character optimization is a form of min/max'ing, but not all min/maxin'ing is character optimization"
a. True
b. Mostly true
c. False
d. Mostly false
e. None of the above
I would answer a. True
|
|
So what is the difference between power gaming and character optimization?
Now this is the question that I think would get the debate going.
Very interesting, thanks for the input thus far.
So, is the following sentence:
"All character optimization is a form of min/max'ing, but not all min/maxin'ing is character optimization"
a. True
b. Mostly true
c. False
d. Mostly false
e. None of the above
Edit:
Oh and - a. True
I would say that..
Regardless of the term of art you choose to staple to any given behavior, the thing you as a player should avoid doing- and that you as a DM should look out for- are the characters who are "optimised" beyond the level of 1) the game you want to play and 2) the other players.
"min/maxing" "optimizing" or whatever isn't good or bad, as long as the end result is a group that is more or less at the same level of it.
Where it becomes a problem is when you have someone really good at min/maxing when the rest of the group is mainly building an RP oriented character.. Then that tends to lead to issues.
-S
I would say that..
Regardless of the term of art you choose to staple to any given behavior, the thing you as a player should avoid doing- and that you as a DM should look out for- are the characters who are "optimised" beyond the level of 1) the game you want to play and 2) the other players.
"min/maxing" "optimizing" or whatever isn't good or bad, as long as the end result is a group that is more or less at the same level of it.
Where it becomes a problem is when you have someone really good at min/maxing when the rest of the group is mainly building an RP oriented character.. Then that tends to lead to issues.
-S
Quoting for Truth
I would like to go ahead and say, for the record, that choosing a dump stat is the simplest form of min/maxing any player can do.
Now, past that, Min/maxing and character optimization, in my mind, are two tangled beasts. Min/maxing is basically when a player builds a character and pushes all resources towards making the character amazing at something they're already good at. In doing this, they remove and inhibit many abilities to do things they were already bad at. An example of this would be a fighter who pushed a high strength and focused on melee feats while dumping charisma.
The lighter side of min/maxing is character optimization. CharOp is when you decide what your character will be, conceptually, and then choose the most effective and optimized route to that concept. Every player worth her salt does this. Most players interested in true character optimization (and not theoretical optimization) are also roleplayers. Character optimization stems from a mechanical understanding of the game, and often doesn't take into account any roleplaying or story aspects of the decisions made in character growth- that's why so many "real roleplayers" hate CharOp.
Personally, I think every player at the table does these things. My DM and I are both CharOp guys (from the boards, no less), and we discuss the latest broken build on the forums and any neat combos we came up with. I think that having an open dialogue with your players about things like character optimization is not only a positive thing, but it should be encouraged. The DM should understand the game in and out, and should be able to help her players in a constructive way. She should be able to explain to a newbie why power attack is a poor choice for a sorcerer, unless she is pursuing a melee path.
The idea of DMs punishing their players for optimizing a character severely irks me.
Min/maxing is a specific tool of optimization. It's lowering or ignoring one aspect of the mechanics in order to increase another. Nothing more, nothing less. When you give your Fighter a lower charisma score to get a better constitution score, or choose to discard the Persuasive feat in order to pick up Weapon Focus, you are min/maxing. Most aspects of optimization can ultimately be framed as min/maxing, to the point where they are essentially synonymous. If you're playing the game at all, you are min/maxing.
Min/maxing is an essential part of roleplay. After all, if your character is supposed to be a skilled swordsman, yet the character mechanically sucks at swordplay, that's a roleplaying fault. You are refusing to represent the character you said you were going to represent. Min/maxing and optimization are largely about making sound decisions that make your character good at doing what they're supposed to be good at, and not so good at doing what they're not supposed to be good at.
The best way to define optimization is to demonstrate it. So, I shall now optimize a character. This will be using D&D 3.5, a 36-point buy (in the old system), and starting at level 3. All sources open. One flaw.
First, if you are going to optimize, you need something to optimize in the first place. You need a character. If you so desire, you can optimize by selecting the desired mechanics first, and then creating a character, or do some method like race>class>character>details, but I prefer the character-first method (of which race is a part, and class is not).
I am going to create an old gnome, Miss Cania. A town elder, who's something of a witch as well. She's an audacious, bombastic sort, a well-traveled, well-learned old woman, and something of the town historian.
I have a general idea of where I want to go with the character mechanically, and I've already selected her race; gnome. I want strong mental stats, and fairly weak physical stats. She's going to be fairly old, which means mental bonuses and physical penalties, and I want to be able to capitalize on that. I don't really see her as a major direct force in combat, more of a supporting character. I want some abilities that can frame her as a witch, so I'm leaning towards a magic class, which compliments the mental bonuses from age quite well.
I could select Wizard or Sorcerer, and those could work out quite well, but I'd prefer something with a larger selection of skills, because I like skills and the broader selection better represents how I see Miss Cania. Factotum (Dungeonscape) is an option, but I quite like Bard. It's an excellent balance of skills, magic, and support that I feel does what the character is supposed to do quite well. And as I look, there's even a strongly appropriate Bard variant, the Bardic Sage. It has some harsh intelligence requirements for spells, but I intend to give her a strong intelligence score anyways. The additional divination spells can be useful, and the boost to Bardic Knowledge will see a good deal of use.
Now, I have to decide just how old Miss Cania is, since that has a mechanical impact on her stats. Middle-aged (100-150 years) is +1 to mental, -1 to physical, which is an obvious, solid choice, since I want strong mental stats. Old (150-200 years) is +2 to mental, -3 to physical, which can hurt, but the mental bonuses are still tempting. Venerable (200+) is +3 mental, -6 physical, which is far more decrepit than I'm even going to consider; she'd pretty much become an invalid, and I could even have to start worrying about death from old age.
Though the additional -2 penalty hurts, I very much want that flat +2 to all mental stats, so I'm going to make Miss Cania 126 years old. That makes her final stat modifiers -5 Str (-3 age, -2 race), -3 Dex, -1 Con (-3 age, +2 race), +2 Int, +2 Wis, +2 Cha.
Now, to arrange the stats. She's a little old woman, not particularly strong, but she's a tough old bird. She doesn't really need a whole lot of strength, nor would it be appropriate, but a -5 penalty is extremely large. I'm going to increase that from 3 to 6, so that she can actually carry things. 3/36 points so far. Dexterity isn't a very large concern, but I don't want a penalty to initiative, so I'm going to raise that from 5 to 10. 8/36 spent. I want her to have a decent constitution, so I'm going to splurge and increase her constitution from 7 to 14. 16/36 spent. Intelligence is, of course, important, since she needs that to cast. I can make that 16 easily, and that's all I should ever need. 22/36 spent. I want a good wisdom score, but it doesn't need to be great. I'll make that 14, for now. 26/36 spent. The interesting thing about Bardic Sage is that I don't technically need a strong charisma score to get all my spells, but still rely on charisma-based skills, including Perform and Use Magic Device, so I make this 16 as well. 32/36 spent.
Now, I have points left over, so I have to decide what to do with them. I could bolster my strength a little more, but I think I'd rather spend them to get some more skill points.
Final Stats:
STR: 6
DEX: 8
CON: 14
INT: 18
WIS: 16
CHA: 16
Now, I have choices to make on feats, skills, spells, and up to one flaw. I'll start with feats.
My first choice is Lingering Song (Complete Adventurer); taking the Bardic Sage variant reduces the duration of my inspirations once I stop singing, which curtails my support abilities, so I want to fix that. Lingering Song changes the duration to ten rounds. However, I'll have to check with my DM on his exact ruling on how this feat interacts with Bardic Sage; he could rule that it doubles the duration, for six rounds, or extends the effect by five rounds, yielding eight.
For my third level feat, my DM is allowing Eberron material, so I like Song of the Heart. It strengthens all of my inspirations, which is a very good thing. It requires class abilities I'll have anyways, and six ranks in a Perform skill, which I'll also have by then.
I would like to have some better mundane weapon abilities, perhaps being decent with a crossbow, and Zen Archery (Complete Warrior) would allow me to do that, but I need +1 BAB to take it, meaning I can't pick it up at level 1, and I prefer Song of the Heart for my third-level feat, so I wouldn't be able to take Zen Archery until level 6. Even then, I wouldn't be very good at it, and at level 6, some of the better music abilities come into play. I do have one interesting option available to me in poison, which is appropriate for a witch, but I would probably be better off giving my poisons to my allies.
I can take a flaw to gain an additional feat, and looking ahead, Eberron Campaign Setting has a feat that could consume quite a few uses of my Bardic Music later, Haunting Song. This campaign isn't likely to go on much past level six, and my limited uses of my music could become a problem. So, I do believe I shall take the flaw in order to gain Extra Music for the four extra music uses per day. It's not a feat I would normally consider, but I'm getting it through a flaw, so it's really just gravy. For her flaw, Miss Cania is getting old, so Murky-Eyed makes sense, and doesn't render her completely inept, so I'll go with that. Not that it's likely to come up much. If my DM rejects that flaw, my next choice is Noncombatant, followed by Poor Reflexes.
My feats are decided, for the time being, and I selected them with the skills and spells I wanted in mind. Next, I'm looking at skills. With an intelligence score of 18, in the Bard class, I have a lot of skill points. Sixty, in fact. As a Bard, I of course want to keep my Perform skill as high as possible, so I take full ranks in Perform (Storytelling). The old lady isn't a thief, nor an acrobat of any sort, so the climbing, jumping, and sneaking can stay at zero. Bards have Listen as a class skill, gnomes have a racial bonus to Listen, and Miss Cania has a strong wisdom score, so I'm going to max her Listen skill as well, since she can do it well fairly easily. As a witch, I don't consider Bard spellcasting and racial cantrips adequate, so I'll supplement it with skills. There are a lot of goodies outside of core that I can make with Craft: Alchemy, and gnomes have a racial bonus, so I'm going to take that, along with Craft: Poisonmaking, and I'll round it all out with Use Magic Device. That's half of my skill points. Then, I add in Concentration, as I opted against taking Melodic Casting.
Looking ahead, I want Miss Cania to take the Sublime Chord prestige class later (Complete Arcane), assuming the campaign gets that far. I will have to ask my DM how that interacts with the Bardic Sage variant, but for now, I'm just going to make sure I have the requirements covered. Profession: Astrologer is a strange skill, and I may take most of those ranks later. Knowledge: Arcana is in line with what I was going to take anyways, though I'll have to make sure I get enough ranks in Spellcraft on time. I'm already on pace with Listen and Perform.
So, I max out Knowledge: Arcana now, and take two ranks in Profession: Astrologer and Spellcraft, leaving 14 skill points left. As she's a historian, she needs ranks in Knowledge: History. I'll go with five for synergy, with more to come. The crazy witch is also supposed to be a spectacular liar, so I'll put five ranks in Bluff, and three in Sense Motive. I would have liked to have had more skill points to open up Knowledge skills, but her Bardic Knowledge ability is very strong, so I'm fine with things as they are. I can always put some ranks in the other Knowledge skills later. For now, my last skill point goes to Knowledge: Nature, in case she needs it to find reagents.
Now, spells. I already know that I want Inspirational Boost (Spell Compendium). It improves my Inspire Courage ability by +1. While at this point, it would be a steep cost to cast the spell, it's an option I definitely want available to me. I also want to take Cure Light Wounds, to help me function as a secondary healer. Silent Image is perhaps the single most useful spell in the game, and as a gnome, I have no excuse not taking it. There are a number of other spells I'd like to take, and may take later, such as Grease, but for the time being, these three take priority. And then, I get one more first-level divination spell for being a Bardic Sage. Unfortunately, Amplify is transmutation for some stupid reason, so that's out. Equally unfortunate is that Magecraft (Eberron), while divination, is not a Bard spell, though I should ask if my DM is willing to show some clemency on that; I'd really like Magecraft for those Alchemy and Poisonmaking checks. I get Detect Alignment on my list from the variant, but there's already a Paladin in the party, so it wouldn't be any use. That pretty much leaves Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret Doors, and Identify. Since we don't have a Wizard in the party, and it's always nice to have someone with Identify, I'll go with that.
For cantrips, the choice isn't of extreme importance. I'll take Detect Magic as my Bardic Sage bonus divination spell, since it's a spectacularly useful spell. Know Direction is a good incidental. Cure Minor Wounds for more supplemental healing. I have Ghost Sound as a racial cantrip, but I may need it more than that, and it pairs well with Silent Image, so I'll pick that up. Daze has already outlived its usefulness by this level, so I'll skip that. I have Prestidigitation as a racial cantrip, which should suffice, but I will take Mage Hand. I intend to have Miss Cania use scrolls of varying kinds, so Read Magic is of use, I pick that up. Finally, it's a toss-up between Light and Mending. The one-minute limit on my Dancing Lights cantrip worries me, but Light can easily be duplicated by a torch, while Mending can be of great utility.
From here, all that remains is to pick out gear. I'll want to craft a stash of poisons for the party Rogue, and some less objectionable quickfrost/flame/spark (Complete Adventurer) for the Paladin. I don't want to splurge on the triple weapon capsule retainer myself, but if I can talk my friend playing the Paladin into buying it for his character, my homemade quickfrost/flame/spark combination can grant him +3d6 damage spread across three elements for one round per fight at 25g, which is a great addition to his smite. I may also want to see if my friend playing the Rogue wants to invest in some feats to allow her to use poisons more effectively, and use me as her supplier, as I can get them at a discount. As for Cania herself, she can't really do melee or ranged combat, and she definitely can't cast every round, so for the most part, she's going to rely on her own alchemical goods when fighting, and perhaps throwing inhaled poisons. Items like smokesticks and tanglefoot bags, which she mage at a discount, as well as all other manner of creation from the various books.
And then, I review, I tweak, I revise, until I'm happy with what Miss Cania can contribute to the group. I've made sure that she has abilities to offer. Her inspirations are strong, she's bringing abilities that can compliment her allies, he has powerful knowledge abilities. I'll have to mind her dependence on expendables, lest they start costing way too much, but she is capable of legitimately contributing to the success of the group, and doing so well.
Thanks for the added insight and very detailed analysis!
If I were to continue the optimization process from here, I'd probably have to scrap the current bardic sheet entirely. As she stands, much of Miss Cania's tactics center on making items for the other party members and using expendable items that she can't actually make.
So, if I wanted to actually run her, I'd probably remake her as an Artificer, to really emphasize the crafting and make her very good at it.
The whole question's about making her be good at what I want her to be good at, and in the process of making her the first time, what I want her to be good at kinda shifted (though I did kinda cast aside some options to pick Bard because everyone's familiar with it), and now Bard isn't quite so appropriate as it was when I started. Of course, this'd require some talking with the DM and the other players to account for the shift in expectations of my character.
I'd also consider scaling her back to middle-aged, since I'd be able to afford the same stats and still have points to spare, but her stats are already pretty good so that's not a big deal. Still, being able to boost her Con by two without any other sacrifices is nice.
Very interesting, thanks for the input thus far.
So, is the following sentence:
"All character optimization is a form of min/max'ing, but not all min/maxin'ing is character optimization"
c. False
You've got this backwards.
All min/maxing is a form of optimization, but not all optimization is min/maxing.
Min/maxing is number crunching. i.e. It is acceptable for my Barbarian to have a 5 Cha in order to gain a 20 Str. (with penalties/bonuses)
Character Optimization is making your character good at what he does. And yes, this usually involves min/maxing, but they are not quite synonymis
Feat selection isn't really min/maxing because you aren't actually making yourself weaker in one area order to be stronger in another. Now, Feats + Flaws can lead to min/maxing, but not feats alone. Weapons can be min/maxed, but usually are just optimized because true min/maxing leads to quibbles over crit ranges, .5 dmg per swing and real headaches unless you're a math guy.
And here's a revalation that many won't like or accept. Everyone min/maxes when you use a point buy system to determine your stats. You may do it to a greater or lesser degree than the next guy, but you absolutly decide whether it is ok to drop your Str a couple more points in order to bump that Int up one more notch.
We all participate in both of these activities when we make our characters to some degree or another, even those who intentionally make sub-optimal characters are using the concepts, they just apply them backwards or deliberatly ignore them.
Feat selection isn't really min/maxing because you aren't actually making yourself weaker in one area order to be stronger in another. Now, Feats + Flaws can lead to min/maxing, but not feats alone. Weapons can be min/maxed, but usually are just optimized because true min/maxing leads to quibbles over crit ranges, .5 dmg per swing and real headaches unless you're a math guy.
Actually, it's still min/maxing because of opportunity costs. If your orc Barbarian has one feat to spend, and picks up Weapon Focus, that's a decision to improve AB rather than skills, because you could have taken, say, Animal Affinity instead. So, min Handle Animal to max AB.
So what is the difference between power gaming and character optimization?
A 3rd level rogue who fights with Mjolnir in one hand and Stormbringer in the other is power-gaming, but not necessarily optimizing. :-)
Feat selection isn't really min/maxing because you aren't actually making yourself weaker in one area order to be stronger in another. Now, Feats + Flaws can lead to min/maxing, but not feats alone. Weapons can be min/maxed, but usually are just optimized because true min/maxing leads to quibbles over crit ranges, .5 dmg per swing and real headaches unless you're a math guy.Actually, it's still min/maxing because of opportunity costs. If your orc Barbarian has one feat to spend, and picks up Weapon Focus, that's a decision to improve AB rather than skills, because you could have taken, say, Animal Affinity instead. So, min Handle Animal to max AB.
I disagree. It is optimization, because you are choosing a feat that furthers your goal for the character, but you aren't giving anything up to get that feat. Thus lacking the 'min' part of min/maxing.
I disagree. It is optimization, because you are choosing a feat that furthers your goal for the character, but you aren't giving anything up to get that feat. Thus lacking the 'min' part of min/maxing.
Except you are giving something up. You're giving up every other feat you could possibly select. It's an opportunity cost, and that feat slot is quite valuable. If you pick a bunch of feats that emphasize charging, you're sacrificing a bunch of feats that emphasize archery.
IN REAL LIFE, EVERYONE TRIES TO MIN/MAX EVERYTHING IF THEY ARE SMART!
Allow me to ask an obvious question. This is not directly solely at you, Lord Kelius. But you did put it in all upper case. :)
Why?
|
I believe, based on my experience, that there can be a difference or there cannot. You can't really say that there is a cut and dry line where one is one and one is the other. I have met many people who are clearly min maxers but they demand to be called character optimizers. These are the ones who's character sheet has them as Fighter1/Rogue 2/Sorcerer 6/Barbarian 2/Havok Mage 3/Eldritch Knight 1/Assssin 3/Demon Hunter 4 etc. There are others who truely have a concept in mind and strive to play it to the best of the RAW, thus engaging in optimization as most people here seem to define it, but who would never describe themselve as optimizers. That is the problem that the RPG community has. When you use terms like this you can ask fifty different people what the term means and you will get fifty different answers, and because of the subjective nature of the hobby, they are all right.
I disagree. It is optimization, because you are choosing a feat that furthers your goal for the character, but you aren't giving anything up to get that feat. Thus lacking the 'min' part of min/maxing.Except you are giving something up. You're giving up every other feat you could possibly select. It's an opportunity cost, and that feat slot is quite valuable. If you pick a bunch of feats that emphasize charging, you're sacrificing a bunch of feats that emphasize archery.
Again, I disagree. Min/max implys a reduction of power to facilitate an increase in some other power. Selecting feats does not involve such an exchange. You are simply choosing which from a number of possibilities is best for your character. Optimization.
Again, I disagree. Min/max implys a reduction of power to facilitate an increase in some other power. Selecting feats does not involve such an exchange. You are simply choosing which from a number of possibilities is best for your character. Optimization.
By that logic, it's impossible for a human to min/max the point buy in 3.5 as the baseline is 8 and you can't go lower. If you leave something at 8, you're not decreasing it, you're just leaving it be and choosing different possibilities.
Thing is, that selecting from possibilities is the essence of what min/maxing is. It's spending character resources (whether they be skills, stats, or feats) towards the betterment of Aspect A at the expense (and neglect is an expense) of Aspect B.
Again, I disagree. Min/max implys a reduction of power to facilitate an increase in some other power. Selecting feats does not involve such an exchange. You are simply choosing which from a number of possibilities is best for your character. Optimization.By that logic, it's impossible for a human to min/max the point buy in 3.5 as the baseline is 8 and you can't go lower. If you leave something at 8, you're not decreasing it, you're just leaving it be and choosing different possibilities.
By maintaining the minimum score and suffering the penalty in order spend those points eleswhere, you are indeed min/maxing. I don't see the same process with feats.
Thing is, that selecting from possibilities is the essence of what min/maxing is.
That is the essence of optimization. Min/maxing is, as you went on to say, about acceptable loss for maximum benefit.
They are the same result, placing motivation aside, i.e. getting the most bang for your buck. Usually alot of discussions arises because someone doesn't want to be pigeoned holed under either term.
By maintaining the minimum score and suffering the penalty in order spend those points eleswhere, you are indeed min/maxing. I don't see the same process with feats.
Except those 'penalties' are the baseline. The default. And you only go up from there. Just as you default to investing zero feats into any given aspect until you select whatever feat you prefer.
I've seen min-maxing defined as minimizing undesired traits to maximize others, but I disagree that's the historical use or the right connotation. Ultimately, that definition simply describes making choices since all choices have some kind of opportunity cost, presumably of traits you don't desire as much.
Min-maxing, as I had seen it back in the 1e and boardgaming days, was more about maximizing advantages while minimizing the impact of disadvantages or the tradeoffs necessary to maximize. So in this case, it's not about simply making a choice, but about finding ways to make specific choices have no significant cost. If a fighter decides not to invest in Wisdom so that he can have a higher strength in 3e, he's not necessarily min-maxing very well since that choice leaves him more vulnerable to lots of Will save-based spells that come up fairly often. The choice that smacks more of min-maxing would be dumping Charisma in order to do it since, for a lot of fighter character concepts, low Charisma bears fewer mechanical disadvantages.
Character optimization is a bit of a broader set, of which min-maxing is a subset. Min-maxing pretty much always involves some kind of goal-driven optimization, but it's not the only way to optimize if you accept that min-maxing does not connotate any and all forms of choice.
The real danger in common message board usage is belief that there's any single way to optimize. All optimization is toward a goal and all optimization involves some kind of trade-off. You can't optimize toward every goal when there are a sufficient number of choices available.
By maintaining the minimum score and suffering the penalty in order spend those points eleswhere, you are indeed min/maxing. I don't see the same process with feats.Except those 'penalties' are the baseline. The default. And you only go up from there. Just as you default to investing zero feats into any given aspect until you select whatever feat you prefer.
I think I'm just going to accept that we disagree and move on.
Things that I had forgotten I knew
Thanks for that reminder!
The real danger in common message board usage is belief that there's any single way to optimize. All optimization is toward a goal and all optimization involves some kind of trade-off. You can't optimize toward every goal when there are a sufficient number of choices available.
QFT. This is also true in the sense of Integer Programming, you optimize to either maximize or minimize a single variable. Now, still related to Integer Programming, a certain number can be the max/min without being the -optimal- solution to your problem, and that's where we see the sor/wiz with Con 10 who dies on the first ghoul encounter, the Wis 10 fighter who lives as perpetual mage-bait, and Seoni, whose Str 8 could have made her succumb to the first slaver raid before level 3: all it takes is a band of monsters that act as a distraction while a squirmisher does a sneak-and-grapple on her, take her away and poof! Bye-bye Seoni... if as a GM you wanna pile insult upon injury, narrate it as the enemy dragging her away by the "standard female grab area" (the mid-bicep of the left arm).
If you ask me, if we take it strictly from the base definition, min/maxing = optimization.
Now, contrary to what RP-nazis think, neither min/maxing nor optimizing have anything to do with a person's capacity for roleplay, and in fact both can be used as RP tools (who knows? Perhaps Seoni's creator just wanted a "girly-girl", not all adventurers have to be Jack Sparrow).
The real danger in common message board usage is belief that there's any single way to optimize. All optimization is toward a goal and all optimization involves some kind of trade-off. You can't optimize toward every goal when there are a sufficient number of choices available.QFT.
+1
However, "the goal" in creating a character can vary widely, depending on the individual, the type of character desired, and even the campaign (setting background/specific rules). Some people are very skilled at choosing the type of character and fitting the character into the campaign and system mechanics to meet "the goal." Some people are less skilled. Some deliberately weaken the character in terms of system mechanics to meet "the goal." Some define "the goal" purely in terms of system mechanics.
IMO, most of the conflict is more over "the goal" than the methods.
|
Min/Maxxing is usually about a theoretical competition between the players and the GM. In many ways it is about exploiting the rules. If kept away from the table makes for interesting thought experiments to see how far the rules can bend before they break. A min/maxxed character is rarely fun to have at a table as he introduces an "arms race" between the PCs (so everyone feels they can contribute) and the GM (who has to throw tougher bad-guys at the players so they feel challenged, causing them to optimise further etc).
Optimising is about making a viable build that lets you fill the character's niche. A rogue with no ranks in perception is a sub-optimal build and thus the party suffers as he doesn't fulfil the basic rogue functions (trap finding, scouting). Still occasionally players want to play something outside the box, but don't want their fellow players to suffer for it. A half-orc sumo wrestling monk, or a pacifistic wizard who wants only to cast non-damaging spells. When you're going to play outside the assumed roles then you need to pick the best options you can to still fulfil your niche and do what's needed as a party member.
Min/Maxxing is usually about a theoretical competition between the players and the GM. In many ways it is about exploiting the rules. If kept away from the table makes for interesting thought experiments to see how far the rules can bend before they break. A min/maxxed character is rarely fun to have at a table as he introduces an "arms race" between the PCs (so everyone feels they can contribute) and the GM (who has to throw tougher bad-guys at the players so they feel challenged, causing them to optimise further etc).
Optimising is about making a viable build that lets you fill the character's niche. A rogue with no ranks in perception is a sub-optimal build and thus the party suffers as he doesn't fulfil the basic rogue functions (trap finding, scouting). Still occasionally players want to play something outside the box, but don't want their fellow players to suffer for it. A half-orc sumo wrestling monk, or a pacifistic wizard who wants only to cast non-damaging spells. When you're going to play outside the assumed roles then you need to pick the best options you can to still fulfil your niche and do what's needed as a party member.
Great summary!
Except... not. Min/Maxing is just lowering one thing to raise another. Not a thing wrong with it. Not inherently unbalancing. Not less fun. Doesn't invoke an arms race. Miss Cania was min/maxed through a single cycle.
Min/Maxxing is usually about a theoretical competition between the players and the GM. In many ways it is about exploiting the rules. If kept away from the table makes for interesting thought experiments to see how far the rules can bend before they break. A min/maxxed character is rarely fun to have at a table as he introduces an "arms race" between the PCs (so everyone feels they can contribute) and the GM (who has to throw tougher bad-guys at the players so they feel challenged, causing them to optimise further etc).
You have never played in a game without min-maxing taking place. If you think you have, you are either wrong, or you have played in a game where character creation was either entirely random, or where characters were purposefully created to be terrible.
You min-max all the time. Any time you place a low stat in something your character doesn't need and a high stat in something it does, you are min-maxing. It is a tool, nothing more, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that you do it every time you create a character.
IN REAL LIFE, EVERYONE TRIES TO MIN/MAX EVERYTHING IF THEY ARE SMART!Allow me to ask an obvious question. This is not directly solely at you, Lord Kelius. But you did put it in all upper case. :)
Why?
The hedonistic calculus explains this pretty easily, doesn't it? Minimize pain, maximize pleasure?
I aint smart enough to get all metaphorical here. In my simplistic world, we are only playing a game with the final goal to have fun. In that basic view, if you 'build' a one dimensional character for the sole purpose of power, even if you try to slap an excuse like character concept on it, its still the same thing. Have we all done it in the past? Prolly. Will we all do it agai in the future? Prolly. In the end, they both boil down to the same thing. One is just a prettier, more politically correct way of saying it.
|
|
To me? Rhetoric. They both accomplish the same end, and it's a matter of how it's spun.
To me, the point of gaming is to have fun. I used to worry about optimizing and munchkining and the like. Then I realized that it wasn't FUN. So I stopped.
But everyone's got their own speed. I am not one to yuk someone's yum.
I find min/maxing is something that is viewed as negative when it is taken to an extreme. Its something that happens and is often the butt of jokes in various gaming-related comics, like Knights of the Dinner Table and Goblins.
It is possible to make a character that is only worthwhile to have while in combat. Imagine a combat monster barbarian who gets 2 skill ranks a level (minimum 1, plus 1 for being human) who is illiterate, barely smarter than his horse, has no social skills whatsoever, and is really of no use unless he is carrying party treasure, busting down doors, or hacking monsters with his great axe. That is the kind of thing many people think of when the term min/maxing comes up.
Some people like that kind of character, but most gamers I've played with tend to like someone that can shine in a particular area without completely sucking everywhere else. [/2cp]
|
would you consider it minmaxing to build a finesse cleric? a finesse cleric practically deals no damage, can't afford to pump dexterity, has to abuse research rules. (2,000 gold in research fees to learn cat's grace) has to use a smaller damage die, and doesn't have the strength nor the Ac of a "Cleric". she wears a mithral shirt under her ankle length frill heavy, white, lace trimmed robes, wears an espada ropera at her hip, and a jade coin medallion featuring a sun engraving (around her neck) (holy symbol of sarenrae), she stands 5 feet tall and weighs less than 100 pounds (low strength score). frail and easy to push around (low hit points). acrobatic and perceptive (high dexterity, acrobatics, and perception) precise with a light impact (weapon finesse) petite framed and a petanko (based off of dexterity score) diplomatic (high diplomacy). her mother was an nephilim. (the character herself is an aasimaar) would you even recognize this individual character as what she is? or would you deny her existance as an aasimaar priestess of sarenrae? she is a rather unusual and rather suboptimal build that is probably taxed 2,000 gold. (to research cats grace.) but it was a fun build. i'm sure it's a cleric you wouldn't expect. is it?