So here's a startup to a controversial topic. I'd like to ask why folks see the need to min-max. Is it a power trip? Is your DM a dick? Come here with your stories of daring-do. Feel free to note a few things:
1. Conversation should be kept civil, and any insults should be as tongue in cheek as possible. If this doesn't happen I will be all too happy to ask a mod to delete the thread and then make a thread in off-topic entitled "This is why we can't have nice things."
2. If you're going to post your build beyond a short few word summary, don't. I really don't feel like learning whatever variant game you were playing at the time or digging out Complete Arcane to figure out what you're talking about. I am only interested in your MOTIVATION. Any post that just pointlessly talks about the build I will just ask a mod to delete because sifting through your in-depth explanation of how Bill the Fighter used three bastard swords in each hand should be something no sane person has to do.
In less words:
1. No Flaming.
2. No Build Discussion.
This is for my personal review and benefit to better understand how the construction of a game can affect a player's mindset. Do feel free to include rambling of a psychological nature, unless it is of how you have a compulsive need to explain the build of every character you have ever made in minute detail. If you do have such a nature, just get back to work on the statistics for Friday, Joe, before I fire you myself.
Everyone is different in their approach to gaming,
everyone has their own theories of what is "right
and proper", so some people probably like to arrange
their character to be as "efficient" as possible.
I like to min-max to a certain degree, but I always
try to wrap my concept around the basis for the min-maxing.
Sometimes it's necessary. Pretend you're playing Age of Worms, for example, with 4 players and a DM who has an actual job (and hence can't dumb down all the encounters ahead of time). That AP as written has things like 5th level characters running up against CR 11 challenges while they're exhausted and out of spells. It's a meat grinder, pure and simple. With a 4-character party, all members MUST be optimized to the breaking point just to stay alive through the 1st two installments (and even then the Spire will likely kill them all when they get there).
In a more casual, "let's just chuck some dice and our 15th level characters can fight a couple of goblins" game, min-maxing is annoying and can sometimes get in the way of character development.
The trick is for all participants to understand up front what kind of game is being played. If the goal is to run Age of Worms out of the box, then the cold truth is that your cleric 2/sorcerer 3/fighter 3 is totally incapable of doing the job of an 8th level character, and is an active impediment to party survival. That's not an indication of "the DM being a dick," because it's quite possible that the other 3 players are eager for the challenge, and want to see if they can make it through on their own tactics and game skill.
|
So here's a startup to a controversial topic. I'd like to ask why folks see the need to min-max. Is it a power trip? Is your DM a dick? Come here with your stories of daring-do. Feel free to note a few things:
Not so much a power trip.
I'm an engineer, I constantly focus on optimizing my designs. I break a problem into its component parts, define each part's biggest drawback and fix it.
When I make a character, I pick a theme like any other, but then I look for ways of mastering that theme, and map the character out through 20th level before I ever play it.
I wanted to play around with the spiked chain and a combination of trip attacks and combat reflexes. so I made a half-giant psychic warrior/psychic weapon master and could threaten a 75foot wide area with 11 attacks of opportunity, potentially tripping anything 2 size categories larger than huge.
The DM specifically mentioned he would allow a Factotum in a Scarred lands campaign, so I read it and found it was a perfect Jack of all trades. With the Font of insipiration feat, and the chameleon prestige class, this character could likely handle a few encounters solo, and still be a viable role playing option, even though our party prefers roll-playing.
My latest concept has been flatly denied by my entire play group. In order to break out of the role of party powerhouse, I wanted to play a monk/cleric with vow of poverty/vow of peace, moving toward apostle of peace. Everyone was pretty much put off by the fact that by 2nd level, anyone within 20' of me would have to make a DC17 Will save to get angry, and therefore partipate in combat.
I point out 3 examples to defend my position about it not being a power trip. I try to break out of the "min-max power gamer" mold only to be told that my ability as a power gamer is what keeps the group alive in many combats.
…and want to see if they can make it through on their own tactics and game skill.
I think Kirth hit upon a major factor. People who view role playing more as a game are likely to look for opportunities to give their characters an edge. This becomes contentious when different people want different things from the experience. Add past experiences with extreme examples of either end of the spectrum and people are ready to decry one creative agenda as 'wrong'.
|
|
Min-maxing isn't inherently bad, and it isn't necessarily munchkinistic, either.
Kirth makes an excellent point about the circumstances of the campaign. D&D originally started as a study of strategy and tactics. Even the character classes were designed to fill specialized roles within the group.
So, is it bad to min-max your fighter into the hackiest hacker out there?
Or your wizard into an artillery piece?
Your cleric into a Healbot?
Your rogue into the sneakiest, stabbiest backstabber and trapfinder?
Not necessarily. As a player, though, you may come to realize that D&D/Pathfinder are most enjoyable when everyone is having fun. There are some times when min-maxing gets in the way of that.
For instance, the first 3E campaign I played in, featured a half-orc Fighter/barbarian named "Oz" played by one of my buddies. He dealt SO MUCH DAMAGE, SO QUICKLY, that it was difficult for the DM to make the encounters work.
If he made them challenging for Oz, the rest of the party died. If he made it challenge appropriate for the party, Oz killed it in 2 rounds and no one had any fun.
The DM had to come of with truly bizarre combinations of adversaries every single encounter.
|
So here's a startup to a controversial topic. I'd like to ask why folks see the need to min-max. Is it a power trip? Is your DM a dick? Come here with your stories of daring-do. Feel free to note a few things:
Not so much a power trip.
I'm an engineer, I constantly focus on optimizing my designs. I break a problem into its component parts, define each part's biggest drawback and fix it. :SNIP:
I game with an engineer and he is exactly the same way. He comes up with a concept and becomes a master of that concept. Must be the job... ;)
|
|
I see D&D/PF as a merger of two concepts, roleplaying, which occurs between combats, and roll-playing, which occurs during combats. Certainly your character concept can inform/alter your actions/behavior in combat, but generally peoples mind-sets change once initiative is rolled. People change from being inside their characters head to suddenly thinking in strategic, war-game mode. Or at least I do. I enjoy both aspects of gaming and usually hope for a good amount of both in each session. A time to interact in character with either NPC's or PC's, and a time to get down and dirty/strategic in combat, moving into "chess" mode where we move pieces around a board in a logic, precise manner. I personally usually think of a character concept first, something that is unique about a character from a roleplaying perspective first, then graft on some semi-unique schtick for combat, meaning, he's really good at not being surprised, or he's really fast, or he deals a crap ton of damage with each hit, or he never gets hit, etc. Whichever angle I go with doesn't really have much to do with an overall "break the game" strategy so much as "my character will be very memorable in combat because he is never surprised" or "omg did you see how much damage I just did?" etc. I don't try to build a completely perfect character for all scenarios and most often I purposely include weaknesses that make the character more interesting to me during "roleplaying" time or even during rollplaying time. I make a guy who does a crap ton of damage but his AC purposely sucks. He's memorable in two ways, his hits hurt a lot and he gets hit a lot. I don't go into a character with the plan of making the most overall brutal PC ever.
I also try to keep in mind the play experience of the other pc's at the table. I've purposely scrapped pc's before that I thought stepped on other pc's toes or made them feel redundant. I didn't want to enjoy the game at the expense of another players enjoyment level.
|
I'm the same as some posters above. I'm a computer engineer (prefer programming software), and min-maxing is a huge part of the fun for me. How I indulge that desire changes for different groups.
Usually I find out what characters the rest of the group wants to play. I enjoy playing most anything, though I do have favorite character types, and thus generally aim toward filling "holes" in the party, unless most major roles are taken care of with other character choices.
In one of my longest running campaigns the other players picked a Paladin of the Silver Flame and a TN Monk of the Silver Flame (this was 3.5). We needed both healing and some arcane ability, so I decided to be a bard - to boost my healing a bit I made character choices that increased my healing ( I was a halfling of house Jorasco, for Eberron fans) ability and used my buffs to help the other two party members shine. Within the limits that I needed to add healing and arcane ability to the party, I min maxed - though the limits I imposed on the character would keep her from being "optimal", she was optimized from the standpoint I made her as useful as possible within her role.
In a new group when I first moved to Houston, I asked about what the rest of the party was doing. With what I heard about character choices, I assumed the party wasn't big on optimization, so I chose to be a thief-acrobat. Lost of fun skills, filled the important holes in the rogue-less party, but not necessarily a combat monster. Turns out that was a combination of inexperienced players and a power tripping killer DM, but I understand enough about my desire to tweak characters and plan their builds to make sure I steer the character in party friendly directions.
I can't really "turn off" my desire to tinker with builds and tweak things. What I try to do is make sure the things I do to have fun with the game don't interfere with others' fun with the game. I had a fun 3.5 paladin / bard build that was pretty sick, damage wise, thanks to multiple feats and abilities that increased the character's ability to hit and 3.5 power attack's ability to turn those increases into serious damage. I never once actually used my character's full combat ability in that game because it wasn't necessary - the party was able to take care of things without my character interfering, and it didn't last long. I got a lot of nasty comments on her ineffectiveness from the DM (who I don't think understood the point of the build), but if we ever got in bad trouble she would have able to step in and hopefully save her comrades.
If a min-maxer is causing trouble in the group, it's time to talk about making sure that everyone has fun. Sometimes it's more optimal to save your resources if they're not needed - especially if the rest of the party can handle whatever you're all facing - and then if something hits after the party's resources are depleted, the min maxed character will have a chance to really shine. Another big help, if the power level of characters is too wide for the group to have fun, is to help less experienced players (or players less interested in the fine art of optimization) amp up their ability a bit, and suggest the min maxing player choose a character concept where they can indulge their min maxing desires without creating a combat monster (I like bards for this. MOnk can also be fun. Look at it as a challenge!).
YMMV.
Depends on what I'm after, the reasons are sometimes mutually exclusive.
1. Because steamrolling things is fun. It's the same reason anyone's ever played through a first person shooter with the invulnerability cheat code on; low frustration tolerance and a feeling of power. Low tolerance for failure is especially relevant in RP heavy games where combat is a minor part of the whole experience, since I'll be damned if a long complicated plot to negotiate a settlement between two kingdoms to avoid war gets derailed because a goblin got a lucky hit.
Unfortunately a lot of GMs take it as law that combat has to be challenging. It really depends on what the group is after, and if everyone is happy enough steamrolling things adjusting the difficulty of the encounters actually ruins fun. Under GMs like that mix-maxing is counterproductive because it precipitates an arms race between the equivalents of the USA and Comoros. It's pointless to min-max to stay ahead of the curve when the GM shifts it in response to your min-maxing.
2. The opposite, tactically interesting games make min-maxing a necessity. Kirth covered this better than I could, so I'll just move on.
(Incidentally I don't really enjoy combat heavy games and am far less motivated to min-max in them than I am for light combat games)
3. Intellectual candy. The game is a system and systems are fun to mess around in. Same reason I crunched defensive stats for tanks in WoW even though I didn't really have to. There's math, do I really need a reason to do it?
4. Practice of a sort; builds system mastery so that I'll have an easier time GMing for people who do min-max.
A time to interact in character with either NPC's or PC's, and a time to get down and dirty/strategic in combat, moving into "chess" mode where we move pieces around a board in a logic, precise manner.
Interesting. Since I always try to stay in my character's head, it never occurred to me that others go back and forth. I assumed you did one or the other exclusively.
|
|
A time to interact in character with either NPC's or PC's, and a time to get down and dirty/strategic in combat, moving into "chess" mode where we move pieces around a board in a logic, precise manner.Interesting. Since I always try to stay in my character's head, it never occurred to me that others go back and forth. I assumed you did one or the other exclusively.
While I like to think I "stay in my characters head" I can't help but shift into "combat sim" mode. I begin thinking strategically and as if it was a miniatures wargame, me and my allies vs. the monsters on the table controlled by the GM. I try to make decisions for my character based on what I think he'd do, even if they don't make the most strategic sense, but often find myself forgetting that and just playing as strategic as possible. I have to remind myself "wait, would my 8 Int paladin really do that?" and then ask the GM if I can change my action. For example, I might say "Eonas yells to the others 'RUN AROUND THE BACK AND GET READY TO HIT WHEN I HIT!!!" when in reality he's dumb as dirt and wouldn't have thought of that. I'd say to the GM "Sorry, I take that back. I never said that because my guy is a moron." lol
Speaking from a strict 3.5 PoV.
The reason I min/max is because it's needed. We have a concept player that loves his charecters soooo much that he can't possibly allow them to be hurt or killed.
He enjoys playing druids and useing his animal companion as a sacrafice, order IT to attack while he runs away, Or he will stay in the way back of the party and lob produce flame and thats pretty much it.
In a encounter designed for 4 people when one is a craven coward that will not mellee for any reason then that places a burden on the rest of us. My cleric of pelor is NOT a codzilla simply because he has to keep the other two members alive after they get dogpiled by the bad guys, I also take my hits but not as many cause I'm in full plate and were only 4th lvl. Tough to hit keeps the party alive.
I persomnally enjoy min/maxing because I feel it is very much needed when you play any type of spellcaster in 3.5. I am not trying to flame and this is MY opinion but due to excessive nerfing of all spells from 3 to 3.5 you'd better min/max or else your fireballs are going to be evaded EVERY SINGLE STINKING TIME! dont even get me started to the over nerfing of harm or flamestrike and how everything under the blasted realms has Magic resistance so you'd better pay your feat tax and take spell penetration X2 AND bump your evocations, then you might have a chance of hurting a rouge or monk. I alway skeep a wand of ice storm and magic missle handy just to be able to kill these two classes in case we eve rfight them. Nothing says love to a player than when a DM rolls a 4 on the d20 and says "oh he made his reflex save, don't even bother rolling damage cause he has evasion and your maxxed fireball was wasted, but now he's comeing after you".
Thats why I min/max because it's needed for survival.
I am a ROLE-player first and a ROLL-player second, so I do not think I have ever min-maxed a character on purpose and have never planned out in advance every class level, feat and skill. I have also been playing since 1st edition and do not enjoy 3rd nearly as much because it sometimes feels that you MUST min-max to stay alive and that is no fun. I don't want every feat or skill I choose to be a MUST for combat. I also do not enjoy playing with min-maxers or munchkins as all they seem to enjoy is beating on the enemy and not role-playing. I have been in quite a few game sessions where there was not a single combat and it was fine.
I always keep a wand of ice storm and magic missle handy just to be able to kill these two classes in case we ever fight them. Nothing says love to a player than when a DM rolls a 4 on the d20 and says "oh he made his reflex save, don't even bother rolling damage cause he has evasion and your maxxed fireball was wasted, but now he's comeing after you". Thats why I min/max because it's needed for survival.
Well, yeah, blasting stopped being useful sometime between 1st edition and 3.0. A min/maxed 3.5 caster typically won't even use direct-damage spells; save-or-lose, buffs, debuffs, and controls are a more efficient use of spell resources. So, I agree, a blaster requires a LOT more optimization to remain viable.
I also do not enjoy playing with min-maxers or munchkins as all they seem to enjoy is beating on the enemy and not role-playing.
Odd... Jess Door (see above) is in my group; she's maybe a min-maxer to some extent, but she's an excellent role-player as well. So is houstonderek (also in my group). And so on for most of the people I know; It's rare for me to come across someone who cares about the game enough to selectively apply the rules who isn't also a die-hard roleplayer (otherwise they'd be on their computer, instead of at my kitchen table, I suppose).
...I also do not enjoy playing with min-maxers or munchkins as all they seem to enjoy is beating on the enemy and not role-playing.
Interesting. My experience with over-the-top uber-optimizers (which I refuse to play with anymore) is that they optimize to 'beat' the other players rather than the in-game challenges. They want the spotlight 24/7.
I do a bit of optimizing but never to the munchkin extreme. In general, I optimize most when I have a whacky/inefficient character concept that looks like he/she won't hold his/her own with the other characters - so I try to level the playing field through optimization.
It's rare for me to come across someone who cares about the game enough to selectively apply the rules who isn't also a die-hard roleplayer
I must have encountered your share then.
I always keep a wand of ice storm and magic missle handy just to be able to kill these two classes in case we ever fight them. Nothing says love to a player than when a DM rolls a 4 on the d20 and says "oh he made his reflex save, don't even bother rolling damage cause he has evasion and your maxxed fireball was wasted, but now he's comeing after you". Thats why I min/max because it's needed for survival.Well, yeah, blasting stopped being useful sometime between 1st edition and 3.0. A min/maxed 3.5 caster typically won't even use direct-damage spells; save-or-lose, buffs, debuffs, and controls are a more efficient use of spell resources. So, I agree, a blaster requires a LOT more optimization to remain viable.
But it is possible. I assure you it is possible. You may have to be the most tricked out headband of intellect,all points in primary casteing stat,get a +5 book to add to your spell casteing stat but it can and IMO should be done because blaster casters are again IMO the most iconic of the D&D classes. I remember when the party cleric saved us all against a freaking pyro-hydra with one harm spell follwed by my macic missle. I remember when I saved the entire party and destroyed the avatar of a GOD by casting a disintegration spell from a scroll( curse of the azure bonds 2nd ed) Casters had to earn more exp, had the worst HP & saves and weapons of everybody but they made up for it in the long haul and honestly I miss that. I dont miss THAC0 but it seems the wonder of encountering a unicorn or a leprachaun or any othe strange and magical creature from our mythology is gone, now it's just HD and how much loot does it have. again all staements are IMO
...I also do not enjoy playing with min-maxers or munchkins as all they seem to enjoy is beating on the enemy and not role-playing.Interesting. My experience with over-the-top uber-optimizers (which I refuse to play with anymore) is that they optimize to 'beat' the other players rather than the in-game challenges. They want the spotlight 24/7.
And that is how the ones I have known have gotten the spotlight, by doing more in combat and killing more than any of the other party members. Sort of like: "Ha, I just killed 10 orcs by using my uber-special combos with one hand tied behind my back and my eyes closed while you were busy slowly chopping down your one orc."
|
I game with an engineer and he is exactly the same way. He comes up with a concept and becomes a master of that concept. Must be the job... ;)
All but one person in my group (a nurse) are engineers, or at least have engineering degrees. In 10 years of gaming, I've seen one partially optimized character (including all the NPCs I've used).
Just throwing that out there.
-Skeld
I game with an engineer and he is exactly the same way. He comes up with a concept and becomes a master of that concept. Must be the job... ;)All but one person in my group (a nurse) are engineers, or at least have engineering degrees. In 10 years of gaming, I've seen one partially optimized character (including all the NPCs I've used).
Just throwing that out there.
-Skeld
That's odd. I have an electrician(will eventually be an engineer) and a teamster(skipped his degree due to unusually high intelligence), and they optimize like the new sun ain't rising.
While I like to think I "stay in my characters head" I can't help but shift into "combat sim" mode. I begin thinking strategically and as if it was a miniatures wargame, me and my allies vs. the monsters on the table controlled by the GM. I try to make decisions for my character based on what I think he'd do, even if they don't make the most strategic sense, but often find myself forgetting that and just playing as strategic as possible. I have to remind myself "wait, would my 8 Int paladin really do that?" and then ask the GM if I can change my action. For example, I might say "Eonas yells to the others 'RUN AROUND THE BACK AND GET READY TO HIT WHEN I HIT!!!" when in reality he's dumb as dirt and wouldn't have thought of that. I'd say to the GM "Sorry, I take that back. I never said that because my guy is a moron." lol
I've never had an easy time trying to run combat "realistically". It leads to things like enemies running away screwing with the CR system, nixing the player hivemind/enforcing in character communication, keeping track of who has line of sight to where/fog of war, decoupling a player's knowledge of the bestiary from in character knowledge...
It's easier when you don't use a battlemat or miniatures, but over time I've just shifted to running combat tactically, it's a lot less of a headache.
I think people min-max for one of two reasons...
1) they want to show off.
To some extent, EVERYONE wants to show off, even the GM. It's only a problem when one player wants the spotlight all the time. A good GM will mix it up, and allow each person to shine at certain times. If one player is a massive-damage beast, the GM should occasionally throw a bunch of hard-to-hit baddies at the group. If the player ALWAYS hits, throw them some DR monsters. If the player is a melee-monster, introduce some flying opponents with crossbows. If they can do all of the above, throw in some hazards where SKILLS are required.
I don't think it's possible for a single player to do everything well.
2) they are tired of people showing off.
I remember a time, during 2nd edition, when I was completely fed up with every melee combatant playing the "How many attacks per round can I get?" game. It seemed that every campaign I played, no matter who was the DM, had at least one person taking ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting style. I was sick of it.
So, when someone decided to run a one-shot 20'th level adventure, I created a character that could legally achieve over 120 attacks per round. Not because I wanted to play that kind of character, but because I wanted to put an end to the attacks-per-round game by completely one-upping everyone else. After that game, I reverted back to my favorite PC type, the Magic User/Mage/Specialty Wizard role.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
At its core, RPGs are games of heroics, and nobody wants to play a redshirt mook. To an extent, we all optimize when we assign stats based on our class choices. Surely there are folks running around in the world with 10 Str and a greatsword, but PCs aren't those folks. As has been noted on other threads, there's a continuum between the garden variety optimization that we all do and finding "win button" combos like Pun Pun.
I have something of an optimization streak. I don't go for the uber-builds, but I want my character to actually be good at the things he's supposed to be good at. When I make a character, I build toward a concept. It's a concept of capabilities, but strongly influenced by the RP behind it as well. I want to be able to do X, and my character's background Y explains why I can do that and fills in some of the other blank spaces. X isn't necessarily "win any fight" (actually it never is, for me). Nonetheless, D&D/PF are usually combat-heavy games, and I want to be able to contribute when a fight comes around, even if that's not the focus of the character.
Also I agree with some of the upthread posts about optimizing for survivability in some published adventures. If you're playing Age of Worms or STAP, for instance, if somebody's not pulling their weight it can easily turn into a wipe, even in a large party. Some of the encounters are just brutally hard. Not every single character needs to be an utter combat monster, but every single character must be able to meaningfully contribute something to a fight with at least 1 or 2 highly competent in combat. If your party doesn't have a critical mass of combat power, or if you lack a key capability at certain points (flight, teleportation, dispel magic, etc.), you will not make it through most APs. Same deal for key skills: somebody's going to have to be able to make that Diplomacy check. You have to make sure all your bases are covered.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
nixing the player hivemind/enforcing in character communication
That brings up a great point. Technically, speaking is a free action. You can only take free actions on your own turn. As a DM, I don't allow players to talk to each other out of character in combat, except to help out with rules, pass the chips, etc. That goes a long way toward helping out with player hivemind. I do allow telepathic bond to get around it, which makes that spell super useful, since PCs can discuss and coordinate complex tactics instantly and silently, even in the middle of a fight.
My field is architecture, I don't min-max, I like to approach my classes from a balanced point of view, even when I play fighters, I usually have a +1 int/wis/con, +3 str/dex, and even a CHA bonus if I want to run an intimidator.
I don't like having major weaknesses. (I'd never take a 6 CHA, not even in DDO)
I think people have a lot of motivations for min/maxing. One reason that people in my gaming group tend to min/max is to call attention to problematic areas within the rules. Another reason they do it is because they've stumbled onto a ruleset that has thus far been under utilized, and they want to show everyone how cool it can actually be in combat.
|
|
I think assigning motives to anyone's optimization attempts but your own is probably a pretty big minefield. :) Just sayin'.
Defining min-maxing / optimiztion / munchkinning is always a thorny issue.
If you want to be the quirky the bard with a 12 charisma, you have to be playing in a certain type of game, or the rest of the party's going to be somewhat upset with you - because you're not pulling your "share" of the weight. Deciding you're going to play a heroic commoner in a game full of characters with PC classes is likely to be annoying for both your and your compatriots as soon as the novelty wears off.
Introducing Chuck the orbitting Ruby Knight that deals something like 20,000 damage in one tornado throw is more problematic - though less immediately so as you have to get to level 20 before you can pull off the uber combo of doom.
Some people like to fiddle with the rules more than others - just as some like to adopt accents at the gaming table while others don't, or some like to play wildly divergent characters from game to game while others stick with a tried and true favorite archetype.
I optimize because it's nearly 100% of the fun I can have with D&D or PFRPG while not in a gaming session - and maybe 10% of the fun I have during a gaming session. I'm the kind of dork that sits and read physics books for fun, or ruminates on the underlying mechanics of the system, or writes up equations and graphs of probabilities for alternate systems. It satisfies a need within me. And sometimes I can show off a cool ability, or pull off some fun stunt.
I understand it can be frustrating when someone in your group is like that, and it's not your thing. I compensate by either choosing character types that primarily buff or protect the party, rather than "take the limelight", or choosing a suboptimal starting point to get the challenge and fun without outshining the party. I also help those at the table that express a frustration with the rules by offering to help them tweak their character. The first question you always ask in that situation is "Describe to me what you know about your character - what is important about your character." Work from there.
Out of the forty or so people I've ever gamed with, I know exactly one person who was a "problem" min-maxer. Of the rest, about ten were really good role-players who didn't really understand the mechanics at all, ten were people who never really go into either aspect of the game, and the remaining half were really good role-players who loved optimizing.
Of that later group, of which I am a part, the ability to optimize a character directly corresponds to role-playing skill. We do it because we enjoy playing characters who are exceptional and can make a difference, and you can't do that if your character fails at everything they try, including the stuff they should be good at.
However, one really interesting thing about this mindset is that it means we don't necessarily optimize for combat. I've played at least five different characters, two of them in long-running campaigns, who were optimized for Profession skills.
There's also a key difference between min-maxing and optimizing, which is that a min-maxer doesn't care about anything other than the chosen focus of their character, while an optimizer still builds a fully developed character with the leftovers. I'm a hardcore optimizer, but I start to get twitchy if I have a character with an ability lower than 10, and I don't think I've ever played one with two abilities lower than 10.
My final thought is that we quite often optimize for combat in order to avoid combat. Whenever a game would start to become just a series of combat challenges, an arms race would quickly develop as we tried to finish the combats faster in order to get back to the other parts of the game. I've seen that in every game I've ever been in.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
I have a nasty habit as a DM of actively finding the holes in the Min/Max'd character and putting a disproportionate amount of "foible" in their path. Not sporting really, but as a DM Min/Max'd (talking extreme here) characters annoy me for reasons that may come to light in this thread (thanks to the OP for starting the thread). The classic being the "fighter of killing everything" seems to face a lot of Will saves - in fact (real example) the player took the feat Iron Will to try to offset my cleric fetish. Of course he complained (and perhaps rightly) that I was trying to bugger up his "build" by making him waste a feat that wasn't on the level 1-20 plan.
I just feel as a DM that the extreme Min/Max'ers cause be to become defensive and rather than tell an interactive story I start actively competing against the PC(s). Not a good DM look.
S.
The problem with discussions like this is that not everyone operates with the same definition of min/maxing.
Most people min/max to some degree or another, and most people who claim they don't are in denial.
Deciding which weapon to use, if you factor damage at all involves. Min/maxing.
Choosing the armor that gives you the best AC with your dex bonus. Min/maxing.
Selecting which spells your caster is going to memorize on a regular basis. Probably min/maxing.
People who don't min/max tend to be a drain on party resources. They are not effective at their 'job' and the rest of the party has to spend vital action covering their tail when they can't do it themselves. (And ROLEplayers who go out of their way to 'not be min/maxers' are the worst culprits.)
Now that's not to say that min/maxing can't be a problem. There are some great examples up-thread of overly min/maxed characters who can make the game unfun for others, but intentionally making weak characters can be just as big a problem.
|
|
I just feel as a DM that the extreme Min/Max'ers cause be to become defensive and rather than tell an interactive story I start actively competing against the PC(s). Not a good DM look.
Oh I agree. If I have a player in a game I run who goes about actively making the most absurd monster of death imaginable.. such that it distorts my planning requirements to such an extreme that I have to change everything just to work around his PC, I end up locating the PC's weak spot (because invariably there will be one) and then exploiting that weakness in order to illustrate to the player that perhaps in the future he shouldn't min so much in favor of his max :)
Mr. Fishy "min-maxs" in a off kind of way.
Mr. Fishy's latest character is a Cleric/Rogue with two weapons and the travel domain. Toe to toe his damage is low, but you can't stop he little sucker. The Battlefield is his playground move, flank, repeat.
Mr. Fishy Min -Maxed the character to be fun to play. He still needs the party, but he is a slippery bastard.
Min-maxing isn't a problem until it slips into Munchkinism.
Munchkin= A jerk that makes a character to break a game or annoy the rest of the group.
Mr. Fishy feels pretty safe to said that most people minmax a point,just to be useful. Nothing says sucks like being useless in a group.
|
|
Mr. Fishy feels pretty safe to said that most people minmax a point,just to be useful. Nothing says sucks like being useless in a group.
Amen.
BUT...
As a DM I find that the reverse happens. The extreme Min/Max'er causes the rest of the party to become useless.
I think we all do work under the same definition of a Min/Max'er. We don't mean the people who take the "smart" choices and end up with characters roughly, within their own class, function about on par with the rest of the group. But the thing we (I think) talking about is the elephant in the corner. The character that is dealing orders of magnitude more damage or just plain better at things than anyone else playing. This detracts the fun from both the DM and the other players as the DM becomes obsessed with taking the Min/Max'er down and rest of the players become "side-kicks" to the Min/Max'er. It's completely fine when everyone is using the same approach to character generation of course.
Every DM knows the point at which a Min/Max'd character becomes a problem rather than a cunning constructed PC. It's when people (including the DM) is looking bored as the gleeful Min/Max'er grabs a bucket of dice and yells "no worries I got this, can someone go get us pizza while I tear the DM's encounter apart please."
Yes Min/Max is a moving target and completely group dependent, but it doesn't mean that it is very disruptive to a group at times.
S.
PS: Usually it seems Min/Max'er focus on combat prowess. My meanest trick is to construct adventures/encounters with virtually no combat. Still as pointed out, I'm therefore going out of my way to make the Min/Max'er have "less" fun - not the purpose of a RP game.
I would like to shift the focus of the discussion onto why YOU (yes you with the donut goop on your keyboard) yourself min/max. More specifically, do you think that the systems you play in promote min/maxing, and if so, why?
Feel free to keep posting the stuff that you guys have been, it's been going quite well. Just figured I'd outright state some questions I would like to discuss.
I would like to shift the focus of the discussion onto why YOU (yes you with the donut goop on your keyboard) yourself min/max. More specifically, do you think that the systems you play in promote min/maxing, and if so, why?
Feel free to keep posting the stuff that you guys have been, it's been going quite well. Just figured I'd outright state some questions I would like to discuss.
I min/max to do well with whatever concept I have for my character, to within a reasonable degree. On one hand I'll try to maximise my combat potential, but then I'll take an option that doesn't compliment my combat abilities as much, but will really flesh out or merge well with my characters background. And I don't have donut goop on my keyboard, it's honey.
|
|
I'm usually the PC that "sucks" compared to at least two other players in our group. I don't bother reading the rules to the extent of developing "killer combos" of abilities of feats. I take things I think "look cool" and hope that the game designers by allowing me to pick something have a semi-balanced system that will allow me to be a productive part of the group, not just a drain on resources. Not to point fingers at individual games, but D&D 3.5e was where I had the least fun as a player and as such I DM'ed a lot. My version of Min/Max'ing is determining the optimum number of feathers my hat requires to make my Noble look particularly fetching. "Make a diplomacy roll.", "What? Why? I have feathers in my hat!"
S.
That depends on the campaign and the particular build. Easy summery is as Amael said. I min/max to make sure that my character can effectively fill the role I want him to and the party expects him to and not be a drain on the party resources and abilities.
As far as systems, I play PRPG, GURPS, Shadowrun 2e, AD&D 1e and Call of Cthulhu. All of them require min/maxing if you want to have effective characters.
PRPG characters need to be able to contribute to combat in some way, that is what the game is focused on. Roleplaying is great, but when it gets down to it, this game is about combat and you min/max with that in mind.
CoC leans heavily the other way, it is best NOT to fight everything you come across. You will live longer and may retain your sanity longer. What you need to be able to do is investigate in some way, so you min/max your area of investigative expertise.
Shadowrun requires both and finding the proper balance is the height of min/maxing in my experience. You need combat skills but you also need investigative skills. Finding a good balance is tricky, but very enjoyable. Basically you must focus on one while not wholly neglecting the other.
GURPS is a weird animal because the system is so flexible you can do just about anything, but because there are so many good options and choices it requires you to really narrow down what you do. Ironically, my current GURPS character is the least min/maxed of all that I currently play because the story development took him in very unexpected directions. I made him to be a smuggler, but he ended up going in a combat direction, followed by supernatural events that lead him down the path of Ritual Magic. The only reason he is able to hold his own in the group is really because he is the only one left that has been in game since the start. In other words he has many more Character Points than anyone else currently playing and if he was focused in any one area he would likely outshine everyone in the game.
I would like to shift the focus of the discussion onto why YOU (yes you with the donut goop on your keyboard) yourself min/max. More specifically, do you think that the systems you play in promote min/maxing, and if so, why?
Feel free to keep posting the stuff that you guys have been, it's been going quite well. Just figured I'd outright state some questions I would like to discuss.
I have always been in difficult games. We have not finished AoW or Shackled City due to people moving though so we have to optimize to an extent. I try not to be any more powerful than I have to be to survive though. I think our group has a line that we know should not be crossed. I don't mind playing an RP centered game, as long as I get a difficult combat thrown in here and there, preferably once per session at least. The thrill of possible death makes it fun for me.
I would like to ask which definition of Min/Maxing we are using. Is this simply optimized for one facet or theme? Are we talking about the one trick pony (minimizing everything to maximize one thing)? Is the term referring to the guy that likes to have all his bases covered?
At our public Saturday games I am actually depended on for my optimization. The other players not only expect it -- they actively encourage me. This isn't because the DM is a jerk, or the adventures are insanely hard, but because they know my character can be counted on to step up and handle things when everything is on the line. If they build something that isn't optimized they know that as another player I'm not going to steal their thunder -- I'll "play down" until such a time as it I think the full extent of what I have is needed.
Also I think part of the... difference is how the character is played. Another player and I had almost identical characters when we played RotRLs. We were both wizard/loremaster/archmages. We had most of the same feats. However our effectiveness was wildly different. He would use blasting spells often, while I would summon, conserve slots with multiple usage spells, and often not use all my spell slots by the time the party was ready to rest. It was a difference in play style that could have caused someone to assume I was 'powergaming' when he wasn't even though the characters were so alike on paper.
I think the biggest thing is knowing the group you are playing with and what everyone is expecting from the get go.
I always feel that it is odd to NOT try to be as effective as possible. After all when we do something in life we try to do it as well as possible and to make the most of it... we want the best and we strive for the best because we understand that the best is better than the rest... why do any less in a game? I don't play to be worse than I am and my characters don't decide to do things that make them worse than what they can be.
EDIT:
Sometimes I build characters that I don't think are optimized that end up doing extremely well. An example: My wife's character is based off of one of my builds (she didn't want to bother with doing something herself and liked the character flavor and history... which I always do with my characters too). Fighter with 16 str, 16 dex, 14 con, 14 int 14wis 10 Cha(25 point buy), with the college fighter alternate out of campaign settings. Falcatta fighter from Taldan. Grabbed Iron Will early and she's been set all campaign. She hits hard and solidly and has good AC and save throws. She also too the dangerously curious trait for use magic device. It wasn't meant to be so good honestly, but it has been precisely because it's so balanced (besides the focus on the falcatta, she's taken shield focus and point blank/precise/rapid shot for ranged effectiveness).
|
|
When I make a character, I pick a theme like any other, but then I look for ways of mastering that theme, and map the character out through 20th level before I ever play it.
I usually look 5 levels ahead, because it's fun to do. There's no point playing a Sun God-loving wizard with an interest in fire/light-type spells if he doesn't have the spells and feats to back up his interest.
PS: Usually it seems Min/Max'er focus on combat prowess. My meanest trick is to construct adventures/encounters with virtually no combat. Still as pointed out, I'm therefore going out of my way to make the Min/Max'er have "less" fun - not the purpose of a RP game.
I wouldn't call that a "mean" trick at all, and I would in fact call it good GMing. If you're dealing with an actual min-maxer, then non-combat encounters give the other players time to shine and hopefully lead the min-maxer by example. If you have an optimizer, then less combat may have been precisely what they were going for. As I said above, optimizers don't tend to care if the thing they're good at comes up very often, they just care that they can do well at it when it does.
Combat min-maxers are only a problem if the game is already flawed by depending too much on combat encounters, so your approach is exactly the one I would recommend.
I would like to shift the focus of the discussion onto why YOU (yes you with the donut goop on your keyboard) yourself min/max. More specifically, do you think that the systems you play in promote min/maxing, and if so, why?
Feel free to keep posting the stuff that you guys have been, it's been going quite well. Just figured I'd outright state some questions I would like to discuss.
In my experience, the more limiting a system is the more people will be encouraged to min-max. This is really obvious in d10 based systems, which is where I first noticed it. If you've got a system where you have to throw a third of your build points into something to be even halfway decent at it, then there's no point in focusing on anything other than what you want to specialize in. If, on the other hand, you can toss a miscellaneous build point into something and be passably decent at it, then suddenly it's worthwhile to spend those points on something other than just a slight increase to your chosen focus. So it's not really that a system can encourage min-maxing, but there are systems that encourage not min-maxing.
Cookie crumbs on Mr. Fishy's key board.
The systems promote it, with skill checks and classes. However minmaxing to be effective and looking to bend a system aren't the same thing.
The class system encourages Minmaxing by giving you a package of skills and abilities; that encourage a set of behaviors by improving odds of success if you play to the strengths of your skills and abilities.
Point buy systems encourage minmax by nature of proficient with a wide range of skills versus good a handful of skills.
The leading reason for Mr. Fishy to minmax is to help his party succeed. The second is to tweak Mr. Fishy's wife.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
As I stated upthread, I min/max to achieve a certain set of capabilities I envision when I design a character. I want my character to be good at what he's supposed to do, and that's the real reason stated simply.
I should note that survivability is always one of the capabilities I shoot for. Even when I'm building a skill monkey, healbot, or other non-combat-focused character, I'm asking myself, "what is this guy going to do in a fight?" The reason is I like playing the characters I build, I put a lot of time and effort into the build and the RP background, and in most cases I don't want to have to do all that over again if the character dies because I failed to make him combat-functional.
EDIT: I too have played many systems over the years (D&D 2/3/.5/PF, GURPS, White Wolf, Palladium, Shadowrun, Star Wars d6, M&M), and I'd say that every system encourages and even assumes a level of min/maxing. You make decisions; some are better decisions than others. Choice A might be better if you also make Choice B instead of Choice C. It's inherent to any game that involves more than pure chance. The more choices you have, the more the system opens itself to min/maxing. In a very broad system like GURPS, Mutants & Masterminds, or splatbook 3.5, you have many choices, therefore high potential for min/maxing. In systems with more restrictions and a more templated character generation process, you have less potential for min/maxing.
Why do I min/max? Three words: Because it's fun!
If D&D is my hobby, then min/maxing is almost like a sub-hobby. Deciding upon a character's theme and then crunching the numbers, weighing the options, and making him the most lethal race+class+items combination are all tremendous fun. It's like a puzzle and solving the character is a great way to unwind after a long day. Something people have Sudoku, I have this. (It's also fun on plane trips!)
Another great thing about min/maxing, surprisingly, is how relaxed it makes me at the table. I can play my character and not need to worry at the table of whether or not I chose the right feats or prepared the right spells for the day when I know I've got my bases covered. So if a powerful, disliked NPC demeans or offends my character or his party, and I'm playing a proud, stubborn SOB, I know that I can go toe-to-toe with the NPC without fear of being flattened.
To address Madcap Storm King's query: I min/max because it gives me the freedom to play the character concept I want to play without worrying about the other players having concerns about my character's usefulness, reliability, or overall contribution to the party. When I cast an empowered split-ray disintegrate coupled with the appropriate Easy Metamagic feats and an Arcane Thesis, no one at the table will dare gripe about the fact that my male wizard sounds like Hermione Granger.
I have two schools of thought both stem from my character's motivation when I create them. Some of them have personalities that would reflect a min/maxed character other do not. Personally I am a fencer and in a game sense if possible I would take every feat to make me the most effective fencer I could be... is that min/max? in game sure it is but it is also the motivation of my character to be the best... he didnt become or try to become a hero because he wanted to be an ok sword fighter... I also play characters who are heroes by circumstance and then I create a persona around that circumstance and allow them to grow throughout the campaign... I played a Bard who was mostly a Chef and cooking was more important than combat skills... later most of his talents and skill went to defending other people in the party because that is what the circumstances of his encounters dictated.