Has anyone that yells "Broken" or "Overpowered" ever considered that the game was designed the way it was on purpose. That synergistic builds are there to be used, that just because it is better than another option doesn't mean it was overlooked. I really feel like people blow out of proportions how "Unbalanced" options are sometimes. My group has never had any issue with "Powergamers" or "Broken" options for as long as I have been playing Pathfinder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know that your personal experience outweighs the one of all the other people.
Tje point I think I am trying to make is, isn't it possible that the game is fine but peoples perspectives need work? I am not saying the game is perfect but I truly don't believe it is as "Broken" as people make it out to be.
No, the game was not designed to have overpowered classes on purpose.
The game is tolerant of overpowered classes; thus, the designers will not cripple a cool concept for a character class to prevent it from being overpowered. However, they want people to enjoy playing with all their designs. Thus, they want to avoid underpowered classes. The more overpowered a class is, the more the weaker classes look underpowered in comparison.
As for powergamers, I recall one game in which one powergaming player designed an overpowered summoner. The APG had just been published and we were trying out new classes. Months after the game ended, the GM told me that that player had misinterpreted the summoner and made his eidolon more powerful than it should have been. Combat was unbalanced: the summoner and his eidolon would wipe out half the enemies; my optimized alchemist would wipe out a quarter of the enemies; and the other four party members would take on the last quarter.
If combat had been the main focus of the game, it would have been boring for most of us. Politics became the focus of the game, with my highly intelligent alchemist devising plans and the charismatic rogue, cavalier, and oracle implementing those plans. At which point, the summoner player quit out of boredom. The fighter player was content to be the new front line (my alchemist switched his tactics to buffing the fighter).
The point I think I am trying to make is, isn't it possible that the game is fine but people's perspectives need work? I am not saying the game is perfect but I truly don't believe it is as "Broken" as people make it out to be.
The powergamer in the group was the one who could not change his perspective to match the game.
This forum often harps on the brokenness of certain classes, but you might notice that we also praise Paizo for Pathfinder having fewer broken classes than D&D 3.5 had. We simply like to talk (and talk and talk) about how Pathfinder could be made better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tabletop isn't a competition, it's an experience. In every great fantasy/sci-fi novel that involved a group of people, there were always some who were just far more talented, and then the one's who bumbled along.
Not everyone has to be Raistlin.
Somebody gets to be Tas.
And even though Raistlin is infinitely more powerful than Tas...
|
Tabletop isn't a competition, it's an experience. In every great fantasy/sci-fi novel that involved a group of people, there were always some who were just far more talented, and then the one's who bumbled along.
Not everyone has to be Raistlin.
Somebody gets to be Tas.
I've run the 1st four Dragonlance modules at least 5 times.
The person who plays Tas always has the most fun, even though he spends most combats just trying to stay out of trouble. And he's a great character for someone who has never gamed before.
The thread title is correct, but the OP's analysis is a bit off, in my opinion.
In a world without GMs, of a world with only passive GMs, that would be true. In the style me and my friends like to play, the GM calibrates the challenge for the party. Assessing the PCs' power level is a moving target. In the end ilthe goal is to challenge them no matter the build, so system exploits are irrelevant.
I'm not a storytime GM, nor do I believe in letting perfect "builds" plagiarized off the Internet walk all over my NPCs. Players push, I push back. That seriously changes the role that rules and character options play at my table.
No, it isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assessing the PCs' power level is a moving target. In the end the goal is to challenge them no matter the build, so system exploits are irrelevant.
The problem is that if picking option X makes you 100 times more powerful than everyone else in the party, then you're either forced to pick option X as well or else you get to do your adventuring at the kiddie table while everyone else does grown-up adventuring (e.g. "you're attacked by 7 beholders and one orc -- the 7 beholders attack Joe and the one orc attacks Frank").
(Note: I'm exaggerating for effect.)
Assessing the PCs' power level is a moving target. In the end the goal is to challenge them no matter the build, so system exploits are irrelevant.The problem is that if picking option X makes you 100 times more powerful than everyone else in the party, then you're either forced to pick option X as well or else you get to do your adventuring at the kiddie table while everyone else does grown-up adventuring (e.g. "you're attacked by 7 beholders and one orc -- the 7 beholders attack Joe and the one orc attacks Frank").
(Note: I'm exaggerating for effect.)
That *is* a problem, and one that no game could ever fix for you. You need a GM. The game for the GM is to fix this problem.
The game system can give you encounter balance metrics (and pathfinder does a fair job of this) to assess how bad the problem is. They're not perfect.
But the real tool of the GM is communication. They need to communicate the game scenario to the players. They need to learn what the players consider a "good game", and deliver that. If there's a disparity between perceptions of a good game, they need the players to communicate that to the GM and to each other.
There is no rules solution to this problem. It exists in every ruleset, even the ones that claim to be more "balanced".
And frankly, as a GM, a game that "runs itself" in that all characters are automatically contributing equally without effort on my part or ingenuity on their part... that sounds really lame.
Magnuskn it is unfair to claim that the OP is a lone crazy voice in the wilderness. The web is generally dominated by a vocal minority.
I rarely post on the boards, but I have played all the way through Shackled City, Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, Carrion Crown, and now am in Jade Regent. I have also DMed Second Darkness and Shackled City.
I have played every edition of D&D since the original basic set. I am with one group that would not go near 4th edition and another separate group that gave it a shot. I have seen plenty of powergers in both groups and could be called one myself sometimes.
So, when I say I rarely have had a problem with anything being "broken" in Pathfinder, it is coming from a position with a reasonable amount of experience. That is not to say it is never an issue, but it has never ruined a campaign.
I agree with northbrb, and I bet a lot of other people do as well, even if they don't post on the boards.
The problem is that saying "could it be that all of you are wrong?" from the perspective of someone who had the simple luck of playing with people who don't abuse the system is just myopic. Yeah, you and the OP had good luck. Lots of us did not and we point out parts of the system which can be easily abused.
I have two groups. One is much more moderate with their characters and the system seems perfectly in tune with what they do. My other group has players who are much more into optimizing and suddenly the system begins to show visible cracks.
Telling me that I am wrong because it never happened to you is what is extremely rude.
In my experience in all but the most extreme of cases (very rare), 'broken' is just a term for 'not perfectly balanced with everything else... and in my opinion, the never-ending quest for balance is detrimental to the game. Specific combo's that any particular GM thinks is a bad idea can easily be set aside, but as far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with one character being technically more powerful than another, even if they serve the same role - which, in a well-built party, shouldn't happen too often.
I also find the term comes up a lot in groups where all they do is combat. Adventures that include plenty of options for skill checks go a long way in 'balancing out' so-called broken characters.
|
|
Tabletop isn't a competition, it's an experience. In every great fantasy/sci-fi novel that involved a group of people, there were always some who were just far more talented, and then the one's who bumbled along.
Not everyone has to be Raistlin.
Somebody gets to be Tas.
I've run the 1st four Dragonlance modules at least 5 times.
The person who plays Tas always has the most fun, even though he spends most combats just trying to stay out of trouble. And he's a great character for someone who has never gamed before.
Yeah, but somebody also has to be Sturm or Tanis.
There is no rules solution to this problem. It exists in every ruleset, even the ones that claim to be more "balanced".
It's silly to say that, since it's impossible to completely fix a game, one shouldn't even bother trying to improve the parts that nobody likes. (And I hope you're not saying that.) That's "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good".
|
Assessing the PCs' power level is a moving target. In the end the goal is to challenge them no matter the build, so system exploits are irrelevant.The problem is that if picking option X makes you 100 times more powerful than everyone else in the party, then you're either forced to pick option X as well or else you get to do your adventuring at the kiddie table while everyone else does grown-up adventuring (e.g. "you're attacked by 7 beholders and one orc -- the 7 beholders attack Joe and the one orc attacks Frank").
(Note: I'm exaggerating for effect.)
Without exageration is the scenario whith one player whose AC is 20+> than everyone else with multiple enegery immunities and fast healing.
How do you generate an encounter that can threaten the player without exterminating everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There will always be those who think playing anything slightly optimized are broken and powergaming.
There will always be those who think a Monks are good, Fighters that aren't sword and shield are breaking the game, and that Paladins should walk on egg shells and avoid insulting ants otherwise they loose everything.
And those people will always post retarted conveluted arugments on how Powergamers are ruining the game and "They" are the only ones who know how to keep the game "pure".
Just ignore them. And post on Monks. And post on Paladins(alignment). Trying to convince them they are wrong is like banging you head against a wall.
Without exageration is the scenario whith one player whose AC is 20+> than everyone else with multiple enegery immunities and fast healing.
How do you generate an encounter that can threaten the player without exterminating everyone else.
Save or suck spells
No save/No SR touch attacksAlchemist/Gunslingers (touch attacks)
Grapple
Trip
Disarm
Difficult Terrain
Walls of Bla
Mooks and Minions
Do I need to keep going?
|
|
There will always be those who think playing anything slightly optimized are broken and powergaming.
There will always be true powergamers, completely WAAC, regardless of rules, balancing attempts or DM intervention. Power gamers do exist and will always be a problem. Learning to deal with them is part of becoming a good DM.
If one player is marginalizing others, then there's a big problem. Simple as that. Marginalization means less fun for most of the people involved and often leads to inordinate amount of prep time for the GM who is forced to come up with contrived enemies that will challenge just a single player, speeding up time to burn out.
I see something as broken when it does not work as intended.
Some things can be broken by themselves, such as feats that do litetally nothing, or nothing related to stated intent. An example is the rogue talent that grants a 20th level rogue +3 SA damage at -2 attack.
Some things can break the system as a whole in that they are so powerful (or weak) they make the game not work as intended (for example by setting the CR system completely out of whack). An example would be the Skeletal Champion template.
Some things can be broken in that they break the verisimillitude (sp?), for example i think the perception rules are broken because the average person cant see the tarrasque at 300 ft. distance.
Some things can be "broken" in a different way, in that they are better at something they arent focused on than something that is focused on is (thats a mess of a sentence). If, for example, a two-handed fighter archetype could make a better archer than an archer archetype fighter could, that would be broken. For this, it seems pathfinder is a fair bit better than 3.x though.
Some things can also be overpowered without necessarily breaking stuff, by being so good that someone taking that option will mean a lot of other options are out of the window for other people. This is a lot more subjective and comes down to flavor in large degree. Personally, i think a feat like persistant spell is overpowered because SoS casters are already incredibly powerful in my experience and the feat/rod increases this several times over (and turns heighten spell from decent to worthless as a bonus). I recognize others are fine with the power level it brings, so i dont really think its broken but just overpowered in my campaigns (where we have room for halfling fighters and dwarf bards).
What is broken and not depends on your campaign. If something makes your campaign not work as intended, that is breaking it in some way. However, sometimes some things can benefit from being broken and put together in another way.
I dont mind really odd combinations that can possibly break the game because i usually dont have players that TRY to break the game. My issue is more with simple combinations to common tropes, like abovementioned persistant spell.
In the end, i very much think that "broken" is a useful word to describe certain kinds of things percieved as flaws of the system. I agree its used a little too much though, and that it is sometimes used in a bad way.
Without exageration is the scenario whith one player whose AC is 20+> than everyone else with multiple enegery immunities and fast healing.
How do you generate an encounter that can threaten the player without exterminating everyone else.
Save or suck spells
No save/No SR touch attacks
Alchemist/Gunslingers (touch attacks)
Grapple
Trip
Disarm
Difficult Terrain
Walls of Bla
Mooks and MinionsDo I need to keep going?
Skill checks?
|
|
Without exageration is the scenario whith one player whose AC is 20+> than everyone else with multiple enegery immunities and fast healing.
How do you generate an encounter that can threaten the player without exterminating everyone else.
Save or suck spells
No save/No SR touch attacks
Alchemist/Gunslingers (touch attacks)
Grapple
Trip
Disarm
Difficult Terrain
Walls of Bla
Mooks and MinionsDo I need to keep going?
All of those are devastating to the rest of the party. Assuming solutions were not implemented in advance.
I am talking a character with only moderate dpr that concentrates are being unstoppable in the long duration fight. Saves, Touch AC and CMD are all pumped. Terrain is irrelevant. He loves minions (designed for endurance, not dpr). He'll never lead the kill count, but is never threatened by anything.
However, i must add, most balance issues ive seen has been due to player difference in character goal and system mastery.
You could always pull a dick move and use the timestop + delayed blast fireball trick as a sort of "You want broken? I'll give you broken!" moment.
Especially good if the caster in question has a rod of maximize.
Time stop, hope for at least 3 rounds.
Round 1
Maximized DBF with 3 round fuse placed at feat of enemy.
Round 2
Maximized DBF with 2 round fuse placed at feat of enemy.
Round 3
1 round fuse, move.
Time stop ends
306 damage if all saves failed.
Hand them a character sheet with a smile on your face.
Skill checks?Human, and intelligence was not a dump stat.
Can't do everything, but then, nobody can.
Human and average Intelligence doesn't mean he has all the skills needed to shine... I've found that the adventure paths Paizo puts out does a really good job with including skill checks as a vital part of the playing experience - the most recent Skulls and Shackles in particular. Sometimes its less a matter of challenging that one player than it is giving everyone else the opportunity to shine.
How about Swarms? They can be a b!#@h.
I respectfully disagree with the OP, and will provide rules to support this.
Broken
Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item...
If broken were an illusion, it would clearly state it with a tag, at least, and would likely be a glamer.Illusion
Illusions deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
I was going to say that it was a (Shadow).
There is no rules solution to this problem. It exists in every ruleset, even the ones that claim to be more "balanced".It's silly to say that, since it's impossible to completely fix a game, one shouldn't even bother trying to improve the parts that nobody likes. (And I hope you're not saying that.) That's "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good".
No, it's more like "Broken" is a player's word.
I understand the design philosophy that a GM shouldn't have to fix the game, but if we leave design aside, the GM's basic task is to assign appropriate challenge.
My operative definition for an appropriate challenge is to create conditions in which the players might die (or fail, depending on the scenario).
The OP's conceit is that synergistic builds and powerful combinations are there to be used. I say they aren't, necessarily. They can be used, they can be passed over. If your GM is awake, he will use the math that Pathfinder so thoughtfully includes to ensure that the challenge is appropriate for either type of play.
|
'Broken' is perfectly valid terminology...but what's 'broken' in one group may be underpowered in another.
IME, the important thing isn't how powerful a character is taken in a vaccuum, it's how powerful they are compared to the other PCs. I mean, if the whole PC group is more powerful (or less powerful) it's relatively simple for the GM to compensate (with either harder or easier encounters)...but if one PC is vastly more effective than the pothers then they're 'broken'. The problem's just as bad if they're less powerful, but that's usually called something else. The important thing is to ensure player parity of power, and nothing's 'broken' if it's the way that a particular group all do things.
'Broken' is perfectly valid terminology...but what's 'broken' in one group may be underpowered in another.
IME, the important thing isn't how powerful a character is taken in a vaccuum, it's how powerful they are compared to the other PCs. I mean, if the whole PC group is more powerful (or less powerful) it's relatively simple for the GM to compensate (with either harder or easier encounters)...but if one PC is vastly more effective than the pothers then they're 'broken'. The problem's just as bad if they're less powerful, but that's usually called something else. The important thing is to ensure player parity of power, and nothing's 'broken' if it's the way that a particular group all do things.
And many times, the "problem" is simply that the GM is running the same encounter over and over again, and that encounter happens to favor part of the party.
I don't think anyone is qualified to state that sort of thing, unless they've watched over every GM's shoulder.
You haven't had much experience with the game if you think there aren't any overpowered builds.
|
|
Yeah, but somebody also has to be Sturm or Tanis.Tabletop isn't a competition, it's an experience. In every great fantasy/sci-fi novel that involved a group of people, there were always some who were just far more talented, and then the one's who bumbled along.
Not everyone has to be Raistlin.
Somebody gets to be Tas.
I've run the 1st four Dragonlance modules at least 5 times.
The person who plays Tas always has the most fun, even though he spends most combats just trying to stay out of trouble. And he's a great character for someone who has never gamed before.
Actually, Sturm is a beast. He's the best fighter in the group *by far*, though Caramon eventually catches up once he gets equipment.
But Tanis. Yeah. But every group needs a straight man.
One of my favorite moments of GMing Dragonlance, though , started with an exasperated Tanis saying to Tas: "OK, I've had it. For the rest of the day I want you to stay right behind me at all times."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think alot of the argument on topics like this is actually a case of using different definitions.
Many people on this and similar threads use broken, over powered, power gaming, optimized, min-max'd, efficient, heroic, etc... as all the meaning the same thing. To many others they each have different meanings.
To me personally (and at least some other people I know):
Broken = A particular combination or rule that has an unintended consequence (positive or negative).
So yes, there are some rules or combinations of rules that have unintended effects that could stand to be adjusted.
But on the whole, I think it is a pretty good system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a game where I had one seriously OP optimized barbarian build. I had 1 good but useless until lvl 7 Sound Striker Bard build. I had 1 2WF Dorf fighter build. I had 1 rogue/RMA build. and I had 1 Wiz/Diviner-Blaster build. I had a Maneuver Master Monk.
Often they ate the CR appropriate level fights for breakfast and didnt need healing.
Usually they did the same to a CR + 1 fight.
Sometimes they could do similar to a CR + 2 fight, but would take damage
CR + 3 and CR +4 were usually the only challenging encounters I could make, and they still won those, albeit with good tactics.
In combat, the 2HF Barb would kill about 50%, the Dorf and the Sound Striker Bard killed about 35%, and the rogue and diviner and monk would usually take out the last 15% of the bad guys.
Did the diviner or the rogue ever complain about the OP of the Barb? Or the other guys? Nope, never once.
First, we had a solid group that enjoyed playing together. Everyone knew their party synergy and what they did to help.
Secondly, I was freerunning the campaign, no AP or anything, and I designed social challenges, political/moral challenges, and physical challenges wherein each party member got to shine.
I incorporated back stories and plot points so that each member would learn to rely on their party members for help, I made sure that they were the masters of their chosen plot hooks, I gave them each the ability to make sure that when they could be awesome they were awesome, and then I also put them in situations where their awesomeness would be a detriment and made them realize that sometimes being a 20 STR 7 CHA 8 WIS guy kinda sucks.
Ultimately the party was fun, the campaign was enjoyable, and even to this day they talk about their "retired" characters with fondness.
Nobody cried OP OP OP!
Nobody cared if the Barb got the majority of the kills.
Nobody gave 2 craps about whether the bard had +25 on his knowledge checks, on EVERY knowledge checks.
Nobody cried about the Monk, who usually didn't even kill someone, who's tactics involved choking out an oppenent (ridiculously impossible to do, and certainly almost pointless during a big combat). In fact, it was often the source of party humor.
Everyone had a great time, and that is the point of our hobby.
TL;DR
With a properly prepared GM, and enough imagination, an OP combat build or an OP social build isn't game breaking.
You could always pull a dick move and use the timestop + delayed blast fireball trick as a sort of "You want broken? I'll give you broken!" moment.
Especially good if the caster in question has a rod of maximize.
Time stop, hope for at least 3 rounds.
Round 1
Maximized DBF with 3 round fuse placed at feat of enemy.
Round 2
Maximized DBF with 2 round fuse placed at feat of enemy.
Round 3
1 round fuse, move.Time stop ends
306 damage if all saves failed.Hand them a character sheet with a smile on your face.
Why not just pop a maximized time stop, then summon 15-21 celestial or fiendish tyrannosaurs into their ranks and then dimension door away from the battle and make them wonder "WTF just happened!?"? Time stop ends, and it's the dinosaurs' turn.
At least then you don't have to worry about them having protection from energy or resist energy active. If they have CL 11th resist energy active, that alone cuts the damage of your trio of fireballs down by 90 damage from the final amount.
EDIT: An abyssal sorcerer with that feat that grants extra summons is particularly good for such things. You end up summoning 2 extra critters every time you pop a summon. Heck, if you wanted you could drop about 12 glabrezu into the battle, and then have them all open with a CL 14 chaos hammer. That's 378 damage w/saves vs slowing and no method to defend against it completely without being chaotic alignment, and they can keep pounding the party with it each round for 20+ rounds.
Opinions must counter other opinions. And they must be voiced. The fact that you find him stating his opinion to be rude is childish and simply ridiculous.Magnuskn it is unfair to claim that the OP is a lone crazy voice in the wilderness. The web is generally dominated by a vocal minority.
I rarely post on the boards, but I have played all the way through Shackled City, Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, Carrion Crown, and now am in Jade Regent. I have also DMed Second Darkness and Shackled City.
I have played every edition of D&D since the original basic set. I am with one group that would not go near 4th edition and another separate group that gave it a shot. I have seen plenty of powergers in both groups and could be called one myself sometimes.
So, when I say I rarely have had a problem with anything being "broken" in Pathfinder, it is coming from a position with a reasonable amount of experience. That is not to say it is never an issue, but it has never ruined a campaign.
I agree with northbrb, and I bet a lot of other people do as well, even if they don't post on the boards.
The problem is that saying "could it be that all of you are wrong?" from the perspective of someone who had the simple luck of playing with people who don't abuse the system is just myopic. Yeah, you and the OP had good luck. Lots of us did not and we point out parts of the system which can be easily abused.
I have two groups. One is much more moderate with their characters and the system seems perfectly in tune with what they do. My other group has players who are much more into optimizing and suddenly the system begins to show visible cracks.
Telling me that I am wrong because it never happened to you is what is extremely rude.
Think you missed that the problem was the OP stated his opinion in a rude and childish way. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but people still have to present your opinion in a civil manner. And if someone can't back their opinion up with a good argument, they should expect to get torn apart on any forum.
i always wonderd why the ppl who play again and again with the retarded fighter or the megacrippled mage don`t just go play WoW or something like that, u dont have to roleplay in a mmorpg, and they seriously think we buy that " I have int 5 for roleplaying reasons" BS?
ps: everyone has their own style pf playing, as long as you are having fun YOUR game is alright, but THE game wasnot ment to be played that way
Has anyone that yells "Broken" or "Overpowered" ever considered that the game was designed the way it was on purpose. That synergistic builds are there to be used, that just because it is better than another option doesn't mean it was overlooked. I really feel like people blow out of proportions how "Unbalanced" options are sometimes. My group has never had any issue with "Powergamers" or "Broken" options for as long as I have been playing Pathfinder.
Broken is subjective. Many people don't realise that however.
This is an excerpt from a post I made in another thread.
As a better example:Anything that can challenge super-character/player likely kills the rest of the party, but anything that can merely challenge the rest of the party can be solo'd by super character/player.
The above example is why I said it depends on the GM, and the group. I don't think anything in PF is inherently OP with a weakness, but depending on other circumstances certain builds/players can be a problem.
That is how many of the "X is broken/OP" comes about.
PS:Sometimes super-character is not all that super, but the difference in system mastery causes problems.
|
|
Bah I can't stand the word broken or overpowered. It gets tossed out way too much in our hobby. Espcially with D&D imo. Every game has some abilites that are better than others. Sometimes they are designed that way and sometimes it's the "well it looked good on paper the first time I developed that concept" type of thing. When I play a character I play him to the best of his abilities and pick and choose the best abilites, feat,s powers etc to improve and compliment the character. I never subscribed and will never subscribe to the school that insists I take a weaker ability. I can roleplay just as well with an optimized character as well as one that is non-optimized. If you think that Pathfinder has too many "broken" things try playing Rifts then get back to me. If anything more often than not posters yell that things are broken or overpowered because too many like to run their games with an iron fist. Anything that offers a bonus higer than +1 or something they can't control fron start to finish is well you guess it broken or overpowered.
Funny enough a few years ago over on the Wotc forums I had a poster insist that a Damage Resistance of 2 for Barbarian was broken because it made the barbarian immune to attacks. Apparently the poster never used ranged weapons or other items/spells that immobilized a babarian.
i always wonderd why the ppl who play again and again with the retarded fighter or the megacrippled mage don`t just go play WoW or something like that, u dont have to roleplay in a mmorpg, and they seriously think we buy that " I have int 5 for roleplaying reasons" BS?
ps: everyone has their own style pf playing, as long as you are having fun YOUR game is alright, but THE game wasnot ment to be played that way
I min-max my characters AND I am a heavy RPer who puts a lot of work into my character's personality.
I made a CL 3 character who could do something like 6d6 damage with a swing of his weapon, plus strength. I then also spent two days learning to emulate a Nigerian accent because the character was a Half-Giant from Xen'Drik (in Eberron) and common consensus is that the Xen'Drik races would have African sounding accents.
Just because we mix-max doesn't mean we aren't also RPers.