What's the name for someone that takes things like Craft (basketweaving) and claims it proves they're a better roleplayer? That is, taking options that deliberately hinder them or their contribution to the party and act like it's some kind of badge of prestige.
What's the name for someone that takes things like Craft (basketweaving) and claims it proves they're a better roleplayer? That is, taking options that deliberately hinder them or their contribution to the party and act like it's some kind of badge of prestige.
I don't know, but it probably deserves one.
The PC's are supposed to be the best of the best. If you are not at least competent at your job, then realistically you would not choose to be an adventurer or be allowed to tag along. To keep you along, when you are not contributing is bad RP.
Now if the entire group plays like that then it is ok, because the GM is probably fudging dice.
Don't however be surprised if you are this guy, and the group(in game) boots your character because he is not helping them stay alive. That is just good RP, because if I was an adventurer in real life, and you want to tag along, you better be good, and I mean really good at what you do.
Just to be clear, I am not saying don't RP. RP'ing is cool. Going out of your way to power your character down to try to prove you are a good RP'er is not cool. It is not any better than making super-character just to prove you are better at building characters than everyone at the table.
I found the name. It is the Anti-Munchkin on the tropes website.
Anti-Munchkin: The type opposed to optimization of any kind. He'll frequently hand in characters which are wildly incompatible with the style of the game (such as an underwater basket weaver in a dungeon crawl), or the rest of the party (like a Paladin in a group where everyone else is evil, though sometimes this is just a Munchkin looking for an excuse to kill the party). Any objections will be met with a rant about character conceptualisation, implying that the other players at the table are nothing but power-gaming Munchkins who are there only to kill monsters and steal their stuff.
Now I would change this for the purpose of PF to say the Anti-Munchkin is never a munchkin in disguise, but he does often default to one true wayism, and intentionally nerfs his own character as a way to prove his "superior RP skills". If you are not also self-nerfed you are a power gaming munchkin who crunches numbers, and please don't try to show him any math. Only min-maxers do math in his opinion.
Interesting thread which leads me to one question. Why do you play RPGs? Because the overwhelming impression I get from quite a few of the posts would seem to be "to win".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the name for someone that takes things like Craft (basketweaving)What if I actually WANT to take Craft (basketweaving) because it fits my character concept??
I think the people discussing the Craft(Basketweaving) issue would say that there is nothing wrong with that at all, until or unless you begin to act as if doing such a thing makes you superior to the others at the table, or if you begin to whine because your character is not at the same power level as the rest of your group.
This entire topic is silly, IMHO, because aside from the Cheater, all of the other titles are purely subjective. What is simple optimization to one group creates a freakishly overpowered munchkin at a different table.
The PC's are supposed to be the best of the best.
Citation, please? I take issue with this, because it implies the PCs are expected to be highly trained. That is not always so - player characters are a cut above average in ability and potential. That does not make them the 'best of the best' - it just makes them somewhat exceptional.
Some people like a party like a to be similar to a special forces team. Others prefer the 'accidental heroes' concept of people swept up in events and forced to become adventurers. Neither concept is wrong. However the accidental hero is not the 'best of the best' and should not be expected to be, at least at first.
If you are not at least competent at your job, then realistically you would not choose to be an adventurer or be allowed to tag along. To keep you along, when you are not contributing is bad RP.
This implies choice, and choice is not always available - for example, if the PCs are shipwrecked on a desert island, they don't get to choose who is there and who isn't. I do agree, though, that each character should be contributing in some way, but that is more in a metagame way.
Now if the entire group plays like that then it is ok, because the GM is probably fudging dice.
It's the DM's job to tailor the adventure to the party. He does not need to 'fudge the dice' to do this, any more than if a hyper-optimised party takes the field he has to 'fudge the dice' in order to challenge them. There is no difference in principal between toning down an adventure to not TPK a weak party than there is in beefing it up to challenge a strong party.
To say that the DM must be 'fudging the dice' is implying that to succeed such a party needs to cheat, and that need not be so by any means. A party of weak PCs could triumph through exceptional teamwork and good forward planning, in spite of being poorly made. Conversely, a party of optimised characters could struggle to function due to working at cross-purposes.
Don't however be surprised if you are this guy, and the group(in game) boots your character because he is not helping them stay alive. That is just good RP, because if I was an adventurer in real life, and you want to tag along, you better be good, and I mean really good at what you do.
It's the responsibility of each player to make a character that they enjoy, and that does not detract from the enjoyment of pother players, is how I would phrase it, but I think we agree.
Just to be clear, I am not saying don't RP. RP'ing is cool. Going out of your way to power your character down to try to prove you are a good RP'er is not cool. It is not any better than making super-character just to prove you are better at building characters than everyone at the table.
That depends on how you define 'powering down' really. Some players enjoy the challenge of playing non-optimal choices, and why shouldn't they, as long as they are still effective at what they strive to do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting thread which leads me to one question. Why do you play RPGs? Because the overwhelming impression I get from quite a few of the posts would seem to be "to win".
If by "win" you mean "survive to the next adventure so you can keep playing without having to roll up a new character," you might be on the right track. Here's a shocker for you -- some players actually enjoy level-appropriate challenges that might kill their characters! If everything is stories about lollipops, and everyone's survival is guaranteed, a not-inconsiderable proportion of gamers get bored and quickly find another game.
The people I play with, and I myself, tend to enjoy two broad categories of things in a game, not just one:
(1) Role-playing, character development, and story; and
(2) Tactical challenges to overcome, with some risk of character extinction present to add consequences to the endeavor.
If item (2) is present, you need to survive it in order to continue with (1). If that's what you mean by "to win," then fine. But I get the impression that what you're REALLY trying to say is that anyone who enjoys item (2) is automatically an Enemy of the One True Noble Way of #1 Gaming, and must therefore be scorned and derided. Which means that your opinion can be dismissed as irrelevant by anyone other than you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty much right, Kryzbyn.
As for the question posted, why do you play RPGs: To have fun. And though there are different ways of enjoying the game, I know that the one that works best for me is to feel heroic/competent. I want to be able to humiliate lesser foes (I usually prefer defense builds to offense) and tackle greater threats sooner. That's why I optimize.
It's not about being better than the other players (I'd like for them to optimize as well, and will help them if they want), nor is it about beating the DM (I'm not sure how one can even claim to do this).
What is it with roleplayers and Craft (basketweaving)?
It's one of the most boring of the Craft skills.
That's pretty much right, Kryzbyn.
As for the question posted, why do you play RPGs: To have fun. And though there are different ways of enjoying the game, I know that the one that works best for me is to feel heroic/competent. I want to be able to humiliate lesser foes (I usually prefer defense builds to offense) and tackle greater threats sooner. That's why I optimize.
It's not about being better than the other players (I'd like for them to optimize as well, and will help them if they want), nor is it about beating the DM (I'm not sure how one can even claim to do this).
Indeed. I don't understand how anybody would 'win' without pulling an Old Man Jenkins. Powergaming is so one can do well, not 'win'.
'Win' is becoming a bit of a buzzword around these parts, isn't it?
Let me be the first to say that sometimes it's FUN to have a loveable band of misfits, stumbling their way through the Pie-in-the-Face adventure path like the Four Stooges. I've often run games like that, when everyone was in the mood for them, and they can be a blast.
But not everyone wants to play like that all the time.
Sometimes it's also really fun to be a heroic character, undertaking missions so dangerous that you've got to ruthlessly seize every advantage in order to have a chance at survival. If you haven't tried these types of games, or have and didn't enjoy them, that's OK, but don't be so quick to deride anyone else who might like that style of play.
The game has enough options for people to play how they want; there's no need to cook up derogatiory labels towards people who don't share one's limited corner of preferences. So things like "powergamers" and "Gumdrop Gamers" (you know, who like games where everything is gumdrops and lollipops) do nothing but advertise an inability to accept that others might enjoy different things, or more than one thing.
The main thing is just to make sure that all the players at the table are on the same page. Sometimes that means dumbing down your character to the point where he fits the party baseline. Sometimes it means trading Skill Focus (Perform: Make Dolphin Noises) for Power Attack, and accepting that, while you can still make dolphin noises all you want, you might have to have some other competencies as well. Or it might mean having two parties (my preferred solution), one for easy-mode fun, and the other for serious hard-line tactical challenges.
My two copper pieces...
Munchkin : Will use everything to their advantage to include out of game knowledge.
Rules Lawyer: Will argue the use of any and all rules as they interpret them.
Min/Maxer : Tries to get the most they can with minimal investment.
Optimizer : Tries to cover their characters weaknesses as best they can within the spirit of the rules, and normally asks questions before using what they think is right. The others just do it and then argue the fact when they get caught.
In my humble opinion...oh sorry IMHO. I'm not up on all the abrevs. Is there a thread for that? lol (I did it again:) jk...
Interesting thread which leads me to one question. Why do you play RPGs? Because the overwhelming impression I get from quite a few of the posts would seem to be "to win".
The thread has nothing to do with now I play. The issue is that during debates these words come up, but they are always used differently. I just want all of them to have the same meaning no matter who says them.
Imagine if I said give me some food, but my definition of the word food was "paper". That is sorta what happens on the boards with respect to these words.
all of the other titles are purely subjective.
That is the problem.
.
Citation, please? I take issue with this, because it implies the PCs are expected to be highly trained. That is not always so - player characters are a cut above average in ability and potential. That does not make them the 'best of the best' - it just makes them somewhat exceptional.Some people like a party like a to be similar to a special forces team. Others prefer the 'accidental heroes' concept of people swept up in events and forced to become adventurers. Neither concept is wrong. However the accidental hero is not the 'best of the best' and should not be expected to be, at least at first.
Suffice it to say I was assuming most people want to be among, that I have gamed with or seen online. I was not saying it was a rule. Yeah I do realise that is not always correct.
This however is false-->"A party of weak PCs could triumph through exceptional teamwork and good forward planning, in spite of being poorly made. "
When I say weak PC's I am not just talking about builds. You can have a good build, but the PC is still weak if not played well. Yeah I was primarily speaking of builds I should not have to clarify that a good build played badly will probably fail.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That depends on how you define 'powering down' really. Some players enjoy the challenge of playing non-optimal choices, and why shouldn't they, as long as they are still effective at what they strive to do?
Really Dabbler? I clearly said:
Going out of your way to power your character down to try to prove you are a good RP'er is not cool. It is not any better than making super-character just to prove you are better at building characters than everyone at the table.
It is not about powering down. It is when the you know how the GM runs his games, and you do it, just to say you are better at RP'ing. If you do it for the challenge, that is entirely different.
---------------------------------------------
I never implied cheating. You did not like the first quote and got in a certain mindset. I can see that by how you responded to the quote about powering down.
Just to be clear I never said GM fudging was bad/wrong/fun. I am saying that badly made and/or played characters will not pass go. By badly, I don't mean mildly bad. I mean "WTF is that" bad.
As for the choice comment you are correct. I was assuming that the PC's were more mercenary in nature, which is normally, not the case. I could still see them not happy with someone, assuming they are supposed to be trained, who often "drops the ball". This assumes that the other(not ball dropping) PC's are at least decently made and played.
There is an abbreviation thread.
I think Rules Lawyer should be in here also. Many people see it as the guys who like to always correct people, particularly the GM, but that is not really an optimization thing, even though they are connected.
It seems we have two versions of min/max.
If you agree with one version then you should list the an alternate words and why that word should be used.
Min/max 1:Max strengths at the expense of making yourself a lot weaker somewhere else.
Min/max 2:Max strenghts/minimize while shoring up a weakness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems we have two versions of min/max.
If you agree with one version then you should list the an alternate words and why that word should be used.
Min/max 1: Max strengths at the expense of making yourself a lot weaker somewhere else.
Min/max 2: Max strenghts/minimize while shoring up a weakness.
1: "Hyper-specialist"
2: "Bet-hedger"Each term more clearly describes the strategy being employed, at the expense of cute alliteration and catchy sound.
That's pretty much right, Kryzbyn.
As for the question posted, why do you play RPGs: To have fun. And though there are different ways of enjoying the game, I know that the one that works best for me is to feel heroic/competent. I want to be able to humiliate lesser foes (I usually prefer defense builds to offense) and tackle greater threats sooner. That's why I optimize.
It's not about being better than the other players (I'd like for them to optimize as well, and will help them if they want), nor is it about beating the DM (I'm not sure how one can even claim to do this).
My fun comes from almost ever step of the gaming process. I enjoy using the mechanics to best fit my character concept. It usually starts square peg-round hole, but with thought research and effort, I usually end up with something I'm happy with. I enjoy watching and discussing the same process with my firends as they roll their characters. I have fun with the GM as he explains what kind of game we're going to be in, how our characters met...etc. I enjoy RP and hack n slash with that character putting him through his paces, and seeing how he interacts with the rest of the party. I've even enjoyed a character's death once or twice. It's the whole thing that's fun for me.
Just a few of your favorite things? :P
I can build my character from crunch up (if I find something in the mechanics that seems fun), or from concept up, finding the crunch to make it work. I want to make sure that I'm happy with both the concept and the crunch though, regardless of the starting point.
And I can agree that one can enjoy a character death, if it's special. Part of optimizing is making sure the random encounter bandits don't kill you. If a character dies buying time for the others, accomplishing a greater good, or something like that, it can be really dramatic and cool.
I think we're getting off-topic. I know "When is it okay to kill PCs" is a touchy subject, with some people of the opinion that "It's always okay!".
So: Kirth Gersen's terms capture the differences in the two major types of min/maxers that people define. Good luck getting people to adopt them though.
It seems we have two versions of min/max.
If you agree with one version then you should list the an alternate words and why that word should be used.
Min/max 1: Max strengths at the expense of making yourself a lot weaker somewhere else.
Min/max 2: Max strenghts/minimize while shoring up a weakness.
1: "Hyper-specialist"
2: "Bet-hedger"Each term more clearly describes the strategy being employed, at the expense of cute alliteration and catchy sound.
I like this also. :)
Just a few of your favorite things? :P
I can build my character from crunch up (if I find something in the mechanics that seems fun), or from concept up, finding the crunch to make it work. I want to make sure that I'm happy with both the concept and the crunch though, regardless of the starting point.
And I can agree that one can enjoy a character death, if it's special. Part of optimizing is making sure the random encounter bandits don't kill you. If a character dies buying time for the others, accomplishing a greater good, or something like that, it can be really dramatic and cool.
I think we're getting off-topic. I know "When is it okay to kill PCs" is a touchy subject, with some people of the opinion that "It's always okay!".
So: Kirth Gersen's terms capture the differences in the two major types of min/maxers that people define. Good luck getting people to adopt them though.
I am just going to use them all the time. :)
Ok, so that might not work, but I will try it.
If by "win" you mean "survive to the next adventure so you can keep playing without having to roll up a new character," you might be on the right track. Here's a shocker for you -- some players actually enjoy level-appropriate challenges that might kill their characters! If everything is stories about lollipops, and everyone's survival is guaranteed, a not-inconsiderable proportion of gamers get bored and quickly find another game.
The people I play with, and I myself, tend to enjoy two broad categories of things in a game, not just one:
(1) Role-playing, character development, and story; and
(2) Tactical challenges to overcome, with some risk of character extinction present to add consequences to the endeavor.If item (2) is present, you need to survive it in order to continue with (1). If that's what you mean by "to win," then fine. But I get the impression that what you're REALLY trying to say is that anyone who enjoys item (2) is automatically an Enemy of the One True Noble Way of #1 Gaming, and must therefore be scorned and derided. Which means that your opinion can be dismissed as irrelevant by anyone other than you.
No, you've read my post wrong. People on this thread are raising their hackles because their penchant for optimising their characters is being called into question. They are giving the impression that the game is about building the biggest and hardest PC in order to defeat the GM and/or the other players. They're completely missing the point that to do so is powergaming/min-maxing/whatever. Hence my question - why are they playing the game? Because it seems that they are playing it to win. Which isn't the point of the game, as you have pointed out. Playing for that reason (to win) you might as well play Monopoly and make car or dog noises as you move the pieces around the board. Or dig out copies of Talisman or Warlock of Firetop Mountain and roleplay your character in that. As soon as you start designing a character where the stats and, therefore, the mechanics are paramount you are power gaming (and, therefore, min maxing/optimising/whatever else you want to call it). You are playing to win indicating that you are seeing the GM and other players as your opponents to be outplayed. Which they're not. The GM is a player too and you are all playing the game together.
The thread has nothing to do with now I play.<SNIP>
I know - the post wasn't aimed at you. Peace be on you.
As for the question posted, why do you play RPGs: To have fun. And though there are different ways of enjoying the game, I know that the one that works best for me is to feel heroic/competent. I want to be able to humiliate lesser foes (I usually prefer defense builds to offense) and tackle greater threats sooner. That's why I optimize.
It's not about being better than the other players (I'd like for them to optimize as well, and will help them if they want), nor is it about beating the DM (I'm not sure how one can even claim to do this).
See, that can be read like a power gamer making excuses for his power gaming. Don't get me wrong - a fighter with strength 10 isn't going to be much fun and no, I'm not advocating that every character should be totally normal, skilled at basket weaving and a sociable kind of chap. But equally why should every fighter have a strength of 18, high constitution and good dexterity? Oh yes, to humiliate lesser foes (read the GM's NPCs) and tackle greater threats sooner (become even more powerful)
My fun comes from almost ever step of the gaming process. I enjoy using the mechanics to best fit my character concept. It usually starts square peg-round hole, but with thought research and effort, I usually end up with something I'm happy with. I enjoy watching and discussing the same process with my firends as they roll their characters. I have fun with the GM as he explains what kind of game we're going to be in, how our characters met...etc. I enjoy RP and hack n slash with that character putting him through his paces, and seeing how he interacts with the rest of the party. I've even enjoyed a character's death once or twice. It's the whole thing that's fun for me.
You sound like the sort of person I'd enjoy roleplaying with.
See, that can be read like a power gamer making excuses for his power gaming. Don't get me wrong - a fighter with strength 10 isn't going to be much fun and no, I'm not advocating that every character should be totally normal, skilled at basket weaving and a sociable kind of chap. But equally why should every fighter have a strength of 18, high constitution and good dexterity? Oh yes, to humiliate lesser foes (read the GM's NPCs) and tackle greater threats sooner (become even more powerful)As for the question posted, why do you play RPGs: To have fun. And though there are different ways of enjoying the game, I know that the one that works best for me is to feel heroic/competent. I want to be able to humiliate lesser foes (I usually prefer defense builds to offense) and tackle greater threats sooner. That's why I optimize.
It's not about being better than the other players (I'd like for them to optimize as well, and will help them if they want), nor is it about beating the DM (I'm not sure how one can even claim to do this).
You completely misread this thread. Nobody is advocating 18's. We are not even suggesting a certain way to build a character.
Here is the issue. Depending on what a thread might actually be about, certain words will be used. Sometimes the poster will refer to one of the previous definitions listed earlier in the thread. It might be intended to have a negative connotation. Other times it is not. The only purpose is to know what the poster means without having to ask. In order to do that the word "car"(use other word as needed) must always mean "car". If someone says "car", but they mean "hamburger", well it is not good. If you want to discuss cookie cutter builds I can create another thread for that if you like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My fun comes from almost ever step of the gaming process. I enjoy using the mechanics to best fit my character concept. It usually starts square peg-round hole, but with thought research and effort, I usually end up with something I'm happy with. I enjoy watching and discussing the same process with my firends as they roll their characters. I have fun with the GM as he explains what kind of game we're going to be in, how our characters met...etc. I enjoy RP and hack n slash with that character putting him through his paces, and seeing how he interacts with the rest of the party. I've even enjoyed a character's death once or twice. It's the whole thing that's fun for me.You sound like the sort of person I'd enjoy roleplaying with.
Really? My group powergames.
We all try to pick a concept, and make sure they are the best they can be at that concept. That's why they go adventure, and the other characters want to group with them.The DM makes up NPC's to combat us taking those strengths and weaknesses into account, but within the frame of the story.
You don't have to sacrifice the story for playing a competant character, and neither does the GM.
As soon as you start (A) designing a character where the stats and, therefore, the mechanics are paramount (B) you are power gaming (and, therefore, min maxing/optimising/whatever else you want to call it). (C) You are playing to win indicating that you are seeing the GM and other players as your opponents to be outplayed.
My issue here is that you're talking as if A always means B which always means C.
That may well sometimes be true, and may even often be true in your experience, but it is not automatically true.
As part of the definition-establishing mission for this thread, it's important to not insert speculation and stereotypes into simple definitions. If someone starts with mechanics and then works on character development, that does NOT automatically mean he's trying to "beat" the other players and ruin their fun. Therefore, defining "optimizing" as "powergaming where you try to beat everyone else because you're a cheesewhore with self-esteem issues" is pretty far off the mark in most cases.
It's like defining the word "cat" to mean "an ill-tempered tiger at the zoo who's missing one paw" -- because that's the cat YOU personally think of.
Again, I would readily state that nobody plays to 'win'. CTH, you keep saying they do. Do you actually have any idea how one would go about 'winning'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where's Charlie Sheen when you need him?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, that can be read like a power gamer making excuses for his power gaming.
Oh, I'm not making excuses for my powergaming. Powergaming isn't something dirty and unnatural that people try to hide or deny when someone else points a finger at it. It's not like taking steroids, it's like going to the gym. I was explaining why powergaming adds to my enjoyment of the game, it's not something that needs to be justified.
Perhaps some foes are meant to be humiliated? When you face a combat encounter with a CR beneath yours, is that not a good chance to look totally awesome? Is it not possible that the GM put those enemies there for the PCs to have that chance? Most GMs I've played with are rooting for the PCs in combat (though maybe they want to show off some cool monster ability first like the way this ghoul can just disembowel a person and eat their innards). If the DM is forming close personal attachments to all of his NPCs, even the fodder, well...
And personally, I prefer ad hoc level ups, where the DM just tells the party when they level up. I just get a bigger sense of accomplishment from bigger monsters, exp be damned.
It sounds like you are saying that it is wrong to relish combat, and perhaps even that enjoying combat (and building to be good at it) is confrontational behavior against everyone else at the table. While that may be true of some people that powergame (perhaps the ones you know), it is not true of all of them, and should not be attached to the term. Because if "powergamer" means "Someone who optimizes with the goal of proving how much better they." rather than "Someone who enjoys the play experience enabled by optimizing", what do you call the latter? I think it's better to just call a confrontational powergamer as such.
That's what the thread is about though. Like wraithstrike said, some people give these terms negative connotations. I disagree with those definitions.
Where's Charlie Sheen when you need him?
Would he be considered a powergamer?
With his outlook on winning, apparently he'd make a fine powergamer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a 'min-maxer' is an optimizer who is abusing the stat system.
Basically, he minimizes the stats that are not essential to his build so he can maximize the ones that ARE essential.
He is still an optimizer, and will not render himself vulnerable in an area that is important to the character.
For a fighter, that means high Str, Con, Dex, and dumping Cha, possibly Intelligence. You do NOT dump Wisdom, as that creates a weakness.
For a wizard, you dump Str and Cha, possibly Wis, and Max Int, Con and Dex. Etc etc.
That's a min-maxer. Totally stat based. Note: It is VERY hard to be a min-maxer without point buy, or by rolling stats.
The rest falls into Optimization, which is more of feat and class selection. Min-maxers take the stat adjusting to extremes...Optimizers work with what they have. For instance, you can optimize the elite array. You cannot min-max the elite array, because you can only assign scores, you can't raise some to lower others.
Power Gamers tend to be min-maxers who try to build the 'best' character, as if it were a competition.
Munchkins are Power gamers who are out of control.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suffice it to say I was assuming most people want to be among, that I have gamed with or seen online. I was not saying it was a rule. Yeah I do realise that is not always correct.Citation, please? I take issue with this, because it implies the PCs are expected to be highly trained. That is not always so - player characters are a cut above average in ability and potential. That does not make them the 'best of the best' - it just makes them somewhat exceptional.
Some people like a party like a to be similar to a special forces team. Others prefer the 'accidental heroes' concept of people swept up in events and forced to become adventurers. Neither concept is wrong. However the accidental hero is not the 'best of the best' and should not be expected to be, at least at first.
I get where you are coming from, I think what you said wasn't quite what you meant.
This however is false-->"A party of weak PCs could triumph through exceptional teamwork and good forward planning, in spite of being poorly made. "
When I say weak PC's I am not just talking about builds. You can have a good build, but the PC is still weak if not played well. Yeah I was primarily speaking of builds I should not have to clarify that a good build played badly will probably fail.
I see what you mean, however people have been talking mainly about builds rather than strategy and tactics, I assumed you were doing likewise. You know what they say about assumptions...
That said, a party of weakly built characters does not equate to a weak party, and a party of strongly built characters does not equate to a strong party - though in both cases they are a contributory factor.
Let me be the first to say that sometimes it's FUN to have a loveable band of misfits, stumbling their way through the Pie-in-the-Face adventure path like the Four Stooges. I've often run games like that, when everyone was in the mood for them, and they can be a blast.
But not everyone wants to play like that all the time.
Sometimes it's also really fun to be a heroic character, undertaking missions so dangerous that you've got to ruthlessly seize every advantage in order to have a chance at survival. If you haven't tried these types of games, or have and didn't enjoy them, that's OK, but don't be so quick to deride anyone else who might like that style of play.
...and what tends to get forgotten, is there is every spectrum in between. I don't want to be one of the three stooges, but I don't necessarily want to be in the D&D SAS either. I want a character that combines being interesting with being effective. I want them to be challenged by the adventure, with some events being a cakewalk and some being nigh-on impossible.
...and what tends to get forgotten, is there is every spectrum in between. I don't want to be one of the three stooges, but I don't necessarily want to be in the D&D SAS either. I want a character that combines being interesting with being effective. I want them to be challenged by the adventure, with some events being a cakewalk and some being nigh-on impossible.
Amen! That sounds like a near-ideal game, to me... but you don't get that by spending all your time deriding anything involving mechanics as "evil munchkin powergaming by all those people who just want to 'win' against the other players."
There's a balance here, which is too often overlooked in the eternal quest some people undertake to make absolutely sure everyone knows they're "real roleplayers" and not "dirty munchkins."
Meh, my Thursday group just makes dirty jokes.
(As an aside, after failing with stunning fist for eight levels, my monk finally got two successes in one combat! W00t!)
a 'min-maxer' is an optimizer who is abusing the stat system.
Basically, he minimizes the stats that are not essential to his build so he can maximize the ones that ARE essential.
But that what optimisation is: minimizing investment of resources that are not essential to the character while maximizing the ones that are.
The difference is in the concept. The optimiser will still minimise stats that are not essential to his concept, but the original concept may call for stats that need not be abysmally low (for a multitude of reasons). Same goes for skills, weapons and every other aspect of the character.
Min-maxing is simply unbound optimisation. The original concept is striped bare to its essentials without consideration for personality, history or background or conceptual choices that make the character unique.
As you said, optimising is attempting to make the best with what you have (either by choice or imposition). Min-maxing is attempting to make the best, without boundaries or restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd I missed this thread... Ahhh, because it isn't in a forum I search.
I will start with my definitions first.
Munchkin: A munchkin is someone who breaks the rules to create as strong a character as he can manage. The only limit to which rules a Munchkin will violate are based on their current GM and what he lets him get away with intentionally or not. The three tiers of rules are fluff, RAI, and RAW. The first two are almost always ignored by the munchkin, the last one is only ignored if their GM won't check the rule and/or doesn't know the rule.
Power Gamer: Wants a powerful character just like the other three terms. But a power gamer doesn't break the rules. They look to the latest rules and guidelines when building a character. They are interested in fair recognition of their mastery of the rules. They frequently denounce munchkins but then everyone who isn't a munchkin denounces munchkins.
Min/Maxer: This term started with the old point buy systems like GURPS and Hero System. It refers to someone who plays the points to maximize their character power while minimizing the impact their drawbacks generate. The closest analogy in Pathfinder would be people who use point buy and buy down the stats they don't ever intend to use to buy up the ones they want.
Optimizer: This is a fairly general term. It literally means someone who finds the option that returns the greatest reward. It is completely attached to the mechanical side of the game. This is the group that crunches the numbers and can tell you whether a long sword or great axe is a better weapon and under what circumstances that changes. They are usually focused on the mechanical aspects of any build such as to-hit and damage numbers.
PS: Yes you can be more than one of these categories... they aren't exclusive of one another.
Interesting history about min/Maxer starting in GURPS.
Since min/maxer actually has a history, and the wording supports it I will probably use that definition Aranna. Your definitions sound similar to my own also.
Min-maxing 1: This term started with the old point buy systems like GURPS and Hero System. It refers to someone who plays the points to maximize their character power while minimizing the impact their drawbacks generate. The closest analogy in Pathfinder would be people who use point buy and buy down the stats they don't ever intend to use to buy up the ones they want.
Min-maxing 2:Some see a min-maxer as someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area in order to make it dominant somewhere else. This overspecialisation in one area often causes problems for GM's who are unwilling are unable to go after the weakness.
I will do the other definitions after this one is decided on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With his outlook on winning, apparently he'd make a fine powergamer.
I’m on a quest to claim absolute victory on every front. So, the only thing I’m addicted to right now is winning. Everyday.
Dying is for fools. Amateurs.