Yar.
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.
Aren't those two essentially the same thing with different words? ...someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area (an area they never intent or don't expect to have to use) in order to make it dominant somewhere else (the area that they intent to use).
Or did you mean to compare that definition against the more literal interpretation of the name, of minimizing ones weaknesses (mitigating them, reducing them, making them less of a weakness) while simultaneously trying to maximize ones strengths?
Personally, I always thought of min-maxing as the former, where one reduces a stat (one he never intends to use) to a ridiculously low level in order to make another stat (one that he intends to use almost exclusively) to as high a number as possible, while often ignoring the negative implications of the reduced state (i.e.: by playing an int 7 as a tactical genius, or a 5 cha as a natural leader, etc).
EDIT: or are you simply trying to determine which wording to use? (as opposed to the actual 'definition')
~P
For the sake of actually completing a topic in all fairness, and sense Wraith Strike is motivated to reach a real consensus, maybe he could post his definitions again here at the end of the thread and look for favorites. If he gets 10, we can treat them as official for board regulars?
Good idea.
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.
Go with Aranna. Since it has a clear history.
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.
Interesting! I always wondered where the term came from.
First time I heard of the term was in the AD&D 2ed Dungeon Master Guide. That'd be the same years as Hero System, so the term must have existed before that... Since GURPS is '86 and given the nature of that beast, it highly probable that it comes from there.
Sometimes players resort to "min/maxing" when selecting weapon proficiencies. Min/maxing occurs when a player calculates all the odds and numerical advantages and disadvantages of a particular weapon. The player's decision isn't based on his imagination, the campaign, role-playing, or character development. It is based on game mechanics--what will give the player the biggest modifier and cause the most damage in any situation.
A certain amount of min/maxing is unavoidable, and even good (it shows that the player is interested in the game), but an excessive min/maxer is missing the point. Reducing a character to a list of combat modifiers and dice rolls is not role-playing.
Fortunately, this type of player is easy to deal with. Just create a situation in which his carefully chosen weapon, the one intended to give him an edge over everyone else, is either useless or puts him at a disadvantage. He will suddenly discover the drawback of min/maxing. It is impossible to create a combination of factors that is superior in every situation, because situations can vary so much.
Finally, a character's lack of proficiency can be used to create dramatic tension, a vital part of the game. In the encounter with kobolds described earlier, the player howled in surprise because the situation suddenly got a lot more dangerous than he expected it to. The penalty for nonproficiency increases the risk to the player character, and that increases the scene's tension.
When a nonproficiency penalty is used to create tension, be sure the odds aren't stacked against the character too much. Dramatic tension exists only while the player thinks his character has a chance to escape, even if it's only a slim chance. If a player decides the situation is hopeless, he will give up. His reaction will switch from excitement to despair.
Personally, I tend to see the second paragraph as the difference between optimising and min-maxing.
Did GURPS and HERO also had a paragraph on min-maxing? Anyone with 1st edition AD&D books with quotes of min-maxing? Unearthed Arcana perhaps?
|
As an example if the GM does not take his attack of opportunity against me, and I call him out despite him "forgetting" on purpose, that would make me a rules lawyer, but not a munchkin.
Of course, if you point out the GM "forgot" to take an AoO against another player, they have a totally different word for that. ;-)
The earliest references that I can find specifically to "Min/maxing" are in the 2nd Edition DMG. The phrase Min/maxing is used with regards to Character Creation Method III and under the section about selection of Proficiencies.
In both cases, the term min/maxing is defined as examining every possibility for the greatest (numerical) advantage. Take from that what you will.
Like most slang, the term was used before they tried to officially define it. AD&D players didn't use the term optimizer back then and instead used min/maxer to cover the whole general type of player. But unless the old timers I learned from in my early years were wrong, the meaning I posted is the original one. When the term became very popular it was expanded to mean power gamer/optimizer/min-maxer all rolled into one term. To some extent people even used it like they use Munchkin now, as a derogatory term. Remember also there was no point buy in pre 3e D&D so for AD&D the term had to be presented without any ties to it's point buy roots.
Yar.
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.Aren't those two essentially the same thing with different words? ...someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area (an area they never intent or don't expect to have to use) in order to make it dominant somewhere else (the area that they intent to use).
Or did you mean to compare that definition against the more literal interpretation of the name, of minimizing ones weaknesses (mitigating them, reducing them, making them less of a weakness) while simultaneously trying to maximize ones strengths?
Personally, I always thought of min-maxing as the former, where one reduces a stat (one he never intends to use) to a ridiculously low level in order to make another stat (one that he intends to use almost exclusively) to as high a number as possible, while often ignoring the negative implications of the reduced state (i.e.: by playing an int 7 as a tactical genius, or a 5 cha as a natural leader, etc).
EDIT: or are you simply trying to determine which wording to use? (as opposed to the actual 'definition')
~P
They are not the same.
Example1:I will make a fighter who stab you in the face, but that does not have a sucktastic will save.
Example2:I don't care if my will save sucks. I am willing to overlook it so I can stab you in the face.
edit:Buying down wisdom for a fighter is generally considered to be a bad idea, since it just increases the chance that you might end up stabbing your fellow party members in the face, among other things.
Yeah like Wraithstrike says...
Think of it like this, both are buying down something. The Min-maxer Fighter buys down his Charisma instead of his wisdom since he doesn't truly need a good Charisma to defeat enemies unlike the other guy who bought down his Wisdom (for whatever reason) and will now suffer under every will save.
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.
My job here is done.
While on the subject of terminology, can we all agree that "since" and "sense" are in fact two different words that cannot be used interchangeably?
Well, now folks who don't have English as a primary language can learn something?
Since: Because of, relating to cause and effect.
Sense: Smell, Sight, Touch, Taste, Hearing.
EDIT: Wewt! Almost 4 year necro!
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 dont think that taking one rank of a RP skill = deliberately hinder them or their contribution .
I think that Min-Maxer means someone that dumps all the stats that do not directly benefit that characters main role- a Fighter with 18,18,18 5,5,5,- even tho dumping Wisdom is pretty much always a bad idea.
I have played with a guy who dumped Wisdom, and he proved to be far more of a detriment to the party that some dude who spent one skill rank on a background skill. He thought it was HILARIOUS when he got dominated and started killing party members.
Craft (Basket weaving)...
This isn't a bad skill, as a low cost crafting skill to earn some extra coin in between the big action. There ARE better choices but this is easy to get free crafting supplies for in the right climate.
As for a guy who gimps his character deliberately for ANY reason... not sure if there is a specific name for it beyond "problem player"
I do mean REAL gimping... like the wizard with an 8 Int. Not the guy with a rank or three of a non-combat skill.
As for a guy who gimps his character deliberately for ANY reason... not sure if there is a specific name for it beyond "problem player"
Jabroni?