Why is there so much hate against minmaxing? Why does the word even exist at all?
Do you know what we call it where I come from? Specialization.
It's the reason doctors have to spend at least 8 years studying before they can work in a hospital and why scientists only work in one field. To truly do something well you have to sacrifice performance in other areas. This is a normal aspect of the world so why do we have a special word for it in gaming? And why do we look down on it in gaming when we appreciate it so much in real life?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the dividing line is when you specialize to such a degree that you no longer have any expectation of effectively doing anything else but that thing you've specialized in.
You become a one trick pony and before you know it you've become the person in the game to which every problem is a nail to which you've brought your only hammer.
If you don't mind the parts in the game to which your one trick can't be applied, then its not so bad, but variety being the spice of life, a character with no variety can get old fast even if the one thing he does is an amazing but grating accent.
Min/Maxing is the deliberate worsening of some aspects in order to increase in others, to an extreme degree. It is not choosing to study in one area and not another. Having a wizard that is an Evoker, and uses primarily direct damage spells is specializing. Having that Evoker drop his Strength and Charisma down to 7 so that he can start with 20 Intelligence and Dexterity (for a race with +2 Dex and Int) is Min/Maxing.
So what is the difference between bulds for a wizard that plans on spamming fireballs if they are a:
a)14 int, 12 dex, 16 cha, 16 str universalist school elf wizardb)18 int, 16 dex, 12 cha, 12 str evoker school elf wizard
c)20 int, 18 dex, 7 cha, 7 str admixture school elf wizard.
other than the degree of specialization in their area of expertise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely believe that every player has the right to min/max.
Just like every GM has the responsibility to punish those who do so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely believe that every player has the right to min/max.
Just like every GM has the responsibility to punish those who do so.
Why do you feel like it is the responsibility of the GM to punish a player?
If the player is specializing in being a one trick pony then merely making a decent variety of encounters will make the downsides of being a one trick pony obvious. You don't need to go out of your way to screw over the player. You just need to not constantly cater to them.
If the player is specializing in being a highly competent adventurer, then why are you trying to penalize that. If the player has min/maxed correctly then you can't actually punish that player without harming the rest of the party even more unless you specifically target that player (for example by homebrewing and heavily using a creature that has special abilities which screw over polymorph effects and nature based divine casting just so your min/maxing druid suffers). Targeting players for misery and destruction by warping the world in just the right way to screw over that player because they made well built characters isn't really giving the player the right to do anything. It's just a highly passive aggressive way of disallowing optimization that you don't like through GM fiat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, dislike of min/maxing is often due to the cookie-cutter characters it produces. Any character that's not a charisma-based spellcaster or a "face" character will dump charisma, virtually all wizards will dump strength, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, dislike of min/maxing is often due to the cookie-cutter characters it produces. Any character that's not a charisma-based spellcaster or a "face" character will dump charisma, virtually all wizards will dump strength, etc.
Unfortunately the characters don't get any more interesting if they don't dump strength or charisma.
I can almost guarentee that all the face pounding martial types won't be any more likely to try to talk their way out of a situation with their +1 to diplomacy, since they can't afford to have decent Cha, decent int so they can get skills, and still have all their frontline abilities and wis up to scratch so they can do their job. It's really just a flaw of the system that a lot of abilities basically do nothing for a lot of characters, so why pay for having them in the first place if they don't actually get used anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between being a trained professional who does their job really well and being an idiot savant who is only capable of doing one thing really well.
Unfortunately the characters don't get any more interesting if they don't dump strength or charisma.
Interesting is subjective, and this highly depends on how you view the stats, what affect they should have on the character's demeanor, etc.
I can almost guarentee that all the face pounding martial types won't be any more likely to try to talk their way out of a situation with their +1 to diplomacy, since they can't afford to have decent Cha, decent int so they can get skills, and still have all their frontline abilities and wis up to scratch so they can do their job.
It depends on how you "fix" the min/maxing problem. If you disallow min/maxing, but stay with point-buy stat generation method, then you're likely to end up with a less extreme version of min/maxing (i.e., if you tell players the lowest they can set a stat is 10, then many will now have 10 Charisma instead of 7's).
If you come up with something else, however, there is a possibility that a "face pounding martial type" will have a decent non-primary stat, such as charisma or intelligence. If the player of such a character views stats as informing their character's personality, then they may not try to solve all problems with combat. The fact that they have a decent stat in intelligence or charisma may encourage them to also invest skill points in a skill that takes advantage of that.
It's really just a flaw of the system that a lot of abilities basically do nothing for a lot of characters, so why pay for having them in the first place if they don't actually get used anyway.
Perhaps it is the paying part that is the problem? If you didn't have to sacrifice in an area deemed critical in order to be good in a non-critical area, more players would likely do so.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, dislike of min/maxing is often due to the cookie-cutter characters it produces. Any character that's not a charisma-based spellcaster or a "face" character will dump charisma, virtually all wizards will dump strength, etc.
In my opinion, when this creates a "cookie cutter" situation, it's a flaw of the system: it proves that there are only a couple of strongest characters, instead of letting all kinds of different characters be viable.
It should be an aspiration of a well-designed RPG that you can make cool and effective characters in many, many varieties. Unfortunately, Pathfinder does poorly in this regard. :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mainly because the people I know who do it do so without regard for the character (role-play) aspect of the game. They simply look at them as mechanics.
It's not "bad bad wrong fun" - just not my mindset and preference.
Why is there so much hate against minmaxing? Why does the word even exist at all?
Do you know what we call it where I come from? Specialization.It's the reason doctors have to spend at least 8 years studying before they can work in a hospital and why scientists only work in one field. To truly do something well you have to sacrifice performance in other areas. This is a normal aspect of the world so why do we have a special word for it in gaming? And why do we look down on it in gaming when we appreciate it so much in real life?
Min/Maxing is disliked when it is taken to extremes to make a character that is fairly hollow except for one thing.
The word exists to explain the concept, which it a game mechanic.
It is not the same thing as specialization, which in this context would imply character class/concept/archetype.
Real world Doctors and Scientists no not have PC or even NPC classes and thus cannot be min/maxed. If you want a real world application of min/maxing just look at dog breeds, that is an example of real world min/maxing.
I believe it is looked down upon because GM's always seem to prefer believable, well-rounded characters.
There are no real world examples of min/maxing of humans, unless you consider Anthropology to be the min/maxing of Homo.
In my opinion, when this creates a "cookie cutter" situation, it's a flaw of the system: it proves that there are only a couple of strongest characters, instead of letting all kinds of different characters be viable.
Perhaps, but this also assumes that the goal of creating characters is to create the strongest ones. I think if you enter with that mindset, all systems produce "cookie-cuter" characters because either through fact or perception, certain choices will be identified as superior to others.
It should be an aspiration of a well-designed RPG that you can make cool and effective characters in many, many varieties. Unfortunately, Pathfinder does poorly in this regard. :/
I definitely agree on the first part, and while not making a judgment on Pathfinder's ability to do so, I wonder if it is really possible to achieve character power parity while retaining uniqueness.
Min/maxing is best seen in a system where you can purchase disadvantages in order to get more advantages. Min/maxing is when you deliberately take disadvantages which have little or no effect on your playing your character in order to get more advantages to use either to eliminate build weaknesses or far more typically to enhance your characters specialty.
In Pathfinder this is best seen in the Point Buy optional stat system, when people buy down to a 7 in an unimportant stat(s) in order to get higher stats in scores directly related to their character's effectiveness.
The idea here is to get as many weaknesses as possible that really aren't weaknesses at all in order to build a more effective character with all the bonuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is disliked because it feels like cheating to many players. Even though by RAW you can do something doesn't mean you should do so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is with players who min/max to such a degree that their character does not actually resemble a person.
If the only discernible aspect of your character is their ability to swing a Great-sword and do nothing else of value, I see no place for you in any game I run.
It may just be me, but I despise having players come to a game with a character all built for combat, ready to ruin encounters with a ridiculous DPR (Even this abreviation sickens me.), but they haven't even written down the languages their character speaks.
I've even had one jerk fail to name his character, because he was admittedly so busy trying to make him as "Broken" as possible, that he forgot the character needed a name.
There is room for optimization, don't get me wrong. But when players are so focused on mechanics, that they fail to make a real character, it diminishes my faith in the gaming community, a little more each time.
Min/maxing is best seen in a system where you can purchase disadvantages in order to get more advantages. Min/maxing is when you deliberately take disadvantages which have little or no effect on your playing your character in order to get more advantages to use either to eliminate build weaknesses or far more typically to enhance your characters specialty.
In Pathfinder this is best seen in the Point Buy optional stat system, when people buy down to a 7 in an unimportant stat(s) in order to get higher stats in scores directly related to their character's effectiveness.
The idea here is to get as many weaknesses as possible that really aren't weaknesses at all in order to build a more effective character with all the bonuses.
I had someone come to me with a Dwarf Rogue, who had 4 Charisma(He brought his Dex up with that, of course), and he tried to pass it off as "He doesn't like people," He then attempted to play that character as an Aragorn clone.
4 Charisma, in my book as a GM, means you literally need to be ordered around by someone else, to do any basic activity.
Specialization and min/maxing are not necessarily the same thing. Being a doctor(surgeon) can be an example of a very well rounded individual; great intelligence to identify what is wrong, having the dexterity to remove/adjust body parts, the strength to cut through bone, the willpower to stay on your feet for 16+ hours in an operation, and charisma to bond with the patients. A good doctor should be ridiculously MAD which is one of the reasons why it takes so long to train them. Note that they need these balanced general knowledge/skill sets before they can even start specializing.
A min/maxed doctor would be someone who could take a look at you and say 'oh yes, you have the common cold.' You'll die from it though because I have no particular way to help you. More than happy to diagnose; that'll be $1,500.
You obviously don't know any surgeons. They have a reputation for dumping Charisma. Then again, mush of the time their patients are unconscious.
Why is there so much hate against minmaxing? Why does the word even exist at all?
Do you know what we call it where I come from? Specialization.It's the reason doctors have to spend at least 8 years studying before they can work in a hospital and why scientists only work in one field. To truly do something well you have to sacrifice performance in other areas. This is a normal aspect of the world so why do we have a special word for it in gaming? And why do we look down on it in gaming when we appreciate it so much in real life?
Nobody even knows what minmaxing means. We just know it has a negative connotation.
The idea here is to get as many weaknesses as possible that really aren't weaknesses at all in order to build a more effective character with all the bonuses.
That's a very good way of putting it. For a wizard, for example, to dump strength is not really a handicap. At 10th level, a wizard will be rocking a +5 BAB, and the difference between a +3 and a +6 (the difference between Str 7 and Str 12) won't be noticeable when she's facing monsters with an AC of 27 (average for CR 12). In any case, she's rolling dice and hoping for a 20 if she decides to engage in melee.
Similarly, the difference between a net -2 for Diplomacy skill or +1 is largely irrelevant when the party bard is sporting bonuses in the high teens and spells to boot. Better to use his +infinity Keeping-His-Mouth-Shut skill.
Part of the reason that you don't see minimaxing in the real world is that you don't see adventuring parties in the real world very often. The people I work with from nine to five aren't the people I associate with from six to midnight, and the things I do on Tuesday aren't the things I do on Saturday. In real life, the fighter would not always have the bard at his side to talk to people for him; he'd have to order his own drinks at the bar, talk his way out of his own traffic tickets, haggle over the price of a new wagon, and so forth. In real life, the wizard would probably have to carry her own groceries, move her own furniture, and so forth. The artificiality of adventuring means that players can afford to overspecialize because if you're not the best in the party at something, there's no reason to strive for second best, since the best is always there.....
The idea here is to get as many weaknesses as possible that really aren't weaknesses at all in order to build a more effective character with all the bonuses.
That's a very good way of putting it. For a wizard, for example, to dump strength is not really a handicap. At 10th level, a wizard will be rocking a +5 BAB, and the difference between a +3 and a +6 (the difference between Str 7 and Str 12) won't be noticeable when she's facing monsters with an AC of 27 (average for CR 12). In any case, she's rolling dice and hoping for a 20 if she decides to engage in melee.
Similarly, the difference between a net -2 for Diplomacy skill or +1 is largely irrelevant when the party bard is sporting bonuses in the high teens and spells to boot. Better to use his +infinity Keeping-His-Mouth-Shut skill.
Part of the reason that you don't see minimaxing in the real world is that you don't see adventuring parties in the real world very often. The people I work with from nine to five aren't the people I associate with from six to midnight, and the things I do on Tuesday aren't the things I do on Saturday. In real life, the fighter would not always have the bard at his side to talk to people for him; he'd have to order his own drinks at the bar, talk his way out of his own traffic tickets, haggle over the price of a new wagon, and so forth. In real life, the wizard would probably have to carry her own groceries, move her own furniture, and so forth. The artificiality of adventuring means that players can afford to overspecialize because if you're not the best in the party at something, there's no reason to strive for second best, since the best is always there.....
I haven't heard of many adventuring parties in which every single member grew up with the others, and ALWAYS had the others around to make up for their shortcomings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't heard of many adventuring parties in which every single member grew up with the others, and ALWAYS had the others around to make up for their shortcomings.
Part of the reason that you don't see minimaxing in the real world is that you don't see adventuring parties in the real world very often. The people I work with from nine to five aren't the people I associate with from six to midnight, and the things I do on Tuesday aren't the things I do on Saturday. In real life, the fighter would not always have the bard at his side to talk to people for him; he'd have to order his own drinks at the bar, talk his way out of his own traffic tickets, haggle over the price of a new wagon, and so forth. In real life, the wizard would probably have to carry her own groceries, move her own furniture, and so forth. The artificiality of adventuring means that players can afford to overspecialize because if you're not the best in the party at something, there's no reason to strive for second best, since the best is always there.....
Shrug. I haven't heard of many adventuring parties in which any single member grew up at all. They all seem to have sprung into being, fully armed, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter.
|
|
a wizard, for example, to dump strength is not really a handicap.
The problem comes if the GM, like I did back when I played PF, uses the encumbrance rules...
That 7 in STR is all nice and good until you realize that your character can't carry anything over 23 lbs. without suffering penalties for movement and a limit to the character's maximum DEX bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a wizard, for example, to dump strength is not really a handicap.The problem comes if the GM, like I did back when I played PF, uses the encumbrance rules...
That 7 in STR is all nice and good until you realize that your character can't carry anything over 23 lbs. without suffering penalties for movement and a limit to the character's maximum DEX bonus.
Except that a wizard doesn't typically need to carry more than 23 pounds, because there's always a fighter around who won't notice the additional weight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, ooh, I'm excited to copy and paste a post from another thread related to this topic! And early enough where it's only page one!
Okay, be right back...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Min-Max - a term used to refer to those with heightened system mastery (read: good at the game) by those who are jealous of their abilities. Rather than improving their own means of increasing strengths and shoring up weaknesses those suffering jealousy would instead use meaningless insults to degrade others for playing the game in a means they personally disagree with. Can be used as a verb, or as an adjective in the way of Min-Maxed.
Example - "Tom purposefully raised his effective attributes without wasting resources on one that is less relevant. He Min-Maxed so well that my character is pitiful by comparison. I wish I didn't waste points on my wisdom as a paladin, because all things considered my +1 to will save and perception aren't really helping me as much as another strength point would be useful in the long run. Hmm, since studying effective means of character building would take me actual time and effort, I'll just insinuate that making the character in a less effective way is somehow a more 'pure' way of playing, and come up with some more insults like powergamer and munchkin instead."
EDITED - For grammar. The original post was rambly.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, when this creates a "cookie cutter" situation, it's a flaw of the system: it proves that there are only a couple of strongest characters, instead of letting all kinds of different characters be viable.Perhaps, but this also assumes that the goal of creating characters is to create the strongest ones. I think if you enter with that mindset, all systems produce "cookie-cuter" characters because either through fact or perception, certain choices will be identified as superior to others.
It should be an aspiration of a well-designed RPG that you can make cool and effective characters in many, many varieties. Unfortunately, Pathfinder does poorly in this regard. :/I definitely agree on the first part, and while not making a judgment on Pathfinder's ability to do so, I wonder if it is really possible to achieve character power parity while retaining uniqueness.
I guess I should have said "strong enough" rather than "strongest". Pathfinder has such huge power disparities that if you just happen to pick the wrong fantasy trope to model your character off of, you're a sidekick. Meanwhile, if you happen to pick the "right" one, you can break campaigns in half without even meaning to. It takes only a bit of familiarity with the system to start seeing the gaps, and unless you use a LOT of splat books, the number of (genuinely distinct) character types that can face level-appropriate challenges without being a sidekick will be small enough to start to look pretty "cookie-cutter".
A system which need not be twisted in order to produce a cookie-cutter phenomenon is a flawed system.
|
Kingdom of Loathing had a fantastic example of when min/maxing becomes destructive. The basic premise was that, given a choice between making love with the prom queen (or king) for ten points and stabbing yourself in the genitals for eleven points, a min/maxer would sigh and then grab a knife. It's the point when your need to get big numbers hurts the fun of the game for everybody involved.
I'm personally alright with min-maxing. Munchkinry and cheesy options is where I draw the line.
I think min-maxing is fine, so long as the rest of the group is fine with it; by this I mean, if a character is min-maxed for maximum damage and all of the other players who want to do damage are totally overshadowed, there's a problem. But if everyone wants to optimize, then that's fine. This just comes down to playing a team game - if you overshadow everyone in combat, it's probably only you who's having fun in combat, and that's not great for a game.
There was this one guy in our group who used to love min-maxing to get the big stats, but the game we were playing had very little combat in, and he'd dumped wisdom and intelligence for physical scores so he came out worse off, to a point that he couldn't really do anything; my point is, min-maxing can be a bad idea if you don't know the game your playing.
I personally try not to min-max if I can, as I like to have my character close to their sheet so dumping mental scores is never great, but that's just personal preference.
|
|
I prefer to optimize rather than min/max. Now, some characters may start off as a slightly dumber and uglier person with no manners, but that's when good roleplay becomes involved, and putting the later stat increases to areas where one may have lost a point or five. (First Stat boost was INT to make it average, and at the second DEX was raised)
This character is a good example for the charisma dump, as he's definitely not the prettiest dwarf in the world, is quite scarred from his shenanigans, and doesn't talk much without offending someone. On the other hand, as a grappler, he's been beaten, blasted with magics, and maimed at one point or another, even before starting his career as a Pathfinder. He knows that he shouldn't talk at certain times, but if a fight may need to be instigated, he may try to badly praise someone's mother.......
Min/Maxing isn't too bad, but the overspecialization kind of kills it if someone can't do something to help out the party in or out of combat. (Arthus can carry people who can't climb, for the most part, as well as being pretty good at looking for traps and whatnot.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely believe that every player has the right to min/max.
Just like every GM has the responsibility to punish those who do so.
Why do you feel like it is the responsibility of the GM to punish a player?
If the player is specializing in being a one trick pony then merely making a decent variety of encounters will make the downsides of being a one trick pony obvious. You don't need to go out of your way to screw over the player. You just need to not constantly cater to them.
Here's the real problem- the Min-Maxer often punishes his fellow players, and that's where the real issue lies. You love doing damage so you dump wis to 7, which mean you fail your will save, are dominated and have to/ get to kill the party. For some players, that's actually fun- they love showing that their PC is so powerful he can take out the rest of the party. It is NOT fun for the rest of the players, some of whom may be rather attached to their character and have put days of work into them, backstory, etc. Of course the Min/max tank is one of those like Soilentc mention- not even bothering with a name. Being killed by a fellow party member who wanted to do a little more DPR is annoying.
Most often it's some guy who wants to do combat and only combat. His PC has no social skills- heck, with a 7 INT no skills at all... forcing the other players to design PC's to make up for his deficiencies.
And maybe he is a decent roleplayer- who then RP's his 7 CHA to get the party INTO as many fights as possible- since that's all he wants to do anyway.
In reality, such a PC would simply be kicked out of a group. But since D&D is a game, we let him play.
So it's not Mix/maxing that's the problem- it's that a lot of jerk players use min/maxing to be bigger jerks.
Pathfinder has such huge power disparities that if you just happen to pick the wrong fantasy trope to model your character off of, you're a sidekick. Meanwhile, if you happen to pick the "right" one, you can break campaigns in half without even meaning to. It takes only a bit of familiarity with the system to start seeing the gaps, and unless you use a LOT of splat books, the number of (genuinely distinct) character types that can face level-appropriate challenges without being a sidekick will be small enough to start to look pretty "cookie-cutter".
Jiggy- D&D is a team game. Everyone is a sidekick. No one is supposed to be the star.
You dont need to optimize to have fun or contribute. The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
And you say "Pathfinder has such huge power disparities.." but this has been an issue since 3rd Ed, and occurs in most RPGs. You wanna see power disparities? Try two PCs built using the Hero system, one by a very experienced player who knows all the loopholes, and another who is just trying to have fun. The second guy isnt even a sidekick anymore- he's the guy who shines the sidekicks shoes.
I have seen wide disparities in Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls and many other RPGs. Pathfinder has less than many, less that 3rd Ed certainly.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy- D&D is a team game. Everyone is a sidekick. No one is supposed to be the star.
You dont need to optimize to have fun or contribute. The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
I'm trying to reconcile how the two statements above can come from a single person in a single reply to me. I am failing.
When I describe vast disparities in character power being the source of someone feeling like a sidekick, you admonish me as though I was showing a lack of team spirit. Yet, you then go on to describe the same disparity phenomenon that I talked about, cautioning against its un-fun-ness, just like I did.
I'm trying to figure out the difference between our two statements, such that my caution of the impact of disparities between characters indicates trying to "be the star" instead of part of a team, while your caution of the impact of disparities between characters carries no such implications about you.
Can you elaborate on what the difference is between when I say that gaps between PCs aren't fun and when you say that gaps between PCs aren't fun?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a matter of perspective, really.
I don't have the slightest problem with players who want to build powerful characters. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing you have a well-designed character who can reliably take on something truly viciously nasty and still stand a reasonable chance of surviving and even succeeding. I think that's an absolutely fair and reasonable thing to want in one's character. After all, as players, we put a certain amount of work into them (some more than others, admittedly) and we would like to see that we've done well.
That's not min-maxing, in my book. Min-maxing is when you create a character as a gimmick, without the slightest thought to creating an interesting personality or even the vaguest, most distant attempt at some kind of believability (I'm not a fan of the word realism ... here, I'm throwing my super-realistic fireball at you! Now duck!)
Worst scenario I've ever faced with a min-maxer, which forever taught me to avoid that kind of player, was a mate of mine, back in the early days of the D20-system, who bought every book he could lay his hands on to create a character with one specific goal in mind.
He wanted to be the physically biggest and the physically strongest that he could possibly be, and he wanted it to be combined with as high a number of attacks as he could squeeze out of the system whatsoever.
The campaign was largely played with his character being active only in combat situations. He didn't have a personality and he brought literally nothing to the table except the fact that at level 21, he had, I believe +64 strength-modifier.
And, mind you, this was entirely legit. He could show us every feat, every rule, every comma, every rulebook, every ... bloody ... little ... thing ... to allow him to have a character with +64 strength-modifier at level 21. This WAS back in the days of "epic levels", but that makes no difference.
We were about to hit the last boss of the campaign, which turned out to be a kind of dragon encapsulating all five chromatic aspects in one, souped up with some idiotic stats and a ludicrous amount of magic. It had a challenge rating somewhere between a God and Moronic. Most of the players were a bit uneasy about it, because our GM at the time was the type who really didn't like to lose. And he most certainly saw roleplaying as a contest between him and the players. We were all prepared for a TPK and had even talked about how we'd handle it if it got to that. The player with the +64 strength-modifier character just told us to relax. He had it in hand.
When we finally reached the dragon, we promptly rolled initiative. Mr. +64 came first. He then proceeded to level 8 attacks at the dragon, using every feat and every magic item he had purchased, after drinking a couple of potions, and smashed the dragon to atoms in a single round of combat. He did somewhere over a thousand points of damage ... in one round of physical combat. Don't ask me how, this was many years ago, but it was above board, it used the rules to the utmost and even the GM who hated losing had to admit that it was all in order.
The rest of us simply looked at each other, packed up our dice and character sheets and left. We did not return to that group and Mr. +64's player was genuinely astonished at why we felt something was wrong. After all, he had only used the rules.
What he completely failed to grasp was that his gimicky character had contributed pretty much nothing in terms of RP up until that point, and when we got to the intense, horrible boss-fight, he basically turned the entire affair into a solo-display, leaving everyone else in the group utterly useless and pointless.
Again, we all expected to lose quite badly against that dragon, but we also expected to at least make a properly heroic, epic last stand and maybe in the end collapse the ruins we were fighting in, killing the dragon along with the whole group or something suitably heroic like that. We expected to not be made completely superfluous at the end of a long and epic journey.
Instead, the entire group except one character stood there and watched as the greatest monster that up until that time had been created, was struck down before the rest of us had the chance to even move.
And the player to this day does not understand why no one wanted to play with him after that. He really, genuinely believes that what he did was the coolest thing ever, and every attempt at explaining to him that the rest of us felt completely useless is met with blank denial. After all, all he did was follow the rules.
That is min-maxing at its worst.
It leaves players who are not walking rules encyclopedias looking like a bunch of lemons. It turns some players into walk-on extras in a movie in which they should be one of the main characters.
Playing powerful, well designed characters is fine. Building something solely for the purpose of milking the rules system is only fine to the person doing it, but to those who have to be the bit-players in that movie, it sucks.
Jiggy- D&D is a team game. Everyone is a sidekick. No one is supposed to be the star.
You dont need to optimize to have fun or contribute. The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
I'm trying to reconcile how the two statements above can come from a single person in a single reply to me. I am failing.
When I describe vast disparities in character power being the source of someone feeling like a sidekick, you admonish me as though I was showing a lack of team spirit. Yet, you then go on to describe the same disparity phenomenon that I talked about, cautioning against its un-fun-ness, just like I did.
I'm trying to figure out the difference between our two statements, such that my caution of the impact of disparities between characters indicates trying to "be the star" instead of part of a team, while your caution of the impact of disparities between characters carries no such implications about you.
Can you elaborate on what the difference is between when I say that gaps between PCs aren't fun and when you say that gaps between PCs aren't fun?
The difference is that the disparity could be huge, but still not decrease fun.
It's only when it does decrease fun that it is bad.
Your post indicates to me that if there is a disparity there is automatically less fun. Not so.
I just had a PFS game, where I played the only 1st level PC (optimized somewhat for skills) vs a 5th, a 4th, and two 3rds. The 5th was optimized- and a full spellcaster. The power level disparity could hardly have been higher- and in fact in most games there is little actual level difference.
I still had huge fun and contributed.
Power level discrepancies do not always cause a reduction in fun. Only IF & WHEN they do is there a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, dislike of min/maxing is often due to the cookie-cutter characters it produces. Any character that's not a charisma-based spellcaster or a "face" character will dump charisma, virtually all wizards will dump strength, etc.
And? How is the weak and frail wizard any less interesting than a Strong Wizard? Roleplay does not necessarily preclude Roll play and visa versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately the characters don't get any more interesting if they don't dump strength or charisma.Interesting is subjective, and this highly depends on how you view the stats, what affect they should have on the character's demeanor, etc.
I can almost guarentee that all the face pounding martial types won't be any more likely to try to talk their way out of a situation with their +1 to diplomacy, since they can't afford to have decent Cha, decent int so they can get skills, and still have all their frontline abilities and wis up to scratch so they can do their job.It depends on how you "fix" the min/maxing problem. If you disallow min/maxing, but stay with point-buy stat generation method, then you're likely to end up with a less extreme version of min/maxing (i.e., if you tell players the lowest they can set a stat is 10, then many will now have 10 Charisma instead of 7's).
If you come up with something else, however, there is a possibility that a "face pounding martial type" will have a decent non-primary stat, such as charisma or intelligence. If the player of such a character views stats as informing their character's personality, then they may not try to solve all problems with combat. The fact that they have a decent stat in intelligence or charisma may encourage them to also invest skill points in a skill that takes advantage of that.
It's really just a flaw of the system that a lot of abilities basically do nothing for a lot of characters, so why pay for having them in the first place if they don't actually get used anyway.Perhaps it is the paying part that is the problem? If you didn't have to sacrifice in an area deemed critical in order to be good in a non-critical area, more players would likely do so.
interesting theory but flawed.
Lets take the fighter.
He really only CAN solve things by hitting them. He only gets 2+int skills. That is not really all that much... He also has a piss poor will save... Add in, as a combatant, he by default needs all 3 physical attributes to some extent (Str for Damage, Con to survive, Dex for AC and reflex saves... which he also has crappy of btw). So after you make him strong enough to survive combat, you are not left with too much else...
And if you try and take away from his combat ability to shore up his lack of... well.. everything else, you are left with pretty much being bad at evrything because he is SO BAD AT EVERYTHING that you need to invest heavily just to have him catch up to his counter parts. You need to do so much work to make him decent that most people don't even bother.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy- D&D is a team game. Everyone is a sidekick. No one is supposed to be the star.
You dont need to optimize to have fun or contribute. The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
I'm trying to reconcile how the two statements above can come from a single person in a single reply to me. I am failing.
When I describe vast disparities in character power being the source of someone feeling like a sidekick, you admonish me as though I was showing a lack of team spirit. Yet, you then go on to describe the same disparity phenomenon that I talked about, cautioning against its un-fun-ness, just like I did.
I'm trying to figure out the difference between our two statements, such that my caution of the impact of disparities between characters indicates trying to "be the star" instead of part of a team, while your caution of the impact of disparities between characters carries no such implications about you.
Can you elaborate on what the difference is between when I say that gaps between PCs aren't fun and when you say that gaps between PCs aren't fun?
The difference is that the disparity could be huge, but still not decrease fun.
It's only when it does decrease fun that it is bad.
Your post indicates to me that if there is a disparity there is automatically less fun. Not so.
I just had a PFS game, where I played the only 1st level PC (optimized somewhat for skills) vs a 5th, a 4th, and two 3rds. The 5th was optimized- and a full spellcaster. The power level disparity could hardly have been higher- and in fact in most games there is little actual level difference.
I still had huge fun and contributed.
Power level discrepancies do not always cause a reduction in fun. Only IF & WHEN they do is there a problem.
This contradicts what you said in your previous post. It's up there in the quote chain, but let me pull it out for you again:
The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
You said that. That sentence you said means that a disparity between PCs, when big enough, will cause someone to not have fun. That is what you said.
Now you've said the opposite, that disparity between PCs might or might not reduce fun - that it doesn't necessarily cause it. Which is it? I want to know what your actual thoughts are before I try to reply.
Playing powerful, well designed characters is fine. Building something solely for the purpose of milking the rules system is only fine to the person doing it, but to those who have to be the bit-players in that movie, it sucks.
Amen to this!
This answers something I responded to in another thread about a player whose GM is singling him out to negate. I have a player who does this - games the system and trivializes encounters. And while he has fun, no one else at the table does. His stuff is all legal, but he doesn't get it how he sucks the fun out of the game, especially for me as GM.