This contradicts what you said in your previous post. It's up there in the quote chain, but let me pull it out for...
Not at all. The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
IF widely disparate degrees of optimization CAUSE someone to not have fun, THEN it's an issue.
You asked me to clarify what i meant, i clarified it. I can see how you would misunderstand that line, but it's very clear in context and my position is clear now, I hope.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This contradicts what you said in your previous post. It's up there in the quote chain, but let me pull it out for...Not at all. The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
IF widely disparate degrees of optimization CAUSE someone to not have fun, THEN it's an issue.
You asked me to clarify what i meant, i clarified it. I can see how you would misunderstand that line, but it's very clear in context and my position is clear now, I hope.
Okay, so you went from "PC disparities DON'T cause loss of fun, and to suggest otherwise is to miss that this is a team game," to "PC disparities DO cause loss of fun," to "PC disparities MIGHT cause loss of fun." So, that last one: is that your final answer?
Honestly I like how in situations where you have extreme variance in optimization of characters, the guy who actually make a character that can legitimatel survive without Hand holding is scorned and the Halfling Fighter with 12 str and 16 dex with a greatsword and Skill Focus (Prof(baker)) is given a free pass...
Honestly I like how in situations where you have extreme variance in optimization of characters, the guy who actually make a character that can legitimatel survive without Hand holding is scorned and the Halfling Fighter with 12 str and 16 dex with a greatsword and Skill Focus (Prof(baker)) is given a free pass...
"But that's my concept and all concepts should be equally valid options because REASONS!"
Why have any mechanical difference between classes, races, feats, etc, at all if it shouldn't make a difference what you choose? Just make it coin flipping to resolve all disputes while you're at it. System mastery and tactical acumen should be meaningless, right?
Okay, so you went from "PC disparities DON'T cause loss of fun, and to suggest otherwise is to miss that this is a team game," to "PC disparities DO cause loss of fun," to "PC disparities MIGHT cause loss of fun." So, that last one: is that your final answer?
This contradicts what you said in your previous post. It's up there in the quote chain, but let me pull it out for...Not at all. The only issue is when the party has such widely disparate degrees of optimization that someone doesnt have fun.
IF widely disparate degrees of optimization CAUSE someone to not have fun, THEN it's an issue.
You asked me to clarify what i meant, i clarified it. I can see how you would misunderstand that line, but it's very clear in context and my position is clear now, I hope.
My answer has always been the same. Disparities are only a problem IF they cause one or more of the players to have less fun. Certainly they can be the cause of that- many things can.
Can we discuss the actual topic now, rather than how you interpret my posts? ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people use the phrase "minmax" to refer to high optimization builds with minimal weaknesses, capable of contributing in all or almost all circumstances.
Other people, such as DrDeth, use the word "minmax" to refer to extremely unoptimized builds with crippling overspecialization.
Actually that's not at all how I Define the term. It means you MAXimize your Strengths while MINimizing everything else not critical to those Strengths.
I have seen no one defining the term how you do the first line:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing
"The art, much beloved of munchkins, of optimizing a character's abilities during creation by maximizing the most important skills and attributes, while minimizing the cost. This is done by strategic decrease of stats believed to be less important in game (called "Dump Stats"), exploiting hideously overpowered but legal combinations of the Game System, obtaining the best toys and magic weapons accessible to a character, or by stacking flaws and handicaps until your character's Backstory looks like a Joss Whedon character's resume."
http://www.giantbomb.com/min-maxing/3015-128/
"Min-maxing is the character-building strategy of maximizing a specific desirable ability, skill, or other power of a character and minimizing everything else, seen as undesirable. The result is a character who is excessively powerful in one particular way, but exceedingly weak in others.
Min-maxing has a history of controversy among players and game designers. Game designers may dislike min-maxing because it discourages variety in play through extreme specialization. It can also 'break' the difficulty balance of a game--making parts of a game too easy or too hard--since games are usually tuned with the goal of providing a reasonable (and thus enjoyable) level of challenge throughout for all normal character builds. A min-maxed character build can often puncture the intended equilibrium of difficulty by being unreasonably good at one thing and unreasonable bad at many others.
Furthermore, if the one thing that a min-maxed character is good at is overall more useful (e.g. combat) than other character abilities (e.g. talking or environmental exploration), the player is likely to rely heavily on that one thing they're good at to solve all situations in the game (e.g. killing everyone instead of talking to them). Game designers often attempt to limit the success of min-maxing by including challenges in their games that cannot all be met by any one specialized character build or by incorporating limits into the rules of character building to prevent overspecialization (e.g. point costs to raise an attribute increase the higher the attribute is, or a character's highest level skill cannot be increased more than 5 levels above their lowest, etc.).
Game designers may also dislike min-maxing by players if it means the player sees their character in starkly mechanical terms rather than as a fictional person. As a result, a min-maxing player may be less likely to roleplay their character or to engage with the game's story or other characters in a way reasonable for an imagined inhabitant of the game world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms
Min-Maxing
The practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones.[33] This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields. This is easier to accomplish in games where attributes are generated from a certain number of points rather than in ones where they are randomly generated.[34]
In fact, note that I dont even say Min/maxing is bad. Certainly some degree of it is normal, and even to be desired.
But like anything else it can be taken to extremes.
...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.
What would it do to your dislike of his statement if you replaced the word 'punish' with 'test'?
I would dislike it less, but I would still have roughly the same concerns. You don't need to go out of your way to screw over one trick ponies, and you have to be really heavy handed to test the "optimal" adventurer without obliterating the rest of the party, and even then you are probably going to have to resort to blatantly targeting that character's weaknesses by shutting down all attempts to bypass the task they are bad at using the well optimized tools at their disposal. None of these are particularly good options for the GM.
Because the game shouldn't have bad options designed to punish Timmy for wanting to do something that sounds cool.Honestly I like how in situations where you have extreme variance in optimization of characters, the guy who actually make a character that can legitimatel survive without Hand holding is scorned and the Halfling Fighter with 12 str and 16 dex with a greatsword and Skill Focus (Prof(baker)) is given a free pass..."But that's my concept and all concepts should be equally valid options because REASONS!"
Why have any mechanical difference between classes, races, feats, etc, at all if it shouldn't make a difference what you choose? Just make it coin flipping to resolve all disputes while you're at it. System mastery and tactical acumen should be meaningless, right?
One person's punishment for ignorance is another person's reward for diligence. It's all a matter of perspective.
I'm minimizing my strengths and maximizing my weaknesses. Am I a Real Roleplayer(TM) yet?
Means of overcoming flaws:
*Real Men* kill their Enemies*Real Roleplayers* join monasteries
*Loonies* use self-flagellation
*Munchkins* seem to have lost that bit of paper
Have you joined the monastery yet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a common... artifact? of game strategy. It happens all over, though more in tightly competitive games. I'll see if I can give it justice, but bear with me if I'm not clear.
Essentially there's a mindset/strategy that the best way to "win" is to not play the game, but rather change the objective on your opponent so that they can't win, meaning that you win by default. It comes down to bypassing the intent of the game and dictating new terms to your opponent.
Now, we could have a whole discussion about how RPGs are collaborative and you aren't playing against the DM and blah blah blah, but that's not the relative point.
Rather the issue is being presented with a challenge and instead of just utilizing the given tools to overcome it, for many people it's exceptionally rewarding to find a way to circumvent the entire problem from the start.
We could argue about whether this is appropriate attitude to bring to a game, but I think that is also irrelevant. This attitude does exist and will always exist to some extent, so just saying it should go away to make the game better isn't going to help.
Rather it should be recognized and accounted for. Analogy:
I'm dog-sitting, long term, for a friend. This dog is an escape artist and quickly gets bored in my yard, then runs off. He's done it about a dozen times in 3 months. I can wail and moan, gnash my teeth all I want, it doesn't matter. I can punish the dog. Doesn't matter. All I can do is account for this behavior and do my best to mitigate it's effects, like watching the dog and only letting him out for short periods of time. I don't have the money to build a new fence, even if I did, I wouldn't want to spend it on a fence I won't need in another 2 months.
With a complex game like Pathfinder, with so many books and options in all of them, players will find ways to circumvent encounters in ridiculously easy fashion. This is an inherent problem with the system, more so than many other games. The unfortunate reality is that as long as you play Pathfinder, players will be able to find "I win" buttons that can negate any amount of careful planning on the GM's part.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
With a complex game like Pathfinder, with so many books and options in all of them, players will find ways to circumvent encounters in ridiculously easy fashion. This is an inherent problem with the system, more so than many other games. The unfortunate reality is that as long as you play Pathfinder, players will be able to find "I win" buttons that can negate any amount of careful planning on the GM's part.
There's a story about and experiment with a chimp put into a room with a nice bunch of bananas out of reach. The scientist placed two boxes and a stick in the room.
He made the experiment so that the chimps could either stack the boxes and get the fruit, os stand on one bow with the stick. He'd then let in 1 or 2 chimps and recorded on his checklist whether the chimps did:
A. Two boxes
B. Box & Stick
C. Failure.
In every case the chimps got the reward, but in no case did they go for A or B. Sometimes they jumped with the stick. Once they threw the box at the bananas. With two chimps they often got on each others back.
Adventurers are like those chimps. And, since I have been DMing since 1974 i can tell you this has nothing at all to do with Pathfinder, the chimps have been outsmarting the DM and doing the unexpected for 40 years.
Expect the unexpected. Go with it.
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.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.
I have carried the caster's things in a party before, and when the party can get a handy haversack or bag of holding the strength does not matter. In actual games it has never been an issue.
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.
That is not mix-maxing. That is hyper-specialization.
Sometimes you (as a DM) run into players who want to have this gimmick where one roll shuts down any encounter before it can even start
I understand why someone would think this is awesome
Among the people that would think this was awesome is Sun Tzu.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.
The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.
And, from Cao Cao's commentary on Master Sun,
Sun Tzu’s success teaches us that a successful general is one who fully calculates his approach and plans to fight in a battle. However, the average reader is not able to identify Sun Tzu’s teachings on a deeper or philosophical level.
That is not mix-maxing. That is hyper-specialization.
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.
Not according to the definitions I found elsewhere. I agree it's slightly extreme Min/Maxing but I have seen builds like 18,16,16,7,7,7,. Heck, look at MinMax the character.
Sure I guess you could define Mix/maxing as just building a good PC but honestly then why even use the term?
Again, I am not attacking Min/maxing. Some degree of it is usually a good idea. But like anything (including RPing) it can be taken to an extreme. The extreme is what causes the issues.
A lot of people in this discussion (and previous threads) appear to be using contradictory definitions. Some people use the phrase "minmax" to refer to high optimization builds with minimal weaknesses, capable of contributing in all or almost all circumstances.
Other people, such as DrDeth, use the word "minmax" to refer to extremely unoptimized builds with crippling overspecialization.At least on this forum, Minmax is its own antonym.
It has always been like that which is why it is so hard to discuss.
I am going to start calling the fighter dumping wisdom to 7 hyper-specialization.
Mix-maxing when I use it will just be someone putting their abilities scores in the most optimal place, no matter if they were bought or rolled.
So you can hyper-specialize and it may or may not be min-maxing depending on the severity of weakness you obtain while doing so.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My answer has always been the same. Disparities are only a problem IF they cause one or more of the players to have less fun. Certainly they can be the cause of that- many things can.
Agreed.
So, to go back to my earlier question from before you started seeming to self-contradict:
Why is my acknowledgment of that same notion indicative of me not understanding that D&D is a team game? What were you trying to communicate there?
Can we discuss the actual topic now, rather than how you interpret my posts? ;-)
Discussing a topic requires proper interpretation of each others' posts. Otherwise, it's not a discussion. So if you genuinely want a discussion, you should be showing an interest in being clear, and backtracking when you're not.
|
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.
In all honesty, a party that can be TPKed by one of its own being dominated is dramatically under optimized as a party.
The DPR machine is not supposed to be working in a vacuum but side by side with other PCs whose strengths will shore up his weaknesses.
Now, if all players created their characters without considering the rest of the party and following diverse objectives, I find it a bit unfair to blame only the "minmaxer" ;-)
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.In all honesty, a party that can be TPKed by one of its own being dominated is dramatically under optimized as a party.
The DPR machine is not supposed to be working in a vacuum but side by side with other PCs whose strengths will shore up his weaknesses.
Now, if all players created their characters without considering the rest of the party and following diverse objectives, I find it a bit unfair to blame only the "minmaxer" ;-)
Well, if say one of the PC's blocked off the foes (and also the escape route) and the other buffed the heck out of the DPR machine- yes, they were doing their jobs, and in doing so allowed him to TPK the party.
My answer has always been the same. Disparities are only a problem IF they cause one or more of the players to have less fun. Certainly they can be the cause of that- many things can.Agreed.
So, to go back to my earlier question from before you started seeming to self-contradict:
Why is my acknowledgment of that same notion indicative of me not understanding that D&D is a team game? What were you trying to communicate there?Can we discuss the actual topic now, rather than how you interpret my posts? ;-)Discussing a topic requires proper interpretation of each others' posts. Otherwise, it's not a discussion. So if you genuinely want a discussion, you should be showing an interest in being clear, and backtracking when you're not.
Jiggy, honestly I have totally lost track of what your point was with all the "you said this" posts.
Maybe we could discuss what your thoughts are on Mix/maxing rather than discussing the deep inner meaning of what you thought I might have Meant. OK? ;-)
That is not mix-maxing. That is hyper-specialization.
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.
Not according to the definitions I found elsewhere. I agree it's slightly extreme Min/Maxing but I have seen builds like 18,16,16,7,7,7,. Heck, look at MinMax the character.
Sure I guess you could define Mix/maxing as just building a good PC but honestly then why even use the term?
Again, I am not attacking Min/maxing. Some degree of it is usually a good idea. But like anything (including RPing) it can be taken to an extreme. The extreme is what causes the issues.
No the true min/maxer would never dump Wisdom on a fighter, remember they dump stats that won't hurt them like Charisma or Intelligence.
Dumping Wisdom on your fighter is more like Stupid Optimization.
|
|
Well, if say one of the PC's blocked off the foes (and also the escape route) and the other buffed the heck out of the DPR machine- yes, they were doing their jobs, and in doing so allowed him to TPK the party.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.In all honesty, a party that can be TPKed by one of its own being dominated is dramatically under optimized as a party.
The DPR machine is not supposed to be working in a vacuum but side by side with other PCs whose strengths will shore up his weaknesses.
Now, if all players created their characters without considering the rest of the party and following diverse objectives, I find it a bit unfair to blame only the "minmaxer" ;-)
You mean that they had not foreseen an enemy using charm/dominate/confusion on the highly tuned lethal machine and did not make preparations in case this would happen ?
I can see a dominated PC killing another PC. But 3 or more seems a little far-fetched to me.
Well, if say one of the PC's blocked off the foes (and also the escape route) and the other buffed the heck out of the DPR machine- yes, they were doing their jobs, and in doing so allowed him to TPK the party.
There's usually at least one person in the party whose job is "status removal"; making sure that no one is hit with some sort of status effect that will render them useless -- or worse, actively dangerous.
Dominate person is one such effect, and it's actually a very easy one to deal with, since not only can it be dispelled, but it can also usually be negated by a simple first-level spell.
So,.... I'd say if someone gets dominated and the party can't deal with it, then the status-removal guy isn't doing his job.
It appears, by the way, that Master Sun agrees: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat... If an obvious tactic like dominating the fighter didn't occur to the planners, then they're not doing a brilliant job of putting themselves beyond the possibility of defeat.
The spell that negates Dominate Person only does so if it's cast before the Dominate Person is.
Re-read the spell.
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell.
Yeah, but a re-roll with a +2 even aint gonna help much with a Will save that bad.
No the true min/maxer would never dump Wisdom on a fighter, remember they dump stats that won't hurt them like Charisma or Intelligence.
They all hurt. Never making a skill check hurts.
When the party is asked to all make a Diplomacy check, and the 7 Fighter basically only stops picking his nose to make a rude gesture to the King- it hurts.
Taking your turn on watch and having a horrible perc check- hurts.
Attacking a monster and watching your sword bounce off and dissolve since you cant make a KS check- hurts. (Unless you cheat by metagaming, of course).
However if what you are saying is that most of the better DPR specialist Min/maxers try for a built that has no significant combat detriments- sure. But the game aint all combat.
Yeah, but a re-roll with a +2 even aint gonna help much with a Will save that bad.
So boost the Will save. The list of spells and abilities to that purpose is too long to list here.
They all hurt. Never making a skill check hurts.When the party is asked to all make a Diplomacy check, and the 7 Fighter basically only stops picking his nose to make a rude gesture to the King- it hurts.
Shrug. That's what aid another is for.
Taking your turn on watch and having a horrible perc check- hurts.
Shrug. Why are we having watch by turns? The keep watch spell exists for a reason. Pay 750 gp for a wand and let the druid watch all night.
Attacking a monster and watching your sword bounce off and dissolve since you cant make a KS check- hurts.
Shrug. Why did you need to be the one to make that skill check? Listen when the bard tells you you need to use a club.
None of what you suggest actually hurts if the rest of the party is doing its job.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking over the various definitions of "min-max", they seem a bit inconsistent. For instance, the one from TV Tropes includes simply wanting good gear for your character, as well as exploiting loopholes in the rules, both of which which seem unrelated to the source words of "minimize" and "maximize" and are also absent from other definitions of "min-max".
It seems, however, that there is a single underlying concept that is common to every definition I've seen, which perhaps means that this should be the "real" definition of min-maxing:
Min-maxing is the concept of selecting weaknesses (such as dump stats or character "flaws") in order to enable selection of more or higher strengths (high stats or extra feats/strengths). In short, it's the practice of pushing one thing down in order to push another thing up.
If we take this as the definition, we can perhaps make the following extrapolations:
1) If the above definition is true, then min-maxing involves an element of skill in terms of correctly assessing which things can be most safely lowered and which things will provide the greatest return when boosted. For example, the proverbial "dominated 7-WIS fighter" is an example of unskilled min-maxing, as the player made a poor assessment of the impact of that dump stat. Conversely, the 7-STR wizard whose spells prevent him from ever needing to wear armor, carry cargo, or climb things (or even walk, for that matter) is an example of skilled min-maxing because the practical cost of the "min" part of the build is truly quite low.
2) If the above definition is true, then the value of min-maxing in a given system can give us strong indications of the system's overall level of balance. For example, if the stat being dumped is always the same one or two stats, then there may be a lack of balance between stats. However, if nearly every stat has close to the same likelihood of being used as a dump stat, then the stats are far closer to each other in value. To look at it on another axis, if min-maxing is common among skilled players, then it can be concluded that the system rewards a high primary stat far more than it punishes a lower non-priority stat. However, if min-maxing in a given system is done mostly by unskilled players whose characters then become "one-trick ponies" who fall apart any time the stars don't align, then in that system there is not as much value to having a high primary stat as there is in having a "floor" to your non-primary stats.
3) If the above definition is true, then the value of min-maxing in a given system will be influenced by the level of teamwork among the group. For example, if the group is willing to rely on each other for certain specialized tasks (such as lockpicking or negotiating), then the value of a second person being competent at the same skill is drastically lowered, making min-maxing a much more practical choice than it would be if each character was trying to be self-sufficient.
4) If the above definition is true, then min-maxing is nothing more than one element of character-building skill. It is not the entire character creation/advancement process, it is morally-neutral, it is in no way indicative of how well the character will be roleplayed, and its presence or absence does not (on its own) indicate how the character will fare in play.
All in all, I think the above definition for min-maxing is a good one, as it's specific enough to have an actual meaning, and is logically consistent with the component roots of the term itself.
However, the way some people talk about min-maxing (such as seeming offended by it, or suggesting any type of connection to how well a character is roleplayed, etc) suggest that the term's use only marginally overlaps with any reasonable definition. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a good number of people who use the term (and especially those who treat it negatively) don't even have any clear meaning for it in mind when they use it, instead just using it as a meaningless label for when they want to be able to point at something "other" and blame it for bad experiences they've had.
No the true min/maxer would never dump Wisdom on a fighter, remember they dump stats that won't hurt them like Charisma or Intelligence.
They all hurt. Never making a skill check hurts.
When the party is asked to all make a Diplomacy check, and the 7 Fighter basically only stops picking his nose to make a rude gesture to the King- it hurts.
Taking your turn on watch and having a horrible perc check- hurts.
Attacking a monster and watching your sword bounce off and dissolve since you cant make a KS check- hurts. (Unless you cheat by metagaming, of course).
However if what you are saying is that most of the better DPR specialist Min/maxers try for a built that has no significant combat detriments- sure. But the game aint all combat.
Yes most min/maxers build for combat, this is not a revelation to most people. You don't need skills to play as long as someone in the group can cover that. The wizard should be making those KS checks when fighting the monster and telling everyone what to avoid or what weakness to focus on. And nothing in the game is FORCING you to try diplomacy with the king, if you avoid trying to bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize anyone then you need not worry about Cha... In fact you can role play him however you wish as long as you avoid saying things which require a skill toss. Hell even if you did buy a high Cha as a fighter you should still avoid those skills since being untrained will make that tiny +2 or +3 pointless against the social DCs of the people you will likely need to convince or argue with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the way some people talk about min-maxing (such as seeming offended by it, or suggesting any type of connection to how well a character is roleplayed, etc) suggest that the term's use only marginally overlaps with any reasonable definition.
While your rather clinical definition is good as far as it goes, you really need to adjust it to reflect the fact that minmaxing is a strongly pejorative term.
I think there are a lot of common elements in the pejorative aspect of minmaxing.
* It tends to produce overly specialized and therefore inflexible characters (one-trick ponies).
* It tends to produce overly effective and therefore overshadowing characters that make the game less fun for the rest of the people.
* It tends to produce nearly-identical characters because there are usually only a few Pareto-optimal ways to build for any role.
* It tends to produce implausible characters, with an extremely narrow range of abilities and backgrounds to justify the Pareto-optimal choices, that in many cases require a very contrived background to justify, if justified at all.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that a good number of people who use the term (and especially those who treat it negatively) don't even have any clear meaning for it in mind when they use it, instead just using it as a meaningless label for when they want to be able to point at something "other" and blame it for bad experiences they've had.
I'm inclined to believe that most people are able to accurately assess why they're not having fun.
And nothing in the game is FORCING you to try diplomacy with the king, if you avoid trying to bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize anyone then you need not worry about Cha... In fact you can role play him however you wish as long as you avoid saying things which require a skill toss.
This.
It should be possible for someone in an adventuring group just to stand there and do nothing in a social situation. (In fact, Gandalf specifically advised Pippin not to open his mouth when presenting him to Denethor for the first time.) Making a Diplomacy check simply to keep quiet while someone else talks should have the sort of DC that anyone can make while taking 10.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
However, the way some people talk about min-maxing (such as seeming offended by it, or suggesting any type of connection to how well a character is roleplayed, etc) suggest that the term's use only marginally overlaps with any reasonable definition.While your rather clinical definition is good as far as it goes, you really need to adjust it to reflect the fact that minmaxing is a strongly pejorative term.
That's what I was alluding to at the end of my post: what the term could reasonably be defined to mean is different from the weaponized version that actually gets used.
Call me an idealist, but I believe that if we can show what a term can be reasonably taken to mean, we can then contrast it with that term's weaponization to reveal the petty stupidity of those whose goal is only to hurt and blame rather than to communicate. For example:
* It tends to produce overly specialized and therefore inflexible characters (one-trick ponies).
* It tends to produce overly effective and therefore overshadowing characters that make the game less fun for the rest of the people.
You are correct in your assessment that both of the above are ways that the term gets used as a perjorative. Notice how the two are essentially mutually-exclusive: how can a character be overspecialized to the point of self-crippling yet simultaneously overshadow the other characters? The nonsense of such a suggestion shows that the term is being used not to communicate an idea, but simply as a meaningless insult (in the same way that telling someone "you're a jackass" isn't actually intended to communicate anything, it's just supposed to hurt).
Looking at the term can help to reveal just how weaponized its use has become, and in turn, revealing when a word's only use is to hurt can help reveal the persons who use the term for that end.
You can't fix what you don't bring to light. Reveal the lack of meaning in the words, and it becomes harder for the attacker to pretend he's being reasonable. Make it harder for toxic people to pretend they're reasonable, and you make it easier for the community to become healthier.
Or at least, that's my perspective. :) There's plenty else involved in the health of a community, but I do think that examining the terms we use has value.
You are correct in your assessment that both of the above are ways that the term gets used as a perjorative. Notice how the two are essentially mutually-exclusive: how can a character be overspecialized to the point of self-crippling yet simultaneously overshadow the other characters?
* It tends to produce overly specialized and therefore inflexible characters (one-trick ponies).
* It tends to produce overly effective and therefore overshadowing characters that make the game less fun for the rest of the people.
Easily -- by eliminating the opportunity to do anything at all when in that character's wheelhouse, while at the same time being totally useless outside of it. You don't have an opportunity to contribute when the minmaxed character is useful, and you don't have an opportunity to succeed when it isn't (because you're essentially short-handed).
The effect is that you have a continuum of suck going on. If one aspect dominates, you aren't having fun. If another aspect dominates, you're not having fun. And if both aspects are in reasonable balance, you're still not having fun.
Reveal the lack of meaning in the words, and it becomes harder for the attacker to pretend he's being reasonable.
Except, as I outlined above, the words are very meaningful, and the meaning is well-understood by most participants in the discussion.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Easily -- by eliminating the opportunity to do anything at all when in that character's wheelhouse, while at the same time being totally useless outside of it. You don't have an opportunity to contribute when the minmaxed character is useful, and you don't have an opportunity to succeed when it isn't (because you're essentially short-handed).You are correct in your assessment that both of the above are ways that the term gets used as a perjorative. Notice how the two are essentially mutually-exclusive: how can a character be overspecialized to the point of self-crippling yet simultaneously overshadow the other characters?
* It tends to produce overly specialized and therefore inflexible characters (one-trick ponies).
* It tends to produce overly effective and therefore overshadowing characters that make the game less fun for the rest of the people.
Not being able to succeed because you're short-handed is not the same as being overshadowed. They're two very different scenarios, they affect people differently, and they will produce/reduce fun for different people at different times.
As I alluded above, no, most people do not typically make an accurate assessment of why they're not having fun. More often, they simply reach for the nearest thing that's different from themselves.
And nothing in the game is FORCING you to try diplomacy with the king, if you avoid trying to bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize anyone then you need not worry about Cha... In fact you can role play him however you wish as long as you avoid saying things which require a skill toss.
DM: "The Seneschal brings you up and introduces you one by one to the King, who asks you to tell him a little bit about yourself- in turn, make a Diplomacy roll. "
Things like this, where some important person wants to meet and be introduced to the party is pretty common where I come from.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The issue with Min/Maxing is when it's taken to an extreme. This is pretty much the same for most things.
Not if you're talking about the definition I put forth (which, given the context of your post, presumably you are).
If min-maxing simply means "lowering one thing to raise another thing," then "taking min-maxing to the extreme" simply means "lowering things as extremely as possible in order to raise things as extremely as possible".
What about that is inherently a problem?
Your earlier examples have tended to be about unskilled min-maxing, such as a 7-WIS fighter with nothing to prevent domination. However, a fighter who dumped both INT and CHA (but not WIS) would be more extreme than a fighter who dumped WIS (but not INT or CHA), yet would be less troublesome. If the more extreme min-maxing can be less of an issue, then "extreme" min-maxing is NOT the source of the issue. No, the issue in your fighter example seems to be unskilled min-maxing, not extreme min-maxing.
Or perhaps, for what you mean by "extreme", neither versions of that fighter count? Perhaps to really be "extreme" min-maxing, we'd be looking at a fighter whose mental stats were ALL dumped to 7? But whether that's an issue or not is still contextual, based on what system you're playing. For example, in 5E, every stat is a save stat, so any dump stat is a risk, whereas in Pathfinder some stats are very safe to dump. So a given number of dump stats on a character - equal levels of "extreme"ness - might be more or less problematic depending on the game in question. Thus, once again, taking min-maxing to the extreme seems to not be the root cause of problems, since taking the same extreme to a different system can change how much of an issue it is.
Unless perhaps you see extreme min-maxing as producing some other issue besides mechanical vulnerability, that you haven't talked about yet? Is there some other type of "issue" that min-maxing might produce as a direct result of being "taken to an extreme"?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And nothing in the game is FORCING you to try diplomacy with the king, if you avoid trying to bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize anyone then you need not worry about Cha... In fact you can role play him however you wish as long as you avoid saying things which require a skill toss.
DM: "The Seneschal brings you up and introduces you one by one to the King, who asks you to tell him a little bit about yourself- in turn, make a Diplomacy roll. "
Things like this, where some important person wants to meet and be introduced to the party is pretty common where I come from.
In Pathfinder, that doesn't call for a Diplomacy check. Pathfinder's Diplomacy is only for when you're actively trying to make a request or improve a creature's attitude toward you. Introducing yourself is neither of those things. As long as the 7 CHA guy is happy with the king's current opinion of him and he doesn't want to make a request during the introduction, there's no check to be made.