# Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Alright, before I begin the tirade, I'd like to clarify what I am understanding min/maxing to be:

minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another. 'Area' in this case means either combat, socializing, spellcasting; things like that.

Why the hate for it? Is it not good to be good at one thing and bad at another? To be good at everything is to be powergaming(right?) and to be bad at everything is to be a bard(fecetiousness here. replace 'bard' with 'useless')

IMXP, one attempting to make one's character be adept at too many things leads to said character being mediocre and thus unsuccessful at those same things.

OK, so tell me if this is post sensical enough, or it seems I am off-base or missing something;

Why is it seen as bad?


----------



## Nathan P. Mahney (Jun 26, 2006)

I honestly have no idea.  As a DM I don't care how my players build their characters - if they want to min/max, or if they find some broken combination, that's fine by me - I just have to find ways to deal with it (and of course, it just flags up stuff that I can use myself, heh heh heh).  As long as everyone's having fun, it's all good.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 26, 2006)

There are different levels of powergaming from light optimisation to the most overt min/maxing.
Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts. There is also the reverse of these as the flipside of the same gold coin (possibly gamers who look down upon those who prefer rules-lite game systems).

Because it is a dynamic that can greatly affect gameplay, it can quickly become an issue. Put a powergamer in with a a group of roleplayers and what is going on outside of the game starts to become more of a focus than what is going on inside the game.

My own way of thinking is to not look down upon anyone in this hobby of ours. Respect different playstyles but at the same time, take into account such things when forming a group or a particular campaign. An experienced DM will know who will mix well and who will not.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Hopefully this topic won't self-implode too quickly. Considering how personal this topic is to some people though, I'm sure somebody will take something the wrong way at some stage.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Alright, before I begin the tirade, I'd like to clarify what I am understanding min/maxing to be:
> 
> minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another. 'Area' in this case means either combat, socializing, spellcasting; things like that.
> 
> ...




Naw, powergamers are consumate min/maxers who tend to focus on combat... or whichever area they perceive to be most important to the campaign... so normally combat. 

I've never understood the hate against min/maxing.  Every DM I've had who has winced at one of my min/maxed PCs has also tended to min/max themselves when they get to play (Its not my fault I do it better ).


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts.




This is it right here. There's so many parts of the game that to not focus on one or two makes characters quite unlikely to succeed; again, IMXP



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise
> 
> PS: Hopefully this topic won't self-implode too quickly. Considering how personal this topic is to some people though, I'm sure somebody will take something the wrong way at some stage.




I agree. Thank you for the quick reply.


----------



## Jupp (Jun 26, 2006)

I dont see min-maxing is a bad thing all over the place. If you think about it then min-maxing is a natural thing. Look at professional sprinters, football players, computer specialists, etc, etc. They do min-maxing as well. Look at roman gladiators or English longbow men. They all aimed for the best gear that money could buy and were training specifically for what they were doing in their "jobs".

I do not care too much about min-maxing since it is a natural thing. If you specialise in what you are doing it could save your butt in the next fight. 

But, isnt there always a but, what I find a bit irritating is when players start to min-max outside of the role they are playing. I somehow do not understand the people that take 1 level of class X just to get this and that feat/skill/whatever. Or if they choose class/race combinations just because a certain combination gives them more points.

I know it's a fine line I am drawing here and some of it might sound contradictionary, but here I go  If the min-maxing stays withing the role you are playing and there is not too much meta thinking behind it, then I am totally okay with it. Otherwise I find it somehow strange. But everyone his own. If the group has fun while playing with their chars I do not really care.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Why is it seen as bad?





Because you are playing the "system" and not the "game" you are trying to take advantage of the rules crunch (and loop holes) instead of being concerned with your character, setting, etc,


not roleplaying

system playing


Bad munchkin, bad


----------



## Jupp (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Because you are playing the "system" and not the "game" you are trying to take advantage of the rules crunch (and loop holes) instead of being concerned with your character, setting, etc,
> 
> 
> not roleplaying
> ...




The question is why it is seen as bad. It is just another way to play the game.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Jupp said:
			
		

> The question is why it is seen as bad. It is just another way to play the game.




Because it's trying to exploit the system at the cost of character/setting/story etc

the rules should be a supportive vehical to playing a role (hence roleplay), 
instead of trying to number crunch numbers for system effect, that have nothing to do with 
character/setting/story etc, 

Muchkins only care about trying to take advantage system, and not character/setting/story etc


are you looking for more of a roleplaying game?

or a board game? 

if board game then being a munchkin doesn't really matter


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 26, 2006)

Jupp said:
			
		

> The question is why it is seen as bad. It is just another way to play the game.



Because we roleplayer should be enlighted people that are more concerned about motivation of people and interaction with each other than about numbers? 

I think the answer to the original question:
Min/Maxing is bad because some people prefer a different play style *and* think their's is the superior one. 

It is probably just like others view "angst-roleplaying" as bad.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Jun 26, 2006)

The problem with the "min-maxers don't roleplay" argument is that min-maxing is orthogonal to roleplaying.

It's just as easy to role-play a focussed/min-maxed character as an unoptimised  character.

Geoff.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 26, 2006)

Short answer:  It's only bad to someone who is unable or unwilling to do it.

Long Answer:  Because there's always someone, somewhere who loathes the idea of *gasp* planning a build out or *double gasp* NOT bumping up a useless skill even if your character might have been exposed to it in his/her background.  IMXP my group has two players who are of this mindset (one who believes it's a form of metagaming to build a character based around the theme of the campaign.  e.g. if you know the campaign is going to heavily feature undead, it's metagaming to make a cleric optimized at turning as opposed to a cleric with some turning ability but not everything focused on it), and I routinely argue with them over my characters (my characters have a concept which I then build and expand upon to make them good at what they do) because my characters are normally better than theirs and they seem to think I am min/maxing because of it.

In short, it's viewed as bad because people aren't comfortable with the idea and think that every little detail should roll out of the way the campaign progresses (e.g. if your character had difficulty in a social situation, you should up his Diplomacy score), and seem to think it's a mortal sin to have a 20-level build all planned out beforehand because it doesn't allow for any flexibility to change during a campaign.  These are the same people who would, IMO, change the rules if they could so that the DM should be allowed to deny character progression if the choices don't reflect what "[your] character would do".


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Because we roleplayer should be enlighted people that are more concerned about motivation of people and interaction with each other than about numbers?




Here, Here,


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm one of those gamers who hates min/maxing and powergaming. Its acceptable to a point because as people have said in the past, you have to have some degree of competancy or your characters will get killed or worse. However, there is a point were it destroys the fun in the game.

My gaming group is one where we build good characters but we don't overdo it just because we can. In the past we have had a player (who no longer plays with us) who was a consumate powergamer and he could never get his head around the idea of just playing the game and did actually spoil the enjoyment of everyone else in places.

One of my group said it best when he said that he wanted every combat to be an edge-of-the-seat, fear of being killed style of encounter. Thats not to say that I as DM should be making the encounters more powerful, just that the players arn't going to go silly with their character builds.

In closing I will say that it is an aspect of D&D that I wish wasn't there. I know people will point out differences but in prior editions we never had to worry about it and we had great games.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> The problem with the "min-maxers don't roleplay" argument is that min-maxing is orthogonal to roleplaying.
> 
> It's just as easy to role-play a focussed/min-maxed character as an unoptimised  character.
> 
> Geoff.




"orthogonal" ? had to go look up that word LoL

Not true the difference is in the game focus, stats and trying to rip the system, or character colour, setting and story,

systems should support character/setting etc not be the be all end all, 


thats like the "cart before the horse", yes sure it can still push the cart instead of pulling it as it should, but do you really want to?


As some one once said "that is the difference between Roll Playing and Roleplaying

A Good Roleplayer will sacrifice a system advantage for better characters and more colourful story


A munchkin can't even imagine that


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Because you are playing the "system" and not the "game" you are trying to take advantage of the rules crunch (and loop holes) instead of being concerned with your character, setting, etc,





			
				librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Because it's trying to exploit the system at the cost of character/setting/story etc
> 
> the rules should be a supportive vehical to playing a role (hence roleplay),
> instead of trying to number crunch numbers for system effect, that have nothing to do with
> character/setting/story etc



The system is part of the game. And the ability to kick butt plays directly into the character and with a setting that inevitably revolves around confration.

You got anything else?


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> The system is part of the game. And the ability to kick butt plays directly into the character and with a setting that inevitably revolves around confration.
> 
> You got anything else?




You seem to have complete missed the point lol

see my last post


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> The system is part of the game. And the ability to kick butt plays directly into the character and with a setting that inevitably revolves around confration.
> 
> You got anything else?




Well, as I understand min/maxing, the term itself doesn't assume a combat focus, just a distinct one. A bard or rogue with bukku social skills but little to nothing in the way of pointy stick waving ability is just as min/maxed as a combat monster, but maybe that's the rub. It is quite often used to refer to combat monsters and many take exception to said monsters.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Short answer:  It's only bad to someone who is unable or unwilling to do it.




Sorry but thats the biggest load o crap, lol

thats like saying you have to take steroids just because you think everyone else is,


Wrong wrong wrong, go to the back of the class


----------



## Goblyns Hoard (Jun 26, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> In short, it's viewed as bad because people aren't comfortable with the idea and think that every little detail should roll out of the way the campaign progresses (e.g. if your character had difficulty in a social situation, you should up his Diplomacy score), and seem to think it's a mortal sin to have a 20-level build all planned out beforehand because it doesn't allow for any flexibility to change during a campaign.  flect




I agree with most of what you say mate - but am going to take the opportunity to disagree with this one.  I don't think planning a 20 level build for a campaign right from the start is a 'poor' style, but I do think that rigidly sticking to that plan in spite of what happens in the campaign is.  Yes plan where you think the character wants to go from the start, but if something big happens along the way then you should reflect that in your character.  Rigidly sticking to your build to optimise the character in a way that doesn't reflect on what's happening in the game is (IMO) the difference between the roll and role of our hobby.

That said - I'm not opposed to min-maxing... absolutely you should work toward your character being as effective as he should be.  But if the campaign has a significant impact on your character then a player should respect the effort their DM has put into the campaign enough that they will reflect it in their character.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 26, 2006)

Right, and I agree, but where is the line drawn?  At what point does the DM have the right to step in and tell me what MY character should pick based on "something big" that happens along the way?  For that matter, what constitutes "something big"?

librarius, the point I was making is that generally the people opposed to min/maxing are the ones who refuse to do it or aren't good at doing it, so they seem to think because THEY won't do it it's a sin for anyone else to do it.  It's like someone saying "I'm not that great at football so you shouldn't play as good as you can because you'll show me up."


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyns Hoard said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you say mate - but am going to take the opportunity to disagree with this one.  I don't think planning a 20 level build for a campaign right from the start is a 'poor' style, but I do think that rigidly sticking to that plan in spite of what happens in the campaign is.




Agreed. Its a good idea to plot ideas for further down the campaign but players should be aware that unforeseen events and encounters may change the direction of the campaign and the character.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyns Hoard said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you say mate - but am going to take the opportunity to disagree with this one.  I don't think planning a 20 level build for a campaign right from the start is a 'poor' style, but I do think that rigidly sticking to that plan in spite of what happens in the campaign is.  Yes plan where you think the character wants to go from the start, but if something big happens along the way then you should reflect that in your character.  Rigidly sticking to your build to optimise the character in a way that doesn't reflect on what's happening in the game is (IMO) the difference between the roll and role of our hobby.
> 
> That said - I'm not opposed to min-maxing... absolutely you should work toward your character being as effective as he should be.  But if the campaign has a significant impact on your character then a player should respect the effort their DM has put into the campaign enough that they will reflect it in their character.




Cool I have a hoard! I should probably get a horde to protect my hoard, unless all the available hordes have already been whored out.

Jeez, what the hell. I'm hijacking my own thread with nonsense.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> "orthogonal" ? had to go look up that word LoL




Check out "vehical" while you're at it.



			
				librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> You seem to have complete missed the point lol
> 
> see my last post




Other than repeating what you said in your first post ad infinitum, and trotting out some dog-eared cliches like "that's not role-playing, that's roll-playing", you don't really have much of a point. For the "cart and horse" analogy to amount to anything more than pretention, you have to actually explain how playing the game the way you think it should be played constitutes the superior method, and other ways are backwards.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Right, and I agree, but where is the line drawn?  At what point does the DM have the right to step in and tell me what MY character should pick based on "something big" that happens along the way?  For that matter, what constitutes "something big"?
> 
> librarius, the point I was making is that generally the people opposed to min/maxing are the ones who refuse to do it or aren't good at doing it, so they seem to think because THEY won't do it it's a sin for anyone else to do it.  It's like someone saying "I'm not that great at football so you shouldn't play as good as you can because you'll show me up."





Not trying to be rude or anything, but like I said "A munchkin can't even imagine that"

it is a completey different way of thinking


okay..simplest thing is 

1) Explain what a "munchkin" is

2) Why this is seen as a bad thing


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Right, and I agree, but where is the line drawn?  At what point does the DM have the right to step in and tell me what MY character should pick based on "something big" that happens along the way?  For that matter, what constitutes "something big"?
> 
> librarius, the point I was making is that generally the people opposed to min/maxing are the ones who refuse to do it or aren't good at doing it, so they seem to think because THEY won't do it it's a sin for anyone else to do it.  It's like someone saying "I'm not that great at football so you shouldn't play as good as you can because you'll show me up."




While I did not intend for a debate on playstyles, I suppose that such is inevitable with such a question.

Anyway, I think now that part of the hatred for min/maxing is that it, like many(possibly all) gaming styles has varying definitions between gamers. I view it as a character trying really hard to be good at one thing, possibly and probably to the detriment of one or two other things; trying to be as 'effective' as possible overall is what I would consider powergaming, but maybe I'm just wrong in my understanding of the terms.

I believe 'munchkin' to be simply an insult used against powergamers and ocmbat min/maxers alike and not so much a gamer style classification.

Comments?


----------



## Goblyns Hoard (Jun 26, 2006)

Wayne - that's impossible to say - each group, or rather each player needs to make up their own mind.  As a DM i'll never force someone to build their character a certain way - though I will make suggestions about what I think is reasonable.  I also do things like award bonus skill points in specific skills - enough to reflect what the characters would be picking up.  This is mainly to reflect character development during long periods of downtime.  When we spent 3 months of downtime in my current game the paladin spent most of his time helping the local farmers rebuild after the recent battle, so he got some points in profession farming and knowledge-local.

However if it comes down to it and I feel a player is breaking the feel of the game I spend a lot of time working on (and a lot more than the players do) then I won't invite them into the next game I run...  that's my call


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Not trying to be rude or anything, but like I said "A munchkin can't even imagine that" it is a completey different way of thinking




Yes, and you seem to have trouble respecting ways of thinking that differ from yours. Like most "purists", you are quick to deride and slap a label on others. 

There's nothing inherently noble or great about making inefficient character choices. If a fighter wants to put his 16 in Charisma and his 10 in STR, then that's his choice, but how does it constitute some kind of superior approach to the game?



> okay..simplest thing is
> 
> 1) Explain what a "munchkin" is




Well, you're the one tossing the label around, so go ahead and explain. But you should try actually supporting your point-of-view rather than just stating it as if it were factual.


----------



## Goblyns Hoard (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Cool I have a hoard!




My master you have returned at last... long have I waited for you.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Other than repeating what you said in your first post ad infinitum, and trotting out some dog-eared cliches like "that's not role-playing, that's roll-playing", you don't really have much of a point. For the "cart and horse" analogy to amount to anything more than pretention, you have to actually explain how playing the game the way you think it should be played constitutes the superior method, and other ways are backwards.




I'm just trying to work out whether librarius_arcana has the tongue firmly in cheek or not.
I'm getting a feeling not.  (librarius_arcana: some clarification needed dude   )
You see this is where these threads tend to fall apart. There's always someone who thinks that their way is the right or correct way and that other ways are inferior, silly or whatever. Just remember people that when it comes down to it, all you can do is voice your opinion. To cross the line where you pretend that your opinion is fact is stepping over the mark.

Surely the greatest thing about this hobby of ours is that so many people can enjoy it in so many ways. How can there be a wrong or inferior way of playing?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Check out "vehical" while you're at it..




Why didn't you understand the use of that term in reference to my statement?

I think it is you that needs to look up the meaning





			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Other than repeating what you said in your first post ad infinitum, and trotting out some dog-eared cliches like "that's not role-playing, that's roll-playing", .




Is it still a "cliche" if it's true?

and if you don't know the difference between the two you don't seem to be qualified to answer the question,




			
				Felon said:
			
		

> you don't really have much of a point. For the "cart and horse" analogy to amount to anything more than pretention, you have to actually explain how playing the game the way you think it should be played constitutes the superior method, and other ways are backwards.




Well that statement is composed in it's entirety on assumption,
and judging on total lack of mert, almost seems to be a personal attack,

can you support any of that?, or is that just your personal view?


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> I'm just trying to work out whether librarius_arcana has the tongue firmly in cheek or not.
> I'm getting a feeling not.  (librarius_arcana: some clarification needed dude   )
> You see this is where these threads tend to fall apart. There's always someone who thinks that their way is the right or correct way and that other ways are inferior, silly or whatever. Just remember people that when it comes down to it, all you can do is voice your opinion. To cross the line where you pretend that your opinion is fact is stepping over the mark.
> 
> ...




I regret that you are correct in this; throughout the thread I've been attempting to preserve the clarity of these terms as I understand them in order to avoid confusion. Alas.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Yes, and you seem to have trouble respecting ways of thinking that differ from yours. Like most "purists", you are quick to deride and slap a label on others.




No completey wrong, I can see where you're coming from, but you can't see mean, can you?




			
				Felon said:
			
		

> There's nothing inherently noble or great about making inefficient character choices. If a fighter wants to put his 16 in Charisma and his 10 in STR, then that's his choice, but how does it constitute some kind of superior approach to the game?




You shouldn't judge something you don't understand



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Well, you're the one tossing the label around, so go ahead and explain. But you should try actually supporting your point-of-view rather than just stating it as if it were factual.




I know what a "munchkin" is, 

but the point was do you,


----------



## arwink (Jun 26, 2006)

Mix-Maxing is evil. I prefered the good old days, when my PC's who aspired to becoming the world's greatest swordsman had to resort to good Thaco's and kindly asking everyone else to use battle-axes in order to bring my vision to life...


----------



## Jupp (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Because it's trying to exploit the system at the cost of character/setting/story etc
> 
> the rules should be a supportive vehical to playing a role (hence roleplay),
> instead of trying to number crunch numbers for system effect, that have nothing to do with
> ...




You are quite agressive in your posts. 
But again, you are trying to impose onto others how the game should be played. Which is, in my opinion, wrong. It is up to every group to decide how  D&D is to be played. Be it a competitive game style where a group tries to "beat" the module or a collaborative roleplaying experience where the priorities are shifted to the character/story development. Even a healthy mix between the two is possible, which is what I was writing about in my post earlier in this thread. It is totally possible to give great importance to the statistical development of your character by trying to get the best thing possible out of the rules and still have a good roleplaying experience. You are trying to tell us that there is only night and day but there is a grey space between it that is a valid way to play as well.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 26, 2006)

It's one of those terms that, if it had one accepted standard contextual definition, would probably cause a rather different amount of 'trouble' than it currently does.

To me, I suppose min-maxing in terms of RPGs is the decision made by some players to focus on "character optimisation" (i.e., with a view to 'winning the RPG') during character creation and play, _to the extent that the more humanly engaging and enriching aspects of these total experiences are overshadowed or even largely - if not entirely - ignored or undiscovered._

If it (the want to 'win') doesn't reach those dizzying heights however, it's no harm to anything or anyone.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 26, 2006)

The big red implosion timer is definitely counting down on this thread!

As usual I would guess it comes down to definitions. If you define the min/max approach to the game as 'a player who exploits loopholes to create as powerful a character as possible, usually to the detriment of his fellows' then it can't be anything except bad. But there are other definitions, as folks on this thread are trying to illustrate.

Personally I don't see min/maxing as bad, myself. Making sub-optimal choices for your PC is all well and good, as long as the rest of the group does it as well, but if I want to create a PC with legs and staying power, someone who might actually reach mid-high level without relying almost completely on the skill of his compatriots, then my choices are going to be as close to optimal as makes no odds.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> No completey wrong, I can see where you're coming from, but you can't see mean, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I believe I have found the answer to my question.

Having the term 'munchkin' appear in the thread makes me realize that min/maxing is reviled because it is lumped in with said term and all understood connotations. How I understand the term is not as most understand it.  This is unfortunate because it can be a useful tool in character creation, but should I mention it, these negative associations will affect.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> I'm just trying to work out whether librarius_arcana has the tongue firmly in cheek or not.
> I'm getting a feeling not.  (librarius_arcana: some clarification needed dude   )




A bit of both, but must admit, not so much of the funny in light of some peoples thoughtlessness knee jerk reactions, 




			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> You see this is where these threads tend to fall apart. There's always someone who thinks that their way is the right or correct way and that other ways are inferior, silly or whatever. Just remember people that when it comes down to it, all you can do is voice your opinion. To cross the line where you pretend that your opinion is fact is stepping over the mark.




Thats why I asked for their version/understanding of what a munchkin is,

theres not alot of point me just telling such people, 
but let it dawn on them in the explaining,




			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Surely the greatest thing about this hobby of ours is that so many people can enjoy it in so many ways. How can there be a wrong or inferior way of playing?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




A roleplaying game should be about roles, the character, am I correct? 
or is this my misunderstanding of years and years of roleplaying?

Roll players on the other hand have little to non at all desire to play a "Role"
but rather simply roll the dice for the sake of the system,

where is the "Role" in that form of play?


----------



## Krelios (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Because it's trying to exploit the system at the cost of character/setting/story etc
> 
> the rules should be a supportive vehical to playing a role (hence roleplay),
> instead of trying to number crunch numbers for system effect, that have nothing to do with
> ...



Min/Maxing and Munchkinism are not the same thing. You're suggesting the OP posited something that he didn't.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Jupp said:
			
		

> You are quite agressive in your posts.




No honestly it was an innocent question, 

what was it you are after Role or board game, if board gaming it doesn't really matter as in board gaming you just try to squeeze every point of advantage you can from the system,

nothing suffers for it


----------



## shilsen (Jun 26, 2006)

I think we've already established the basic reason why min/maxing is viewed as bad: because it's a particular play style which doesn't suit some people. Almost anything beyond that will be even more subjective.

For me personally, I'm fine with a reasonable amount of min/maxing. I define "reasonable" almost purely on the basis of the group. If one PC is min/maxed to a degree that he overshadows the others and/or requires me to use things to challenge him that would destroy the other characters, then it's too much. As my players will probably vouch, I run a very tight ship as far as what's allowed or not (I run a "mostly core rules" game), but I also work with them so that they have powerful, mechanically strong, well-constructed PCs. And we have a roleplaying-heavy, character-driven game where we've never had balance problems in-game. In short, I think min/maxing is just fine, within reason. And I can judge "reason" to a nicety in my game, which is as much as any DM can hope to do, I think.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Krelios said:
			
		

> Min/Maxing and Munchkinism are not the same thing. You're suggesting the OP posited something that he didn't.




Explain to me the term "Munchkin" as in use by gamers


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Krelios said:
			
		

> Min/Maxing and Munchkinism are not the same thing. You're suggesting the OP posited something that he didn't.




I think, though, that is exactly the 'problem' with min/maxing(which, from now on, I would like to type as mm). It's associated with this very nebulous 'munchkin' term which has various different meanings, all of which are negative for those who understand it to mean them.

What is a munchkin? Someone who wrecks the game for others. How? That's the variance. MM is one of them.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> A Good Roleplayer will sacrifice a system advantage for better characters and more colourful story



This reminds me of the "fun" versus "story" thread we had a while back. There is a similar conflict here that I believe fuels much of the dislike for min/maxing: "character optimization" versus "story".

Just as with "fun" and "story", it is possible to run a game where "character optimization" and "story" do not conflict. This happens in several narratives where the hero gains some special ability, finds some powerful item, or just happens to have the right mix of skills to overcome the challenges he faces.

Of course, there will be games where the two do come into conflict. In those cases, players who favor "story" get annoyed that the min/maxers prefer "character optimization" instead.

On the other hand, from the min/maxers' perspective, choosing "character optimization" will result in a better "story" for them. Namely, one in which they utterly crush the opposition with their finely-tuned characters . So, maybe it's not so much a conflict between "character optimization" and "story" but a conflict between preferences for different types of "story".


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> This reminds me of the "fun" versus "story" thread we had a while back. There is a similar conflict here that I believe fuels much of the dislike for min/maxing: "character optimization" versus "story".
> 
> Just as with "fun" and "story", it is possible to run a game where "character optimization" and "story" do not conflict. This happens in several narratives where the hero gains some special ability, finds some powerful item, or just happens to have the right mix of skills to overcome the challenges he faces.
> 
> ...





I don't have a problem with that,

But I believe that it's Good Roleplaying for a player to sacrifices their system advantage for the sake of character

rather than sacrifice character for system advantage


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> No completey wrong, I can see where you're coming from, but you can't see mean, can you?
> 
> You shouldn't judge something you don't understand
> 
> ...




Once again, instead of providing anything substantial to advocate your position, you simply cop a smug, derisive attitude without demonstrating any erudition back it up. 

If you have any rational arguements to support your belief that the emphasis of an RPG should be away from combat and dice-rolling, then by all means share it with us. You haven't as yet, you've merely asserted your belief as the correct one and insulted anyone who actually expects you to explain yourself.

The point many of us has tried to get across to you is that the term "munchkin" doesn't need to be understood, because it's just a hogwash, narrow-minded term.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> But I believe that it's Good Roleplaying for a player to sacrifices their system advantage for the sake of character




The one has nothing to do with the other. A character's STR score, be it low or high, doesn't have anything to do with that player's role-playing ability.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> A roleplaying game should be about roles, the character, am I correct?
> or is this my misunderstanding of years and years of roleplaying?
> 
> Roll players on the other hand have little to non at all desire to play a "Role"
> ...



Well, most of us can't cast spells, rage, smite evil, sneak attack, or use bardic music in real life. So, for some players, controlling a character who can within the framework of an imagined world is "role" enough for them. Especially if they also decide that he's a driven over-achiever that works hard to gain any and every advantage possible.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Once again, instead of providing anything substantial to advocate your position, you simply cop a smug, derisive attitude without demonstrating any erudition back it up.




Again assumption, assumption, assumption, and rather negative assumption at that



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> If you have any rational arguements to support your belief that the emphasis of an RPG should be away from combat and dice-rolling, then by all means share it with us. You haven't as yet, you've merely asserted your belief as the correct one and insulted anyone who actually expects you to explain yourself.
> 
> The point many of us has tried to get across to you is that the term "munchkin" doesn't need to be understood, because it's just a hogwash elitist term.




LoL QED

Please reread what I have already written in other posts, if you still don't understand it would be pointless to try, as you would think I was repeating myself, and you would be non the wiser


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> The one has nothing to do with the other. A character's STR score, be it low or high, doesn't have anything to do with that player's role-playing ability.




Needless to say, but you are missing the point


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with that,
> 
> But I believe that it's Good Roleplaying for a player to sacrifices their system advantage for the sake of character
> 
> rather than sacrifice character for system advantage




I see your position seems to be summed up quite nicely here, and there's nothing wrong with this opinion. In fact, it is also mine.

However, MM, as I see it, is not sacrificing character for system advantage, it's sacrificing one system advantage for another. Optimization, and/or munchkinizing(is that a word?) would be, I think, sacrificing character for system advantage.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> A roleplaying game should be about roles, the character, am I correct?
> or is this my misunderstanding of years and years of roleplaying?
> Roll players on the other hand have little to non at all desire to play a "Role"
> but rather simply roll the dice for the sake of the system,
> ...




To be honest, I don't believe there is any correctness to roleplaying. Some people like myself really enjoy both aspects of the game and so I obviously don't see them as mutually exclusive. This is why I'm not really getting your point. I'd prefer to enjoy both rather than exclude one for the sake of the other.
If you're saying what the game "should" be about, then I think you're treading on dangerous ground. Your opinion is obviously valid. Surely though you can see that this is just an opinion and not fact, no matter how forcefully you express it?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Nac_Mac_Feegle (Jun 26, 2006)

A munchkin will use any and all advantages, usually conveniently "forgetting" some disadvantages, a munchkin=powergamer

Why is min/maxing munchkinism?

I roll a 12 and an 18, I envisage playing a warrior, do I go 18 str, 12 int, or 12 str, 18 int?

Sure I can play the hyper smart fighter, but looking at the skill list, whats the piont. At the end of the day, my job as warrior is to be on the front line dealing and taking damage. The 18 in strength makes sense, pure and simple.

Its playing to your strengths.

As for metagaming, the instant you lok in the PHB your metagaming. You have a system, you build a character based on the options. Is it assumed I cannot roleplay a warrior because I maxed his strength and constitution, while letting his intelligence and charisma fall to the way side? I dont tihnk so.

Stats and skill help define a character in a "role" play environment, how good looking he is, how big he is, is he imposing, does he have a low slung forehead and drag his knuckles? all these are helped by his stats and skills. Likewise they have a very real bearing on his "roll" play. How hard he hits, how much damage he can take, how NPC's interact with him.

Thing is, the DMG & PHB give you everything you need to "roleplay" and "rollplay" and its up to your individual group to decide how best you want to play.

I plan my character out 20 levels in advance, I tend to play characters with a focus, a skill set or build I want to try, does it matter where the campaign leads? I might change my focus depending on the campaign, but certain groups play certain ways, there the high espionage and political intrigue, and then theres the dungeon delving mob killing, steal of the gold from the minorities games. You know how your group tends to play, so any character you take is going to be geared towards that 90% of the time, even if you dont know it.

I am not going to take a spy or nobleman agent, because our campaigns revolve around saving the day from the BBEG, so I can plan my character ahead of time, because whatever base class I pick, by 20th level, he is going to be an extension of that, be it melee, stealth, magic or support, thats who the character is at concept, and 90% of the time, thats who he is at the end, albiet with a little bit more versatility.

If you want rules lite, you ignore some rules, drop feats, let people know in advance thats AoO's and other stuff dont matter, and "roleplay" your hearts out, or if you love combat, tell your guys, and "rollplay" your hearts out.

Either way is viable, the rules do not tell you how to play, they are a guildine on how to play, but only you at your table can decide how best to use the rules.

Thinking you have some sort of right to actually tell poeple thier gaming style is wrong is vanity at best, downright bigotry at worst. You dont like someone elses play style? fine, no one is forcing you to, so accept people are different the world over, and be happy your gaming group plays to your "gaming" strengths.  In fact, if your gaming group does play to the style you like and are good at, arent you min/maxing your playstyle?

Feegle Out


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, most of us can't cast spells, rage, smite evil, sneak attack, or use bardic music in real life. So, for some players, controlling a character who can within the framework of an imagined world is "role" enough for them. Especially if they also decide that he's a driven over-achiever that works hard to gain any and every advantage possible.




But it's not really a "Role" anymore if you are just playing the system, for the systems sake,


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> I see your position seems to be summed up quite nicely here, and there's nothing wrong with this opinion. In fact, it is also mine.
> 
> However, MM, as I see it, is not sacrificing character for system advantage, it's sacrificing one system advantage for another. Optimization, and/or munchkinizing(is that a word?) would be, I think, sacrificing character for system advantage.





yeah thats what I mean "sacrificing character for system advantage" but thats bad within a game about "Roles" ie Characters


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> To be honest, I don't believe there is any correctness to roleplaying. Some people like myself really enjoy both aspects of the game and so I obviously don't see them as mutually exclusive. This is why I'm not really getting your point. I'd prefer to enjoy both rather than exclude one for the sake of the other.
> If you're saying what the game "should" be about, then I think you're treading on dangerous ground. Your opinion is obviously valid. Surely though you can see that this is just an opinion and not fact, no matter how forcefully you express it?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




Thats fine, but the game in question is meant to be a "Role" playing game,


----------



## Driddle (Jun 26, 2006)

Because it hurts people. 
I've seen grown men cry because of min/maxing. It's just not right. WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END?!


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Because it hurts people.
> I've seen grown men cry because of min/maxing. It's just not right. WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END?!




Sometimes grown men need to cry. Sometimes others need them to. It's my job to facilitate the process.


----------



## Presto2112 (Jun 26, 2006)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> In closing I will say that it is an aspect of D&D that I wish wasn't there. I know people will point out differences but in prior editions we never had to worry about it and we had great games.




If you never saw min-maxing in previous editions then you weren't looking hard enough.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2006)

> I honestly have no idea. As a DM I don't care how my players build their characters - if they want to min/max, or if they find some broken combination, that's fine by me - I just have to find ways to deal with it (and of course, it just flags up stuff that I can use myself, heh heh heh). As long as everyone's having fun, it's all good.



Well, here we go. I perfectly agree with this!

A good read: *The Evolution of Munchkin*http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html, by Monte Cook.



> Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts.



What about belittleling players who like to min/max and concentrate only on RP and fluff? Wouldn't it be just to regard it as just as bad, then?


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> yeah thats what I mean "sacrificing character for system advantage" but thats bad within a game about "Roles" ie Characters




Unfortunately you simply cannot take the 'role' out of the character. A fully optomized combat monkey without a single point in any social or knowledge skills will be just that in society: a maladjusted retarded sociopath spat upon by the mercantile and nobility.  People like this exist in real life and would definitely moreso in the ultra-violent and eldritch world of D&D. It's a crappy one, but the role is there.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Thats fine, but the game in question is meant to be a "Role" playing game,



Is that the only way it can be played?
Is it the only way it should be played?
Is defining a role playing game so narrowly missing out on half the fun?
Are you dismissing a whole heap of players out there because they don't share your focused view?

I think we will have to agree to disagree which is a shame. I think you would enjoy playing at my table.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Agback (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another.




Or in other words "making your character so bad at one thing that you wreck adventures by screwing up some scenes, in order to make you character so good at something else that you wreck adventures by screwing over other scenes."


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Thats fine, but the game in question is meant to be a "Role" playing game,




Yes, a ROLE-playing GAME. 

GAMES have mechanics and rules. Those mechanics and rules are meant to be used to facilitate the "playing" of the game. To deride people for using said mechanics to make thier play experience better for them makes no sense. 

If the role playing is all that matters then those player types should take up ACTING instead of playing a ROLE-playing GAME. Thankfully alot of rational people fall somewhere inbetween and can enjoy doing both, without putting down anyone elses play style. 

But that's just internerd bravado for you I guess...


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 26, 2006)

Presto2112 said:
			
		

> If you never saw min-maxing in previous editions then you weren't looking hard enough.



Agreed. Min-maxing was rife throughout 1st and 2nd edition. In fact, it was a stated design goal of 3e to make the classes balanced enough that min-maxing a "broken" PC would be much, much more difficult.
*
I see a few people getting frustrated by the arguments in this thread. It's not worth getting angry about, folks; if you start getting angry because someone is pushing your buttons, walk away from the thread for a while.*


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
			
		

> A munchkin will use any and all advantages, usually conveniently "forgetting" some disadvantages, a munchkin=powergamer




No some of that is called "cheating"



			
				Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
			
		

> Why is min/maxing munchkinism?




it is if character doesn't come first (which is almost all of the case's, as it tends to be a secondary thought if at all, and is the first thing to go for system advantage)




			
				Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
			
		

> Thinking you have some sort of right to actually tell poeple thier gaming style is wrong is vanity at best, downright bigotry at worst. You dont like someone elses play style? fine, no one is forcing you to, so accept people are different the world over, and be happy your gaming group plays to your "gaming" strengths.  In fact, if your gaming group does play to the style you like and are good at, arent you min/maxing your playstyle?
> 
> Feegle Out




bigotry is when some one makes baseless assumptions,

being munchkin is based on roll play, and not roleplay,


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Is it still a "cliche" if it's true?




Yes.  The fact that it is a cliche means nothing about if the statement is valid or not.  A cliche can be good or bad.  It can be neither or be both good and bad at the same time.

The 'surprise twist' in a movie that you know is coming an hour before hand is typically bad or the sudden 'revelation' that "The Killer is in the house!!11!" can actually be what puts you to sleep.  

In contrast, when you see a Zorro or James Bond movie there are certain events you "know" are going to happen.  I'm guessing I can state a few big events and action sequences that will happen in the Superman movie coming out this week simply because it is a Superman movie.  But would they really be a Zorro, Bond or Superman movie if these events did NOT happen?

Getting back to the topic of the thread...

Where I am coming from:

Min-Maxer:  A player that centers, stat-wise, in one area of the character (combat, social, spell save DCs, etc.) to the detriment of other areas of the character.  Not inherently a bad thing.

Powergamer: Almost the exact same thing as a min-maxer though almost exclusively referring to the players that min-max for combat. Not inherently a bad thing.

Munchkin: A min-maxer (usually a powergamer) that 'powers-up' his character that bends or breaks the rules of the game.  The really annoying ones being players being ones that find loopholes in the ruleset that allows them the benefits that, while obviously going against the spirit of the rules, do not actually break the rules thus requireing DM/GM intervention to 'block the combo'.  Inherently a bad thing.

There isn't anything wrong with min-maxing as long as they don't bend/break the rules.  There is nothing wrong with having a half-orc barabarian that crushes skulls to the best of his ability.  There may be something wrong with a druid that worships a specific deity in order to be able to wear a certain type of armor and being a certain race for X benefit when said race usually doesn't worship said deity (depends on backstory and campaign - it could be a munchkin or it could be really cool set-up for the DM to have fun with).


----------



## FireLance (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> But it's not really a "Role" anymore if you are just playing the system, for the systems sake,



Hey, I resemble that remark! 

I'll have you know that every one of my PC's character optimization decisions was arrived at through an agonizing, soul-searching, in-character process of simply trying to survive in a harsh and cruel world. (Cue angst and pathos-filled music )

Whenever there was a new feat or prestige class ideally suited to my character, I made sure that I heard rumors of it in a tavern and went out of my way to find a master and get my training done (in-character) between gaming sessions so that I would not eat up valuable time for the other players.

Calling what I do "playing the system, for the systems sake" belittles the agony, angst and tortuous suffering that my character went through to achieve his in-character goals. I am saddened, and filled with angst. In-character, of course.


----------



## Presto2112 (Jun 26, 2006)

For the record, it is my firm belief that a really good player can RP his heart out after making a really strong, min-maxed character.  I believe it really depends on your character creation method.  

(A) Do you begin with a character concept in mind, build a strong, survivable PC, and then build his/her story around that concept?  

(B) Do you begin with a story for your character first, and then build the PC to fit the story?  

If you choose Option A (as I usually do), you're more than likely (but NOT definitely) going to be one who min-maxes.  

I've actually gone so far as to give my new wizard PC the Noncombatant flaw so I could get that extra feat.  Wizard's are weak melee combatants anyway, and he's usually not going to find himself in the midst of melee combat, so what's an extra -2 going to hurt?  However, I made a story reason as to WHY he has that character flaw (lost his eye in a sparring match in his youth and now gets extremely nervous when holding a weapon).  That's the key, IMO.  

That's also where I draw the line between powergaming and munchkinism.  Munchkins typically don't care about their PC's story at all, it's just a collection of numbers.  Powergamers like their characters to be powerful, but not necessarily at the expense of fulfilling RP.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

Presto2112 said:
			
		

> If you never saw min-maxing in previous editions then you weren't looking hard enough.




Quoted for truth...



			
				Presto2112 said:
			
		

> That's also where I draw the line between powergaming and munchkinism.  Munchkins typically don't care about their PC's story at all, it's just a collection of numbers.  Powergamers like their characters to be powerful, but not necessarily at the expense of fulfilling RP.




That's two for two...


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> What about belittleling players who like to min/max and concentrate only on RP and fluff? Wouldn't it be just to regard it as just as bad, then?




Would it be? It would be consistent, sure; but just? On some thought of it, I think it might not be just to belittle anyone regardless of their gaming style.

But it would definitely be consistent.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Unfortunately you simply cannot take the 'role' out of the character. A fully optomized combat monkey without a single point in any social or knowledge skills will be just that in society: a maladjusted retarded sociopath spat upon by the mercantile and nobility.  People like this exist in real life and would definitely moreso in the ultra-violent and eldritch world of D&D. It's a crappy one, but the role is there.




But the character is not created for that "role" if it was that would be fine,

but people create those types of characters simply because it gives the most system advantage, no other, which is all of the difference,


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Agback said:
			
		

> Or in other words "making your character so bad at one thing that you wreck adventures by screwing up some scenes, in order to make you character so good at something else that you wreck adventures by screwing over other scenes."




Not quite. Remember this is a team game. so "making your character the good one at *this* but is abysmal at doing *this*, so another character should.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2006)

Terms like powergamers, min/maxers, munchkins and so on, so forth are terms to belittle people rather than help them. These are terms to say "look, I'm more mature now, I stopped being one of these". 

Which is just. *sigh*. We all have different experiences and different things we like and dislike. Because we already went somewhere doesn't mean it ain't going to be fun for someone else who hasn't gone there yet.

Once again: *The Evolution of Munchkin*. A good read. Really, really.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Is that the only way it can be played?
> Is it the only way it should be played?
> Is defining a role playing game so narrowly missing out on half the fun?
> Are you dismissing a whole heap of players out there because they don't share your focused view?
> ...




Well if I buy a can of beens, I expect "beens" to be in the tin,


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> it is if character doesn't come first (which is almost all of the case's, as it tends to be a secondary thought if at all, and is the first thing to go for system advantage)




Not necessarily.  I have definitely seen min-maxers who not only come up with a concept first and then try to make sure it is viable, they help others in the group who aren't as proficient with the rules but want to try out a certain concept that is difficult to manage easily.  The min-maxer is the rules expert who can help the other players towards the correct crunch to get their fluff going.  She's the one who lets the player creating a Rogue2/Enchanter3 who wants to charm enemies proficiently and master illusions while still keeping a good number of skill points and Charisma-based skills that they are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole and should check out the Beguiler in PHBII instead.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Agreed. Min-maxing was rife throughout 1st and 2nd edition. In fact, it was a stated design goal of 3e to make the classes balanced enough that min-maxing a "broken" PC would be much, much more difficult.
> *
> I see a few people getting frustrated by the arguments in this thread. It's not worth getting angry about, folks; if you start getting angry because someone is pushing your buttons, walk away from the thread for a while.*




Yes, and I'm sorry, PC. I knew this or worse could happen when I started this.  Though, now that I've quoted you, I know how to change the colours of my words. Huzzah.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Well if I buy a can of beens, I expect "beens" to be in the tin,




...

WHAT?!?


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Yes, a ROLE-playing GAME.
> 
> GAMES have mechanics and rules. Those mechanics and rules are meant to be used to facilitate the "playing" of the game. To deride people for using said mechanics to make thier play experience better for them makes no sense.
> 
> ...




Please reread my prev posts,

The system is meant to be there to "SUPPORT CHARACTER PLAY" hence rpg, and not board game


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> But the character is not created for that "role" if it was that would be fine,
> 
> but people create those types of characters simply because it gives the most system advantage, no other, which is all of the difference,




But I don't think the label for said people is 'min/maxers'. Possibly Abhorrent, sure, but I'm just talking about min/maxers. Or trying to

Edit: Hi, Rystil Arden!


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Yes.  The fact that it is a cliche means nothing about if the statement is valid or not.  A cliche can be good or bad.  It can be neither or be both good and bad at the same time.




Now you seem to "get it" so why focus on it being a cliche?, 

does it matter one way or other, it only matters if it's true


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> WHAT?!?




Man, I shouldn't need to explain this,

okay, if it say in the book it's a rpg then it should be used as a rpg, not something else, sure you can use it in other ways, (but you could also turn the book in to a chopping board if you like) but it's meant to be played as, "a roleplaying game"


----------



## FireLance (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> The system is meant to be there to "SUPPORT CHARACTER PLAY" hence rpg, and not board game



And Coca-Cola was initially sold as medicine. However, its medicinal properties (if any) are not what made it popular. It's certainly not what it's used for these days.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Please reread my prev posts,
> 
> The system is meant to be there to "SUPPORT CHARACTER PLAY" hence rpg, and not board game




See, I have read your posts and it's difficult to get past the snark and you trying to be clever instead of stating pretty plainly what you mean in some of those cases. But I get enough of what your trying to say, I just disagree with you as do a few others here. 

The system is there to be used to play a GAME. A Role-playing Game, but a game none the less. Characters are a componet of the game. If you dont have "characters" you dont have much of a game, although technically you can still play. How? Make a bunch of stats which by your terms would normally be "characters" and play wargame style or DDM style. You still have a game hence without characters.

Get rid of the game/system part, and you  basically just have free-form acting. Which is cool, if that's what you want to do. 

See that last part? The part where I didnt deride people for enjoying something that I may not particularly care for? That last part is important around these parts, it fosters dialouge and mutual respect as opposed to antagonism(sp?) and potential flame wars. 

People with different play styles can co-exist as long as you dont tell each the other person that thier perspective style sucks.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> And Coca-Cola was initially sold as medicine. However, its medicinal properties (if any) are not what made it popular.




That was fake, it had cocaine in it in those days so made people feel better,

and yes it did make it very popular,


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jun 26, 2006)

I dont have a problem with Min/Maxing myself to a degree.  However, when I DM, I try to make it clear I'd prefer my players to have characters who are more then just a collection of numbers and so long as they keep that in mind (And can explain some of the more interesting combos) I dont really have that much of an issue with it.  I do warn the more combat focused builds that there's going to be times where they wont be fighting and to not complain about it if they take a pure fighting build. IE, no whining 'I dont get to do anything!' when they're sitting in the middle of a ballroom.


----------



## OstogVin (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Well if I buy a can of beens, I expect "beens" to be in the tin,



Even if it is jellybeans?


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> See, I have read your posts and it's difficult to get past the snark and you trying to be clever instead of stating pretty plainly what you mean in some of those cases. But I get enough of what your trying to say, I just disagree with you as do a few others here.




No haven't been snarky yet, but it would be easy, ..must resist temptation, if I took these comments more seriously, I could get very snarky, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel 

(yes another cliche)





			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> The system is there to be used to play a GAME. A Role-playing Game, but a game none the less. Characters are a componet of the game. If you dont have "characters" you dont have much of a game, although technically you can still play. How? Make a bunch of stats which by your terms would normally be "characters" and play wargame style or DDM style. You still have a game hence without characters.
> 
> Get rid of the game/system part, and you  basically just have free-form acting. Which is cool, if that's what you want to do.
> 
> ...




Okay going to say this for the last time, as it is labeled a "Roleplaying game" that is what it was desgined for, therefore "use" outside of "Roleplaying", is really a "misuse" 

It may be doable, but doesn't make it right


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

OstogVin said:
			
		

> Even if it is jellybeans?




if I was looking for jelly been that would be okay, but if expecting baked beens, not so good


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

Sheesh, I hate coming late to threads that are turning ugly.

Anyway, depositing my 2 cents, page 1 style.

Min/maxing, like so many other things, is best taken in moderation. You need to make a character that is good at their role in order to persist at the gamist take on the game.

Taken to extremes, it becomes cheesy and annoys both GM and fellow players. That's pretty much my personal definition of munchkinism.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Okay going to say this for the last time, as it is labeled a "Roleplaying game" that is what it was desgined for, therefore "use" outside of "Roleplaying", is really a "misuse"
> 
> It may be doable, but doesn't make it right




Ah, I see now so then your beef really isnt with the players but with the mislabling of D&D as a role-playing game?

Because the role-playing game does encourage the use of mini's and a battle mat and other elements of wargaming (duration effects and ranges for weapons and spells). I mean it's right there in the PHB. and wargames dont have anything to do with role-playing games. I know I actually play a few wargames myself so these are two different animals with no room for mixing, right?

Or are you still sticking to anyone who doesnt focus on characters as opposed to characters+character builds or just character builds is playing the game wrong?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2006)

I have noticed that in a lot of these type threads it seems to come down to a all or nothing. You are either a min/maxer or you build sub optimal characters. You are either a roll player who does not care about story or a role player who does not care about rules so they should just get into acting instead.  

There is nothing wrong with some min/maxing. If you want your character to be really good at one thing like say a combat monster then you would min/max thoese skills and stats. You would be sucky at social situations but that could be fun role playing. 

Min/maxing becomes a problem when it is done to the extreme so that you have one PCs who is just so much more powerful than any of the others that they ended up just taking over and sucking the fun for the rest of the players.

Building a character who is different and not taking the obvious advantages say for example building a fighter who is very charismatic so you have a higher chrasima stat then stregth and you take a lot of cross class skills in things like diplomacy and the leadership feat is a very valid character and not as sub optimal as some would have you believe.

Now building what I call lame duck characters is a problem. Because you have to be able to contribute to what the party does. Its not fair to expect the rest of the party to carry your character. I am having a problem with this in my game with a player who can't seem to grasp that her charcter is a liability for the party. She is playing rogue who does not fight nor does she have anything to do with traps  she is all about using her seduction skills to survive. She hides when they get into a combat sitution. The rest of the party is ready to throw her to the wolves at this point. And the player does not get it. I tried to sterr her into playing a begiler which would fit her better and give her some magic to boot which would help the party.


----------



## hong (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> A bit of both, but must admit, not so much of the funny in light of some peoples thoughtlessness knee jerk reactions,
> 
> 
> 
> ...





That's the best free verse I've ever seen.


----------



## Nac_Mac_Feegle (Jun 26, 2006)

I have a reply I want to post, but it might not be taken well, so I will say this

"Its a Roleplaying game"

Librarius, your the one telling poeple if you min/max your "rollplaying" not "roleplaying". This is purely your opinion. If you roll dice at the table, your "rollplaying" and if you play a role from the players handbook, your "roleplaying"

They are not seperate entities, only to you, you are touting your style as superior, by making the assumption we are "rollplaying" that min/maxing is "rollplaying"

Who defines "rollplaying"? who defines "min/maxing"? who defines "roleplaying"?

I have played D&D and other systems since 1983, in every system, its was called a "roleplaying game" and yet every system requires you to "roll" dice. They are one in the same. If you want to play a diceless system, fine, but this is D&D discussion, and D&D is not diceless, to belittle poeple, because they use dice in a dice system is ridiculous.

Once you pick a character class, your building your character, your metagaming as you write his feats down.

As soon as you decide to favour one stat for the other, for whatever reason, be it roleplaying considerations or combat considerations, your min/maxing.

As soon as you enter combat and roll to hit based on your strength and BaB, your rollplaying.

It bothers me that 90% of the people in this thread are accepting of everyone elses game style but you. You insist that yours is the only way, and that others are mere "rollplayers". Have you seen fear of girls?. Theres the one true way to play games, and theres us mere hobbyist gamers.

Feegle Out


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> But I don't think the label for said people is 'min/maxers'. Possibly Abhorrent, sure, but I'm just talking about min/maxers. Or trying to
> 
> Edit: Hi, Rystil Arden!



 Hi Goblyn.  Guess nobody wants to reply to my other post, but at least I got a hello.  Name recognition does help   It used to be in threads like this, I'd just be ignored completely when I stepped in on page 2


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have noticed that in a lot of these type threads it seems to come down to a all or nothing. You are either a min/maxer or you build sub optimal characters. You are either a roll player who does not care about story or a role player who does not care about rules so they should just get into acting instead.




I find this unfortunate, because all the extremes as well as the moderates are valid. You a world-shaking ass-kicker who can't read or even use a fork? Ok. You some dude who is not bad at everything but never gets to shine? Ok.
Do these character types exist in RL? Yes. Will they survive the adventuring lifestyle? Maybe. Are they interesting if everybody does it the same way? No.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Hi Goblyn.  Guess nobody wants to reply to my other post, but at least I got a hello.  Name recognition does help   It used to be in threads like this, I'd just be ignored completely when I stepped in on page 2




Yeah, I know. For the most part, I'm still there.


----------



## Jupp (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have noticed that in a lot of these type threads it seems to come down to a all or nothing. You are either a min/maxer or you build sub optimal characters. You are either a roll player who does not care about story or a role player who does not care about rules so they should just get into acting instead.




Actually I think that this hard line that is sometimes drawn on these forums does not really exist on most game tables. In the end it is all about having fun in the group. And if someone would come to me and tell me "THIS is the way the game is meant to be played" while there is an endless numbers of ways to play D&D, and he would insist that his views have be be mine...Well, time to leave the table and find a DM that is more open minded. 

As long as a player does not destroy or disrupt the game for the others in the group with what he is doing, well, then I dont even see a point in discussing it. And a GM should be tolerant enough towards those players trying to get the best out of their characters as long as it does not harm the game.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> As some one once said "that is the difference between Roll Playing and Roleplaying




The term "roll playing" has passed its expiration date and is now curdled and fetid. Please deposit it in the nearest dumpster.


----------



## OstogVin (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> if I was looking for jelly been that would be okay, but if expecting baked beens, not so good



But black beans, brown beans or refried beans would be okay? The kind of beans you want is not necessarily the kind I want.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 26, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Yes. The fact that it is a cliche means nothing about if the statement is valid or not. A cliche can be good or bad. It can be neither or be both good and bad at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I had replied to the impression that I had gotten that you thought that a cliche was inherently not true and a bad thing.  If I was mistaken then I appologise.  

I was attempting to point out why being cliche was not in and of itself a bad thing.  It COULD be a bad thing but being cliche does not guarentee it IS a bad thing.  Like my views of min-maxing.

Actually - I think your question highlights the entire problem with threads like this one.  People misunderstanding others and using different definitions of the same term(s).  I gave my definitions of Min-Maxer/Powergamer/Munchkin.  What are some others?  Before we can answer "if/why min-maxing is bad" we need to know what min-maxing is and hopefully quickly before the thread gets closed.  So to try and get better ideas of others definitions I have some questions (for pretty much everyone):

Is having your cleric having really powerful turn-undead stats in an undead-heavy campaign min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is having your character have high spot/listen scores because your DM/GM likes ambushes min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is raising your combat ability because you know that is your weak point and it caused you problems in the last few sessions min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?

Is munchkining even a word?


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2006)

> A roleplaying game should be about roles, the character, am I correct?
> or is this my misunderstanding of years and years of roleplaying?



It's your misunderstanding indeed.

For any of the points of "min/maxing is bad because it is against role-playing" to be valid, you first have to demonstrate that min/maxing impedes role-playing. In my experience, that's said a lot but isn't true. I know people who min/max and play great role-playing moments, and I know people who care for the actual role-playing only and just suck at it. 

Then, if you demonstrate this, you then have to justify your statement that role-playing is all that matters or the main thing that matters or should matter in a role-playing game. Otherwise than just using the name of the hobby (i.e. "it's a ROLE-playing game, isn't it?" does not prove anything whatsoever). You'll then find out that RPGs aren't all about role or game, even worse, they involve other components than these two as well.



> Roll players on the other hand have little to non at all desire to play a "Role"
> but rather simply roll the dice for the sake of the system



That's a self fulfilling sentence, and a wrong one at that. That's like saying "Fishermen don't like to go to the park but rather fish instead, just for the sake of fishing something".  ... WTF?!


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Building a character who is different and not taking the obvious advantages say for example building a fighter who is very charismatic so you have a higher chrasima stat then stregth and you take a lot of cross class skills in things like diplomacy and the leadership feat is a very valid character and not as sub optimal as some would have you believe.




Ehhh, I don't know.  In order to have enough skill points for "a lot of cross-class skills in things like Diplomacy", she's also going to need to have a high Int.  In a Point Buy system, a Fighter who buys, say, 16 Charisma and 14 Int is doomed unless the Point Buy is very high.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Please reread what I have already written in other posts, if you still don't understand it would be pointless to try, as you would think I was repeating myself, and you would be non the wiser




I've read what you're written. Now I am explaining to you that you have not supported your assertion.

Case in point:



			
				librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> But I believe that it's Good Roleplaying for a player to sacrifices their system advantage for the sake of character rather than sacrifice character for system advantage




You state your belief. You say nothing to support it. 

Please explain how mechanical disadvantages translate into good-roleplaying. A STR 8 fighter, a DEX 8 rogue, and INT wizard--how do these sacrifices in effectiveness constitute good-roleplaying? 

I hope another "read my previous posts" cop-out is not forthcoming. Your previous posts didn't answer the question.

Imagine you were DM'ing Lord of the Rings as a campaign. How strongly do you agree with the following assertion: Aragorn, Legalos, and Gandalf are munchkins because they're outstanding at what they do. Meanwhile, Gimli and the hobbits are all commendable characters by dint of their physical shortcomings.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> For any of the points of "min/maxing is bad because it is against role-playing" to be valid, you first have to demonstrate that min/maxing impedes role-playing. In my experience, that's said a lot but isn't true.




To circle back around to the point that I made a few posts ago and turn it loose into the ongoing thread midstream... it really depends on the extent of minmaxing.

There will come a point in any min/maxer's gaming experience when the time will come when they will have to make a decision between doing something that makes sense for their character in the context of the setting or ongoing campaign, or make their character better. If they make the choice to min/max more at that point, then indeed they have taken a step down that path to the dark side of min/maxing.

So again, it's a matter of degrees.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Is having your cleric having really powerful turn-undead stats in an undead-heavy campaign min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?
> 
> Is having your character have high spot/listen scores because your DM/GM likes ambushes min-maxing/powergaming/munchkining?
> 
> ...




I think these cases are cases of metagaming, which, while I may be destroying the thread here, is also not an inherently bad thing. Why? Because you're adventurers are doing what they do because they do it well. To fix electrical problems, you don't just go find a journeyman. You find an electrician. The more specialized and skilled eectrician the better. You don't care if he can do absolutely nothing else.

As for 'munchkining', I've no idea, though I used it however I think if it were there would be two n's: 'munchkinning'.

Oh, and: a cliche is simply a theme or idea that repeateadly comes up or gets used. Cliches are the thematic equivalent of stereotypes(PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong here).


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ehhh, I don't know.  In order to have enough skill points for "a lot of cross-class skills in things like Diplomacy", she's also going to need to have a high Int.  In a Point Buy system, a Fighter who buys, say, 16 Charisma and 14 Int is doomed unless the Point Buy is very high.




Or if the stat rolls ar good(same difference). But yeah. 'A lot' of cross-class skills for a fighter is '1 or more', I would think.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 26, 2006)

Like most things, its not 'either/or', it's a continuum.  

On the one end you have the player that makes a one-legged, one-eyed pirate with max ranks in Profession (Sailor) for a desert-based game "because the character has personality".

On the other you have a player that combines 12 different splat books, 3 base classes and 4 prestige classes to create an uber undead slayer that wouldn't survive three minutes in a normal environment, and there is no remotely feasible in-game explanation for how that would all come about.

As a DM, I'd rather not have either.  But if I had to pick, I'd take the former, because likely all he's going to do is regret his choices and ask to make a new character.  The latter is going to be a constant pain in the ass.  Encounters will have to be boosted to challenge him, which endagers the rest of the party.  Every level-up is going to be an arguement about allowing some new potentially broken feat.  He's going to irritate the rest of the players by telling them what to do in combat because they "aren't making smart decisions".  

Then he'll get bored, too, and want to make a new character.  Except whereas the first guy learns and moves a little towards the middle, the consummate min-maxer is never satisfied, needing ever higher doses of munchkinism to get his fix.  Before you know it, he's demanding that he be allowed to make a half-dragon, half-troll with a Vow of Poverty.  And at that point, you just basically have to put him down or kick him from the group.

Moderation in all things is key.  If you entire group is composed of the same type, then you can get away with the extremes.  But if you've got different players with different motivations for playing, the extreme min-maxer isn't worth the hassle.   Fortunately, most people lie somewhere in the middle.  Players with a sense of group responsibility and a modicum of maturity can adapt.  Those with neither, I have no interest in playing with.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Now you seem to "get it" so why focus on it being a cliche?




Because your question asked whether or not is was a cliche. 



> does it matter one way or other, it only matters if it's true




But you haven't demonstrated that it's true. You have to present facts in order to be right. It's called critical thinking.

Your approach to a debate is to walk up to the podium, say "I think such-and-such is bad. I believe another things is much better than such-and-such. If you can't understand that, I guess it's pointless to discuss it further. Peace out" and then walk away.

Do that if you please. It doesn't make anyone else look foolish.


----------



## Janx (Jun 26, 2006)

Here's some random thoughts.

How is planning out a 20 level progression any different from 1st ed's classes, where every 20th level fighter was the same (becasue there were no skills or feats)?  There's nothing wrong with having a plan, and the nice thing about d20, is you can change you plan at any time.

Min/maxing is really another term for optimization.

I'd expect some optimization to occur with any character.  if you're building a fighter, you're a stupid player if build him so he can't fight.  You've defeated the purpose of the class.  Now somebody's going to take offense that I called somebody stupid, but the fact is a fighter who can't fight deserves to die in the first CR1 encounter the party meets.

What it really says, is that I expect optimization to occur within the spirit of the class and character.

What I don't like to see, is where somebody has analyzed ALL the rules in the game, and only plays a Forsaken Monk with Vow of Poverty because they see it as the optimal path.  It becomes a problem, when they're right, and that PC outperforms the other characters by such a degree that it detracts from the game.

Since combat is a big part of D&D, the problem tends to stand out when a PC is VERY good in combat.  All the other situations tend to be avoidable in some form (or can be transformed to combat, where the PC has no weakness).


So I expect to see a player make the best character they can, and for those decisions to logically reflect the character and game events.  It's a balance.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Please explain how mechanical disadvantages translate into good-roleplaying. A STR 8 fighter, a DEX 8 rogue, and INT wizard--how do these sacrifices in effectiveness constitute good-roleplaying?
> 
> I hope another "read my previous posts" cop-out is not forthcoming. Your previous posts didn't answer the question.
> 
> Imagine you were DM'ing Lord of the Rings as a campaign. How strongly do you agree with the following assertion: Aragorn, Legalos, and Gandalf are munchkins because they're outstanding at what they do. Meanwhile, Gimli and the hobbits are all commendable characters by dint of their physical shortcomings.




I think you may be missing half the logic.

Sacrifice alone, for no purpose, means nothing for roleplaying.  Sacrifice _for the purpose of increasing depth of character_ may be a good thing.  It isn't as if in human lives everything goes well, and all the energy you spent was spent wisely and well in terms of advancement in power.

I note that, as characters we can identify with, both Gimli and Legolas are pretty darned weak.  Sam Gamgee, however, has depth to him.  And you'd not have the Shmendrick the Magician from _The Last Unicorn_ if the player aimed only for the optimum of power.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ehhh, I don't know.  In order to have enough skill points for "a lot of cross-class skills in things like Diplomacy", she's also going to need to have a high Int.  In a Point Buy system, a Fighter who buys, say, 16 Charisma and 14 Int is doomed unless the Point Buy is very high.




Well when I did it I rolled and I rolled pretty well. I also used all my skill points in cross class and I took a feat in the Kalamar setting that allowed me to make certain classes class skills.

Also having a high charisma helps. The point is that the character was fun to play she was good in a fight and good at some social skills. Now she was not a combat monster nor was she as good at social skills as the bard but she was fun to play and in the ned isn't that what is the most important?

I also used magic items to help make her better in a fight as she got higher level she got things like gauntlests of orge strength and powerful magical sword and I also got a circlet of charisma. 

There are ways to do it if you have a good DM who works with the players and you are patient because things improve as you get higher levels.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2006)

> There will come a point in *any* min/maxer's gaming experience when the time will come when they will have to make a decision between doing something that makes sense for their character in the context of the setting or ongoing campaign, or make their character better. If they make the choice to min/max more at that point, then indeed they have taken a step down that path to the dark side of min/maxing.



Emphasis in the quote's mine. I don't agree. It's not about one or the other automatically. I can always do both, in my own experience. Making a choice on character design can always be translated in both advantages and flaws on the character sheet. I can choose to create a blind character and give this character some supernatural sense like the feat Sense the Unseen (AE) or True Seeing at high level and tweak it to make it work flavorwise. I can create a character without magic items whatsoever, ever, and use the Vow of Poverty. I mean, there's always a way for me to make it work both mechanically and RP speaking. I don't consider myself to be the smartest min-maxer of the bunch, so I guess pretty much anyone can do it, really.

Min/maxing isn't the contrary of RPing.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana: 

You keep asserting that [x] is the One True Purpose of D&D without anything to back it up, and, on top of that, suggest that players should intentionally gimp their characters in order to conform to said true purpose. I emphatically disagree. 

Making optimal decisions is a fundamental aspect of playing any game; heck, it's a part of basic economic rationale. In D&D, many of those decisions have to do with the appropriate roleplay, but many of them have to do with character design, since most mechanical gameplay other than character design is a product of chance (the roll of the dice). Making sub-optimal decisions "because I'm roleplaying!" is an ostentation that seems rather suspect to me. I don't like people who constantly try to break the system, because they eventually will and it tends to lead to bad player-DM interaction. I don't like people whose characters are mere sets of numbers with no personality, because that's just... well, boring. But I also think that, to paraphrase Felon(?), this sort of behavior is orthagonal to character optimization; it's not immediately correlated. As shilsen said, perhaps my greatest concern as a DM is that one player is simply so much better at optimizing his character that it starts to skew the survivability of the party. It's not much fun for anyone when one PC can do everything better than everyone else, or when an encounter strong enough to challenge one PC is likely to wipe out half the other PCs.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Ah, I see now so then your beef really isnt with the players but with the mislabling of D&D as a role-playing game?




What? lol, what colour are the skies in your world,

Eer.. that would be a NO

Were do you get this from?




			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Because the role-playing game does encourage the use of mini's and a battle mat and other elements of wargaming (duration effects and ranges for weapons and spells). I mean it's right there in the PHB. and wargames dont have anything to do with role-playing games. I know I actually play a few wargames myself so these are two different animals with no room for mixing, right?




Where do you think the game evolved from before it became a rpg?



			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Or are you still sticking to anyone who doesnt focus on characters as opposed to characters+character builds or just character builds is playing the game wrong?




(real) Character builds are good for Characters, system builds (just to use the system at the cost of character) are bad

is that simply enough?


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The term "roll playing" has passed its expiration date and is now curdled and fetid. Please deposit it in the nearest dumpster.




That would be nice if true


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I don't agree. It's not about one or the other automatically.




Did I say it is automatically? No, that is emphatically not what I am saying. 



> I can always do both, in my own experience.




You may be able to always justify it to _yourself_, but there will eventually arise a situation in which there is a character choice that makes more sense or is more compelling choice for campaign reasons _for the GM and other players_ is not the one that is the most powerful.

If you approach me with a character whose PrC and feat choices look like they are out of a smackdown build from the WotC optimization forum, you would have a hard time convincing me that most of those builds are a good fit for the feel of the campaign. Your choices, when taken to that extreme, "break the fourth wall" and the characters scream that they are made as a mechanical construct, not a role playing one.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Building a character who is different and not taking the obvious advantages say for example building a fighter who is very charismatic so you have a higher chrasima stat then stregth and you take a lot of cross class skills in things like diplomacy and the leadership feat is a very valid character and not as sub optimal as some would have you believe.




Ah, the high rolls are key.  If you get good rolls, that opens up vistas for all sorts of interesting combinations like the high Charisma fighter (and hey, I like taking high Charisma for characters who don't need it too ).  That's the main reason I like using rolls instead of Point Buy--if you get high rolls, you can try something interesting, and if the rolls are low, no harm done either.  What I'm saying, though, is that while you certainly can say to yourself "I just got some pretty good rolls.  I'm going to use that to make this interesting concept I've been thinking about with a high-Charisma fighter who is a brave commander" and it works great.  But you can't just look at 28 Point Buy and purchase 16 Cha and 14 Int for a Fighter concept or say before the roll "No matter what I roll, I'm putting the highest roll in Charisma and at least 14 in Int so I can try a Charisma Fighter concept", or you risk becoming irrelevant like the Rogue you mentioned.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> That would be nice if true




Oh, no, it is true. It is a trite and outdated term, and does not reflect well on those that use it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Or if the stat rolls ar good(same difference). But yeah. 'A lot' of cross-class skills for a fighter is '1 or more', I would think.





Instead of a lot of cross class akills I should have said only cross class skills. 

I also should have said that with decent rolls you can do it. I rolled an 18, 14, 14, 13, 12,12. I put the rolls as follows Str 13, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Chr 18. I choose to build the character this way because I wanted to play an educated nobel who was a knight.

Now the min/maxer powergamer of our group went nuts that I did this he was like noooo the 18 has to go into strength you are playing a fighter it is a waste to put it into charisma. 

Now if I rolled  not as well I most likely would have played something different because I want my characters to be somewhat good at what they do.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> librarius_arcana:
> 
> You keep asserting that [x] is the One True Purpose of D&D without anything to back it up, and,




er, it's a Roleplaying game, you "Role"-"play"

what else do you need?




			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> on top of that, suggest that players should intentionally gimp their characters in order to conform to said true purpose. I emphatically disagree.




And such is your right, but that doesn't also make you right


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2006)

Eh... I'm not a big fan of min/maxing in my own characters. I just find it... boring. Too much focus on numbers for me. 

As far as what other people do... Hey whatever floats your boat I guess...  


The only problem I've seen with this approach, however, is when you have a mixed group. If there is a group with a few min maxers and non min maxers, it can be hard to keep the challenges appropriate. 

Do you make the monster tough enough to  stand up to the megadamage powerhouse, and make the non min/maxers feel innefective, or do you make the monster more suited to the non min/maxers and let the powerhouse trounce through it?

Just adds a level of DM complexity, that can be annoying at times.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Oh, no, it is true. It is a trite and outdated term, and does not reflect well on those that use it.




Sorry but the evidence proves the contrary


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> See, I have read your posts and it's difficult to get past the snark and you trying to be clever instead of stating pretty plainly what you mean in some of those cases. But I get enough of what your trying to say, I just disagree with you as do a few others here.
> 
> The system is there to be used to play a GAME. A Role-playing Game, but a game none the less. Characters are a componet of the game. If you dont have "characters" you dont have much of a game, although technically you can still play. How? Make a bunch of stats which by your terms would normally be "characters" and play wargame style or DDM style. You still have a game hence without characters.




Well-said. All of it. 

If a character's concept is that he's devoted to becoming the best swordsman in the world, or he's dedicated to slaying some powerful enemy, doesn't it make sense for the character to be as good at fighting as the player can possibly be? Can he be a min-maxing good roleplayer? Is he still a munchkin? Really, the anti-munchkin role-playing "purist" point-of-view is a total dead end.

As a DM, the only aspect of min-maxing that I object to is a player who clearly outshines other players. This is where I run into issues with a lot of druid builds and why I'll veto prestige classes like the frenzied berserker or fist of razael.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> er, it's a Roleplaying game, you "Role"-"play"
> 
> what else do you need?




This is an entirely semantic argument. Someone could just as easily and fairly say "it's a GAME, what more do you need?"

Alas, it's more complex than either of those. I think one of the most widely accepted take on what people play RPGs for is that derived from Robin Laws _Laws of Good Gamemastering_, duplicated in the DMG II. IIRC, it identifies no less that *seven* different things players pursue in games.

"Roleplaying game" is just a convenient label for this shared hobby of ours that many people play in many ways. It does not encompass everything the game is or could be about.

This is the very reason that the term "roll playing" has been so widely rued since, oh, the late 90s. It in two words passes judgement on those who dare to enjoy different things in a game than you do.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ah, the high rolls are key.  If you get good rolls, that opens up vistas for all sorts of interesting combinations like the high Charisma fighter (and hey, I like taking high Charisma for characters who don't need it too ).  That's the main reason I like using rolls instead of Point Buy--if you get high rolls, you can try something interesting, and if the rolls are low, no harm done either.  What I'm saying, though, is that while you certainly can say to yourself "I just got some pretty good rolls.  I'm going to use that to make this interesting concept I've been thinking about with a high-Charisma fighter who is a brave commander" and it works great.  But you can't just look at 28 Point Buy and purchase 16 Cha and 14 Int for a Fighter concept or say before the roll "No matter what I roll, I'm putting the highest roll in Charisma and at least 14 in Int so I can try a Charisma Fighter concept", or you risk becoming irrelevant like the Rogue you mentioned.




Not to hijack the thread but I don't play with DMs who insist on 28 point buys I dislike point buys because I think it is a real killer when it comes to being able to create creative different characters at lest that is how I have seen it. I think min/maxing is far more encouraged with point buy then with rolling.

And as I said before lame ducks hurt the game as bad as out of control powergamering min/maxers.  

I often have a concept that I might like and then I have changed it when I have rolled. Example I sort of wanted ro play paladin of the Silver Flame in our Eberron game but I didn't get the roles I wanted so instead I went with ranger who is heading for the prestige class of Cyrean Avenger and I am having a blast. Now that paladin character from Thrace is in the back of my mind and who knows one day I may player her.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Instead of a lot of cross class akills I should have said only cross class skills.
> 
> I also should have said that with decent rolls you can do it. I rolled an 18, 14, 14, 13, 12,12. I put the rolls as follows Str 13, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Chr 18. I choose to build the character this way because I wanted to play an educated nobel who was a knight.
> 
> ...




With those ability scores, you wanted to make an educated noble knight. Good. High Int, High Cha. You wanted a social character, so you maxed your social attibutes, to the detriment(because you could have put the high scores there) of the physical attibutes. This is what I see as min/maxing. Maybe it is not so extreme as the views of others and thus my wondering why it is such a contentious issue.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> This is an entirely semantic argument. Someone could just as easily and fairly say "it's a GAME, what more do you need?"




Well for starters, it's a RPG, 
not a video, or board, so you can see the type tends to make all the difference


----------



## hong (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Well for starters, it's a RPG,
> not a video, or board, so you can see the type tends to make all the difference




Ah yes, rocket-propelled grenades. Very different.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Sorry but the evidence proves the contrary




What evidence would that be?

You may be new to gaming fora, but you really need to trust me when I say that outside of the most elitist self-backpatting circles, bandying the term "roll playing" about like it was new and clever will instantly create an air of elitism in your posts that you do not want associated with you.

It goes even further than that, really. Personally, someone contacted me in an email last week about getting involved in my game that dared to invoke that term. It immediately led me to the suspicion that he was going to be the sort of judgemental and difficult-to-get-along-with player that I did not want in my game.

You may persist in using whatever terms you please, I can't stop you. But you need to trust me when I say it does not paint a good image of you.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2006)

fWitch - I've gone completely the other way.  I dislike intensely stat-rolling because of the obscene bohemoths that people usually roll up.  And, IME, when the player rolls a 27 point character, he or she whines until they get a reroll.  It just throws the game so far out of whack when one PC has a 56 point character and the others have 32, just because of the luck of the dice.  OTOH, I do play a 32 point buy game, so it's not like my lot are pansies.  

I would NEVER complain about any player using any option from the game.  If the choice is there, then they should be able to take it.  If you don't want that particular option in your game, that's groovy, remove it.  But, don't whine when players make the best characters they can.  Adventuring is dangerous.  I fully expect PC's to be created with that in mind.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Well for starters, it's a RPG,
> not a video, or board, so you can see the type tends to make all the difference




Yes, that's very nice. But since in my next sentence I say that focussing on the word "GAME" isn't informative either, sort of besides the point. Do you care to digest the rest of the post you quoted?


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Not to hijack the thread but I don't play with DMs who insist on 28 point buys I dislike point buys because I think it is a real killer when it comes to being able to create creative different characters at lest that is how I have seen it. I think min/maxing is far more encouraged with point buy then with rolling.




I can honestly say that I really like both methods(point buy vs rolling) of generating stats. With pooint buy I can make who I want. With rolling I got find out what blast it was to play a character with a Str 6 and Con 2. 

If I can ever offer gaming advice, it's Str 6, Con 2. Try it. It's awesome.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> With those ability scores, you wanted to make an educated noble knight. Good. High Int, High Cha. You wanted a social character, so you maxed your social attibutes, to the detriment(because you could have put the high scores there) of the physical attibutes. This is what I see as min/maxing. Maybe it is not so extreme as the views of others and thus my wondering why it is such a contentious issue.




Thats not M/M not if your reason for doing so is character/story/setting based, 

M/M is when you don't care about the character or setting etc, but just trying to get the most out of the system 

One plays the system,

The other the Game


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> With those ability scores, you wanted to make an educated noble knight. Good. High Int, High Cha. You wanted a social character, so you maxed your social attibutes, to the detriment(because you could have put the high scores there) of the physical attibutes. This is what I see as min/maxing. Maybe it is not so extreme as the views of others and thus my wondering why it is such a contentious issue.





Exactly and if I wanted a combat moster I would have done my stats different. Everybody min/maxes to some degree and there is nothing wrong with that. 

I think the whole issue is more about what exactly is min/maxing, powergaming, munchkinism. 

I think because these terms are subjective we end up not being able to really get across what we are saying. 

For example if my min/maxing you mean building your character to do what you want it to do then there is really no problem or issue that I can see. 

But if by min/maxing you mean building a character by cherry picking and using different prestige classes with no thought as to the setting and what is appropiate to that setting or using the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules. And if you make a character that justs ruins the fun then yes that can be an issue.

But just using the term min/max is not really helpful unless we also know just what you mean by min/max.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Thats not M/M not if your reason for doing so is character/story/setting based,
> 
> M/M is when you don't care about the character or setting etc, but just trying to get the most out of the system
> 
> ...




But that's just it. If you do THAT, for whatever reason, it's M/M. I think the difference here is that what you call M/M is what I call powergaming, assuming one's trying to get the most (power for their character) out of the system.

Do you agree? Disagree?


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yes, that's very nice. But since in my next sentence I say that's not accurate either, do you care to digest the rest of the post?




My point was that if you try to lose focuc or ignore the most basic element of this, that this is an RPG instead of just any other game etc, you not only try to make this a more foggie issue, but worse intentionly confusing

We are talking about RPG's not any other type of game,

A game about Characters, Hence the "Role"


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Exactly and if I wanted a combat moster I would have done my stats different. Everybody min/maxes to some degree and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> *I think the whole issue is more about what exactly is min/maxing, powergaming, munchkinism.
> 
> ...




You are right here. I think that is the reason for these spirals into vehement oblivion: the fact these terms do not have agreed-upon definitions. I think I mentioned as much quite a bit upthread.

The bolded part of your post are words picked straight from my brain; it is likely an inabilty of mine to convey meaning well.

Yay.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> But that's just it. If you do THAT, for whatever reason, it's M/M. I think the difference here is that what you call M/M is what I call powergaming, assuming one's trying to get the most (power for their character) out of the system.
> 
> Do you agree? Disagree?





It's all about the reasons for doing so,

that really is the crux of the issue


----------



## Jupp (Jun 26, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think the whole issue is more about what exactly is min/maxing, powergaming, munchkinism.




There is one faction that defines MinMaxing as hardcore powergaming with no regard to the roleplaying aspect game. Faction 2 defines MinMaxing as character optimization to survive what the Evil DM (tm) might put their path and they perhaps like to have nice numbers on their character sheets. I would have no objections to have players of Faction 2 in my game.

This discussion only got 4 pages long because people define min-maxing differently. The question of the OP hasn't really been fully answered yet, though  

Edit: If the term min-maxing would be defined in the core books we wouldn't have such a heated debate *g*


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> fWitch - I've gone completely the other way.  I dislike intensely stat-rolling because of the obscene bohemoths that people usually roll up.  And, IME, when the player rolls a 27 point character, he or she whines until they get a reroll.  It just throws the game so far out of whack when one PC has a 56 point character and the others have 32, just because of the luck of the dice.  OTOH, I do play a 32 point buy game, so it's not like my lot are pansies.
> 
> I would NEVER complain about any player using any option from the game.  If the choice is there, then they should be able to take it.  If you don't want that particular option in your game, that's groovy, remove it.  But, don't whine when players make the best characters they can.  Adventuring is dangerous.  I fully expect PC's to be created with that in mind.




I have heard of people whining but I have rearely seen it. We had only one player who whined and he was our to the max powergamer. He hated point buy as well unless it was at least 36 points. 

In our long running Kalamar game we had rolls from the top which were 58 points to 27 points. It worked everyone had fun. Now our DM came up with away to balance it he gave any one who was under 40 points an extra feat and under 30 two extra feats. This was rather funny because when we got a new player he wanted to roll lower so he could get the extra two feats.

Adventuring is dangerous which is why I dislike lame duck characters who don't offer the party anything to enable them to succed. The party should be stronger with you not handicapped because you are there.


----------



## OstogVin (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> My point was that if you try to lose focuc or ignore the most basic element of this, that this is an RPG instead of just any other game etc, you not only try to make this a more foggie issue, but worse intentionly confusing
> 
> We are talking about RPG's not any other type of game,
> 
> A game about Characters, Hence the "Role"



But it is just another game. There are characters, and there are roles, but there are also adjustable statistics and other game mechanics. How much you want to put in the different parts of the game is up to you.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Did I say it is automatically? No, that is emphatically not what I am saying.



Well, when you said that's a dilemma that would come to *any* min/maxer, that's what I understood. Sorry. 

So, you're saying that to *some* min/maxers, there will be a time to choose between a character concept/background decision and one that mechanically makes sense, and this choice represents an extreme situation. So whether your min/maxing impedes RP depends how far you're into min/maxing. Okay.

What I'm saying is that you don't have to choose in most cases. I can have it both ways in many, many instances. Ergo, min/maxing in and by itself doesn't impede RPing.

Further, lots of things can go against RPing by virtue of being extreme: you like to socialize outside of the game, or make out with your girl friend at the game table, or need to take a piss every 15 minutes, hell, a whole host of other things can impede your RPing when taken to the extreme! I think we agree on that.

So the issue isn't really about "Min/maxing vs. RPing", is it? 

At best, that's taking extremes for actual average instances that demonstrate a point, which they don't. 

What it's really about, I think, is control and ego. It's about telling your fellow gamer you're more mature (I don't mean you, Psion, I mean "you" generally), or just plain "better" than other players, show off some aspects of your gaming/personality, or controlling these pesky players who disrupt your grand vision as a DM. That's what it's really about in many -not all, but many- cases. 



> You may be able to always justify it to _yourself_, but there will eventually arise a situation in which there is a character choice that makes more sense or is more compelling choice for campaign reasons _for the GM and other players_ is not the one that is the most powerful.
> 
> If you approach me with a character whose PrC and feat choices look like they are out of a smackdown build from the WotC optimization forum, you would have a hard time convincing me that most of those builds are a good fit for the feel of the campaign. Your choices, when taken to that extreme, "break the fourth wall" and the characters scream that they are made as a mechanical construct, not a role playing one.



Wait, you're talking about something else here, it seems to me. Are you saying that in some cases you may make some choices that make sense within the fictional world but aren't mechanically sound? Sure you can. Just like you can have an optimized character that makes sense within the fictional world. 

As for the "hard time" I would have to justify some feats choices to a GM and how they make sense in the campaign world, I guess it'd depend on the GM. I can certainly use some optimized build and explain how it makes sense in some particular game to a GM. How the GM will take it from there will depend on the opinions of said GM.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> My point was that if you try to lose focuc or ignore the most basic element of this, that this is an RPG instead of just any other game etc, you not only try to make this a more foggie issue, but worse intentionly confusing




And my point is fixating on the name IN ANY WAY is not productive as "proof" of what the game is about.

Again, do you care to digest the rest of my post where my point actually lies?


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> er, it's a Roleplaying game, you "Role"-"play"
> 
> what else do you need?




An intelligent, well-reasoned arguement would be pretty nice. Your current approach, which is based largely on the semantics of the term "role-playing game", doesn't cut it. People don't play a game to meet standards of literal correctness. 

People play a game to enjoy themselves. In order to advocate your position that quixotic devotion to role-playing (character, setting, yadda-yadda) and utter disregard for mechanical advantages is the one, true form of role-playing, you should then explain how it's more enjoyable than all other ways the game is played.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> er, it's a Roleplaying game, you "Role"-"play"
> 
> what else do you need?



"Game," perhaps?


> _And such is your right, but that doesn't also make you right_



I see. So there's a "right" and "wrong" way to play, then?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Where do you think the game evolved from before it became a rpg?




I know EXACTLY where the game evolved from, which was kind of my point. It's an RPG that EVOLVED from a WARGAME and still retains it's WARGAME elements. 




			
				librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> (real) Character builds are good for Characters, system builds (just to use the system at the cost of character) are bad
> is that simply enough?




As long as you just state that as your opinon, that's fine. When you start stating that as definitive truth is when you start making yourself look bad.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2006)

Jupp said:
			
		

> There is one faction that defines MinMaxing as hardcore powergaming with no regard to the roleplaying aspect game. Faction 2 defines MinMaxing as character optimization to survive what the Evil DM (tm) might put their path and they perhaps like to have nice numbers on their character sheets. I would have no objections to have players of Faction 2 in my game.
> 
> This discussion only got 4 pages long because people define min-maxing differently. The question of the OP hasn't really been fully answered yet, though
> 
> Edit: If the term min-maxing would be defined in the core books we wouldn't have such a heated debate *g*





 My roomate is a hardcore powergamer she wants good stats and to be excellent at what her character is supposed to do. She builds her characters to do this. But when she is in game playing she role plays even if that means not always making the best powerful decision if you know what I mean.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> What evidence would that be?
> 
> You may be new to gaming fora, but you really need to trust me when I say that outside of the most elitist self-backpatting circles, bandying the term "roll playing" about like it was new and clever will instantly create an air of elitism in your posts that you do not want associated with you.
> 
> ...





Being gaming since I was aliitle kid, I will still use the term "Roll play" for when it applies, it has nothing to do with elitism, And I find your implied connection to such thing to be very narrow minded, and a constant cry of those that try to dismiss that it's going on,

And it seems to be that there are only certain types of "player" that think that term is a problem, 

why is that?,


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2006)

Elfwitch said:
			
		

> Adventuring is dangerous which is why I dislike lame duck characters who don't offer the party anything to enable them to succed. The party should be stronger with you not handicapped because you are there.




QFT


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I know EXACTLY where the game evolved from, which was kind of my point. It's an RPG that EVOLVED from a WARGAME and still retains it's WARGAME elements. .




EVOLVED being the word here




			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> As long as you just state that as your opinon, that's fine. When you start stating that as definitive truth is when you start making yourself look bad.




And the differance?


........Assumption


----------



## Umbran (Jun 26, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> So you are now the sole arbiter of how to play, then?





*Folks,

Things in this thread ar going furiously fast.  I am perhaps going to have to make this explicit - please keep your comments focused upon the stated position, rather than the person of poster.  If you make things personal here, folks are going to start getting offended quickly, and that won't be good for the discussion.*


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> An intelligent, well-reasoned arguement would be pretty nice. Your current approach, which is based largely on the semantics of the term "role-playing game", doesn't cut it. People don't play a game to meet standards of literal correctness.




I already did many times over, I can't dumb it down any further without it going through the floor 



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> People play a game to enjoy themselves. In order to advocate your position that quixotic devotion to role-playing (character, setting, yadda-yadda) and utter disregard for mechanical advantages is the one, true form of role-playing, you should then explain how it's more enjoyable than all other ways the game is played.




Yeah and like I said before, you could also use your books for a chopping board, doesn't make it Roleplaying now does it?

I don't think that was too subtle for you?, or was it?, because I'm starting to wonder if you really don't get it or just making out you don't


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> My point was that if you try to lose focuc or ignore the most basic element of this, that this is an RPG instead of just any other game etc, you not only try to make this a more foggie issue, but worse intentionly confusing
> 
> We are talking about RPG's not any other type of game.




And Psion's point is that you haven't talked about the game itself much at all. You've been working the semantics angle almost entirely. 

"They're called BUFFALO wings. Does that mean they should be made out of chicken? No, then they would be called CHICKEN wings. They should be made out of buffalos."

"But they would taste terrible. Besides, buffalos don't have wings..."

"They're called BUFFALO wings. As in BUFFALO. What more do I have to say?"

Let's pretend for a second that the label isn't what's important. I know it sounds crazy, but trust me, it'll pay off.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Folks,
> 
> Things in this thread ar going furiously fast.  I am perhaps going to have to make this explicit - please keep your comments focused upon the stated position, rather than the person of poster.  If you make things personal here, folks are going to start getting offended quickly, and that won't be good for the discussion.*




Sorry about that, missed this post (took a call)

Will modifie prev post if needed


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Being gaming since I was aliitle kid, I will still use the term "Roll play" for when it applies,




How long you have been gaming is irrelevant, and something that I have not addressed at any point.

My point is that this term only has any meaning in print duscussion mediums like forums and email. That is where I suspect that your experience is limited, because few people still bandy about this term and fewer still cling to it as appropriate. Heck, even at RPGnet, which is as full of self aggrandizing posters as they come, the term has fallen into disfavor.



> it has nothing to do with elitism,




You can say that all you like; people are still going to see it that way, and it carries the conotation of elitism. It's hard to argue that any term so loaded with mocking belittling could be anything but.



> And I find your implied connection to such thing to be very narrow minded, and a constant cry of those that try to dismiss that it's going on,
> 
> And it seems to be that there are only certain types of "player" that think that term is a problem,




And what type of player would that be?

Take a look upthread at my responses to other folks. Am I arguing on the side that min/maxing is just fine as is and should be tolerated to any extent? A casual perusal will reveal otherwise.

The type of player I am is one that recognizes that different people expect different things out of the game and displaying a little tolerance -- whether that be reigning in your "power builds" or refraining from mocking preferences you don't share -- goes a long way towards ensuring that everyone at the table has fun.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> How long you have been gaming is irrelevant, and something that I have not addressed at any point.




Well it is when you think you can inform me of "whats-what",

either you think I'm new to all this, or simply being rude



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> My point is that this term only has any meaning in print duscussion mediums like forums and email. That is where I suspect that your experience is limited, because few people still bandy about this term and fewer still cling to it as appropriate. Heck, even at RPGnet, which is as full of self aggrandizing posters as they come, the term has fallen into disfavor.




You are so wrong, again,


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Well, when you said that's a dilemma that would come to *any* min/maxer, that's what I understood. Sorry.
> 
> So, you're saying that to *some* min/maxers, there will be a time to choose between a character concept/background decision and one that mechanically makes sense, and this choice represents an extreme situation. So whether your min/maxing impedes RP depends how far you're into min/maxing. Okay.
> 
> What I'm saying is that you don't have to choose in most cases.




Odhanan, I don't want to fence semantics. Take it that I am talking more about choices/options/builds that people. The variety that exists as part of D&D are rich and diverse. I do try to regulate the more abusive options, but some combinations are not immediately apparent and sneak through.

I allow a lot of options in my games. But I, like many players, note that when there is a "spotlight hog", it exists to the expense of the other players. Further, I like character options to relate to the character's role in the campaign setting. I beleive that, were you part of my game, if you saw no such situation that you felt you couldn't justify to me and would not disrupt the game with spotlight hogging and clashing with the setting as presented, I suspect that you would be wrong.

I can and will spot-rule on combinations that seem unreasonable to me, for either spotlight hog reasons or campaign consistency reasons. But I hate playing whack a mole (which is why I avoid certain... um, other rules heavy games) with characters and expect a little restraint on the part of the players to make it fun for everyone.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana, this is for you: I believe what folks here are asking for is a rationale for your assertion that M/M is contrary to designing a character as opposed to a set of numbers for a wargame. While I do respect this sentiment, I believe that what you see as M/M is seen by others here as something known by more extremem terms, such as munchkinism and/or powergaming. This is my view as well. I see M/M as purposefully making a character to be highly skilled at one(or two) general skills obviously to the detriment of other skills in order to be a functional member of a party.

I suppose a t this point I am simply bandying words about, but I think it is somewhat important that these inflammatory terms be defined by us ENWorlders, as a group.

*Your basic point, about not sacrificing character for mechanics, is solid*, but the built-in 'flaws' of personality must be dealt with in order for a character to survive in the deadly world presented by your DM.

As you say, character is important in order to play a role, but the exciting part of that role is to overcome the obstacles presented by that character and its personality.

Maybe I'm just rambling now; what do you think? About the entire argument, not just me rambling


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 26, 2006)

Mhmm... Coming into this really late, but I figured I'd take a stab at it.

Min-maxing isn't a bad thing, as such - however, it has far greater _potential_ to be a bad thing than a more casual style of play. Most things can become disruptive when taken to extremes, and min-maxing, by definition, has some tendecies towards extremism.

In addition, while you can always change and fine-tune the way you role-play your character to make it fit a particular game, a Str 20 Int 6 killing machine (to use an exaggerated example) is not exactly a flexible character design.

Finally, I think incompetent min-maxers that make awful characters are a lot more common (in my exeprience, at least) than incompetent role-players who disrupt the game for everyone else to the same extent.

All that being said, this is to a large degree me playing devil's advocate, since I've always been strongly in favor of optimizing characters, provided that isn't taken to mean making them social cripples or psychopaths.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> (snip) But I hate playing whack a mole (which is why I avoid certain... um, other rules heavy games) (snip)




I need to know which games you mean here. Because I'm a nerd.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> I need to know which games you mean here. Because I'm a nerd.




Maybe I'll PM you (or maybe not if you are not a community supporter). I deliberately did not name names because I know how fora such as these are. Someone who likes said game would use it as an excuse to derail.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 26, 2006)

I remember, many moons ago, I had just started in the "Roleplaying Game hobby, I was a member of a Shadowrun group. 

One of the players was a munchkin*, powergamer and min-maxer. His character owned two Ares Viper Slivergun II (which were obviously house-rule weapons with special super abilities) and a military spec armor. He was cybered out with high grade (probably Delta, though my memories are fuzzy) cyberware and bioware. He also had high ability score (including willpower, IIRC, so even magic was not his weak spot...)
Correctly played, he was probably unstoppable. 

But I remember a situation - i don't know the specifics anymore, but I still know it. He wanted /had to kill a NPC (as usual for Shadowrun), maybe it was a guard, maybe it was something more dangerous, I don't know. Anyway, he had the surprise on him - the other side was unsuspectiv, turning his back to him. But then, the character said: "Damn it. I can't just shoot him in the back." and confronted him in person, clearly stating his intention. I don't rememer anymore how the story ended (probably in a bloody mess for the other side, as usual). 
Don't tell me a munchkin can't roleplay. He can, if he wants to. 

----------------------------------------------

Our group consists of powergamers, some more experienced, some less, but everyone wants to play a powerful character. 
But it's not that we sit down and think "What is the most powerful character I can create". 
We sit down and think "What kind of character do I want to play?". If we have decided that, we ask "How can I make him good at what he does?"

Once we start the game, we make adjustments to our grand scheme for our characters - take feats that seem useful due to the campaign setting (and thus make sense to take), we multiclass (or "prestigeclass") to cover weak spots of the party setup and so on. Maybe this is also min/maxing. But it might also be good roleplaying, because the members of the group notice they are lacking something, and they will need to compensate, even if that is not what they "really" want to do. Min/Maxing can, seen in-game, also be just a compromise. Even if it makes the character or the group as a whole more powerful.

There are probably some lines we don't cross - heavy multiclassing or cherrypicking PrCs is rare among us. I think I remember only one character that was very heavy on it (multiclassing Fighter, Paladin, Cleric and Hospitaler), but even then, it thematically fit well.


*) I think I am using this according to Montes definition of munchkin 1,2 and 6.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> EVOLVED being the word here




No, I think the "retaining it's WARGAME element" is the key factor here since youre the one pushing the "if it's not roleplay, then youre not doing it right" shtick. 

My point is this and I'll make this simple for you: 

D&D is a role-playing game.
D&D got it's roots from a wargame.
Those Wargame elements are still part of the game. 
So despite your claim/insinuation/halfbaked argument/statement that it's a Role-Playing Game and character and role playing are paramount, it still retains it's wargame element for use in PLAYING THE GAME. 

Now you can choose to focus on character. That's fine.
Or you can choose to focus on the GAME/Wargame parts of D&D. That's fine too.
Or you can focus on a mixture of both. That's fine as well.

But saying that D&D is a ROLE Playing GAME, focusing soley on the ROLE-PLAYING part and ingnoring any argument that discusses the GAME part of it comes across as you being willfully ignorant or dodging the argument.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Maybe I'll PM you (or maybe not if you are not a community supporter). I deliberately did not name names because I know how fora such as these are. Someone who likes said game would use it as an excuse to derail.





D'Oh. I'll have to remedy that. If any service deserves my dinero it's ENWorld. But in the meantime I am my username AT hotmail DOT com. My username being goblyn; sorry if that's an insult to your intelligence. I've been awakw for a really long time.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 26, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Now you can choose to focus on character. That's fine.
> Or you can choose to focus on the GAME/Wargame parts of D&D. That's fine too.
> Or you can focus on a mixture of both. That's fine as well.



No, no, it is not fine. You are having bad, wrong fun and should have your gaming license revoked.    

There is no bad way to play, just ways that may conflict with other people's style.  When that happens, the only bad play is when people try to force their style on someone else.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2006)

here is my 2 ep

Min-Maxing has to do with character OPTIMIZATION, not role in story. D&D requires a level of optimization in its core. Fighters who want to be good in combat put a high score in strength. wizards who like to learn additional spells dump ranks in spellcraft. Certainly, the advent of feats, free multi-classing, and prestige classes have allowed a new level of optimization 1e/2e didn't dream of. For example, if I want my cleric to be the best healer in the world, I choose the healing domain. And Augment Healing feat. And take levels in Combat Medic. Etc. Now, I've sacrificed some ability in other areas to be awesome at healing. m/M. 

D&D ENCOURAGES THIS. Classes are good at one thing (combat, skills, magic, healing) and usually only ok or poor at another. Generalists tend to suck compared to a specialist. The whole system of checks and balances force certain characters into certain roles, and it IS the number one complaint about D&D's class-system (compare to True d20 or a classless like GURPS). 

There comes a point though, when you can become TOO optimized. The fighter has sank every feat, skill and level into rocking a boat-load of damage, or a socerer who has found a way to make the Save DCs for his spells unbeatable. That is powergaming. When you become SO goot at one thing that you cannot lose when dealing with it, it becomes hard and/or boring for the DM to challenge that aspect, cuz he knows your going to win.

Powergaming is common in combat (since its a heavy aspect of D&D) but spellcasters, social-gadflys (do you know how easy it is to get your diplomacy sky-high?) and even sneakers (hide/move silents) are not unheard of. However, despite the fact you have juked the system for every-last +1 bonus, you can still role-play that character. Perhaps he has an obsession to be the best, perhaps he is unnaturally good at that element. 

Munchkinism is when you have crossed from being good at one thing into being good at a whole-lot of stuff and your character is practically unchallengable. 2e was the field day for this, but I've seen it across all editions. Some mix of race, template, class, prestige, feat, spells, and magical do-hickys have rendered this character an incredible AC, immunity to most forms of death, easy ability to hit/damage, good spells, and good enough skills not to fail all but the most insane DCs. He never outstrips the Powergamer in the PGs forte (the munchkins Hide/MS is not as good as the dedicated powergamers) but he's better than everyone elses who didn't focus on that. Thus, the munchkin steals the spotlight because he CAN, he's fast enough, smart enough, skilled enough, and tough enough to survive most anything the DM can throw at him, and is never really "challenged" by the game at all. Like playing "DOOM" with the god-mode on. (and I wager the same players who build munchkins play DOOM with the cheats on when they claim they "beat it"). 

Interestly, NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH ROLE-PLAYING. m/M, Powergamers, and munchkins are all capable of coming up with unique, interesting, and even touching characters. I gamed with a group of them: the powergamer had one of the most interesting and rp-full backstories I've ever seen. The munchkin was an amazing method actor. However, neither of them liked to LOSE! So they rigged the system (this was 2e) to make sure they could live against anything short of a demon-lord. On the other hand, my newbie g/f gamer had sub-optimized scores and abilities and role-played her like "what would I do if I was here" and not as a character... m/M and r-p have a negative correlation, but that does not that imply causation, as some people believe. 

So, m/M is a key element to the game, but it can become too key for certain players. However like most things, a little in moderation isn't bad, and probably has some health benefits as well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 26, 2006)

I feel the need to assist a fellow poster who gave a great link. 
I read the rant a few years ago, and rereading it now makes me think it can be called a "Evergreen".

Maybe I should write a letter: 


> Dear Moderators,
> 
> is there a way to force everyone to read Montes rant on "The Evolution of Munchkin"?
> Link: http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html
> ...


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 26, 2006)

IME munchkins threaten thespian DMs because a thespian DM needs to railroad the players and a munchkin player might be able to kill that BBEG that the DM was hoping would scare the players, escape at the last minute, tell the PC he's his father, etc.  Plus a Thespian DM hopes that the munchkin will give away all his treasure to the local orphanage so that it furthers his plot line, and the munchkin keeps it and wrecks everything.

Thespian DMs should probably find another way to handle their inadequacies rather than send munchkins to the back of the class.  Munchkins can probably be viewed as playing a role - power-hungry conquerer is a role, and munchkins probably play it as well or better than thespians play their flower-sniffing dandy character.  Granted, sometimes I get tired of DMing power-hungry conquerers (as well as flower-sniffing dandys), but that's not the player's problem.

Munchkins can be as rude and as condescending as Thespian DMs though.  That's a different issue.  Thespian DMs just need to house-rules their games so that flower-sniffing dandies get a +5 on all of their rolls.  That way they don't need to guilt-trip munchkins or get angry at them.  Anger is a sign that you're not in control, and it's an odd thing for a DM to be that way, who presumably is in total control of the game.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I feel the need to assist a fellow poster who gave a great link.
> I read the rant a few years ago, and rereading it now makes me think it can be called a "Evergreen".
> 
> Maybe I should write a letter:




It could be made a sticky on the boards. Maybe that wouldn't be much, but it would be more.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 26, 2006)

Presto2112 said:
			
		

> If you never saw min-maxing in previous editions then you weren't looking hard enough.




A couple instances from the 2nd ed Complete Guides and thats it. I played 2nd edition a hell of a lot, and compared to 3.X any min-maxing was non-existent. It never impacted the game to the level that it does now.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 26, 2006)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> A couple instances from the 2nd ed Complete Guides and thats it. I played 2nd edition a hell of a lot, and compared to 3.X any min-maxing was non-existent. It never impacted the game to the level that it does now.




The kits of second edition were very easy to min max and that is where I saw most of it then.  I am not sure how to judge the impact it has had on editions though.


----------



## Turjan (Jun 26, 2006)

Just a comment regarding the term "roll-playing games", and why it doesn't make sense:

Nearly all roleplaying games I know are implicitly "roll-playing games". There are very few RPGs that don't use dice rolls for task resolution, like Amber or Everway, and a few others use methods similar to dice (like cards (Everway also uses cards, but in a less decisive way)). Games like D&D are based on the rolling of dice for most of their actions. The bulk of the rulebooks solely deals with how to adjucate numbers that modify your dice rolls, and these are hundreds of pages. Calling the game or a playing style "roll-playing" doesn't add a single bit to the discussion. Of course, D&D is a "roll-playing game". It's a statement that is so banal that it's basically meaningless.

The roleplaying aspect is just put on top of this. This aspect is enjoyable for most D&D players, I suppose, though not for all.

Regarding munchkinism, it's mostly a problem of distribution within a group. A group of all munchkins will play wonderfully together; the DM just has to adjust the power level of the campaign. A group of lots of players without any sense of making mechanically "optimal" characters will also go well together; again, the DM has to adjust power levels of the enemies. Problems arise in mixed groups. This seldom ends well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 26, 2006)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> A couple instances from the 2nd ed Complete Guides and thats it. I played 2nd edition a hell of a lot, and compared to 3.X any min-maxing was non-existent. It never impacted the game to the level that it does now.



I wonder if this is your personal experience or just an observation from all the talk on Internet Boards? 
(I have only 3.x experiences, and they were all with the same group. I can say that the situation hasn't changed here, and if I look on how we play our rare Torg, Shadowrun or Warhammer adventures, I think our powergaming style is not limited to 3.x)

If it is not from personal game experience, I think the Internet might skew perspectives. 
People with similar interests gather on boards like this one. 

Rules forum (like one of the probably mostly frequented forums on this board) are all about the rules, and character realisiation or optimisation is a part of that. Rules Forums are probably also very frequented because rules aren't always easy to understand, and you can get somewhat reliable answers from more experienced players on such a forum. 

I must admit I have never read any of the Story Hours, but I wouldn't be suprised that, if I concentrated my readings on that, I would belive all roleplayers are storytellers and love engaging in long narratives or dialogues, or solving complex riddles. 

I notice that their also constantly coming up threads on Alignment Issues, which might indicate that a lot of people are not only concered about character optimisation, but also on roleplaying (what does it mean to be a lawful good character? Would a Chaotic Neutral character do this?) I think that might be "thespian" (If I may borrow that word from gizmo33) equivalent of munchkinismn. 

In other words, the Internet (figuratively) gives people a forum where they can discuss their interest. 
Before the Internet was as widespread as it is now, Min/Maxers and thespians were basically isolated from many likeminded. 
But the Internet now gave both sides a room where to gather and chat about their hobby. 
But: A thespian might not be as focussed on a single system as others. He might also care more about forums and sites that concentrate on storytelling aspects like a forum on literature and/or cinema. Min/Maxer has no alternatives, his hobby will always be related to the specifics of a game sytem. So, you naturally see more Min/Maxers on a D&D board than  thespians, despite both being as common as ever.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 26, 2006)

Min-maxing is bad because there's only one *right* way to play RPGs.

If you don't play that way (and that way ain't min-maxing), then you're playing wrong.  Even if you are having fun and enjoying yourself.  

Because we all know that the real goal of the game isn't to have fun, but to conform to someone else's idea of what's good.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 26, 2006)

Gimped characters annoy me. So do characters that are hammers searching for nails to drive.

Optimize with regard for the party and the setting, and I'm cool. Optimize without regard for the big picture, and we'll cross at some point.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 26, 2006)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> No, no, it is not fine. You are having bad, wrong fun and should have your gaming license revoked.




Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad wrong fun, mmmmmm, yummy. 

Like...Brains.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana:

I'll second Psion's recommendation (re: roll vs. role). And, on a free-to-leave-it basis, I'll add that the information and advice he has given you is totally sound.

Unless of course you are just trolling in some extraordinary fashion. In which case, never mind.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 26, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Where I am coming from:
> 
> Min-Maxer:  A player that centers, stat-wise, in one area of the character (combat, social, spell save DCs, etc.) to the detriment of other areas of the character.  Not inherently a bad thing.
> 
> ...




As players in different regions and group have differing definitions, there naturally will be some differences.  However, the above are pretty close to the definitions that the people I have played with over the years, but we would add the following to the power gamer

Powergamer: as you wrote, but also the power gamer cares not for rp, but for power and loot. Not a bad thing for kick in the door dungeon crawl type games. However n a campaign that includes plenty of role, powergamers become a problem, because when the other players are roleplaying (social interaction, mystery games, etc.) the powergamer either refuse to take part, sulk, whine/demand that the gm and players skip over or handwave the rp stuff so that he or she can get on with killing things  or tries to kill whomever the rp'ers are trying to interact with socially (It is this addition that seperates the powergamer from a min/maxer among the people with whom I have played. Hence, we consider it to be possible to minimax/optimize for combat without being a powergamer).





> There isn't anything wrong with min-maxing as long as they don't bend/break the rules.  There is nothing wrong with having a half-orc barabarian that crushes skulls to the best of his ability.  There may be something wrong with a druid that worships a specific deity in order to be able to wear a certain type of armor and being a certain race for X benefit when said race usually doesn't worship said deity (depends on backstory and campaign - it could be a munchkin or it could be really cool set-up for the DM to have fun with).





Actually, depending on the group, min-maxing can be a problem depending on the extent of min-maxing. In some groups,  minimaxing would be a problem for the following reasons:

1. Allocation of starting skill points that does not reflect the character's background and/or the cultures of the GM's setting.  For example, you want the to be a particular class which can only be found among a certain herding culture and then fail to take at least one rank in handle animal.

2. Upon leveling
a. rather than allocating points to cross-class skills that the character had the chance to develop,  the player either spends the points on class skills that the character has not used in adventures over the past level or on a skill that the player had no chance to learn.

b. multiclassing when there has been nobody available to train you in the new class.

c. Taking a PrC, because it was part of the player's planned build despite the party having chosen to spend their time adventuring in another part of the setting where the PrC does not exist.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 26, 2006)

In my experience:

Munchkin = A player who is totally concerned with how much mayhem and destruction he (and it's ALWAYS a he) can cause. Roleplaying is nonexistant, with the exception of intimidating NPC's with his uberness. Flavor is thrown out completely in favor of exploiting rules. Rules are bent to the point of breaking, and beyond. This is the sort of player who tried to tie a kobold around his waist in order to take advantage of the wording to the old Expert Tactician feat.

Min/Maxer = A player who tries to make the most effective character he can within the framework of the rules. Stats are distributed in cookie cutter fashion for the character selected. Certain Feats are "must have" for certain classes. The player has a goal in mind and builds his character class, prestige class, feats and attributes with that in mind. The end-result is usually a powerful, efficient build that can challenge inexperienced DM's. Usually roleplays well.

Min/Maxing is ok with me. Munchkinism is not.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 26, 2006)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> Personally I don't see min/maxing as bad, myself. Making sub-optimal choices for your PC is all well and good, as long as the rest of the group does it as well, but if I want to create a PC with legs and staying power, someone who might actually reach mid-high level without relying almost completely on the skill of his compatriots, then my choices are going to be as close to optimal as makes no odds.



I have to dive in here: part of the idea of the adventuring _party_ as opposed to the one-man adventuring gang is reliance on the rest of the party.  If I'm a fighter, I rely on the Cleric to patch me up, the Thief to open the doors, and the Wizard to...well, do whatever Wizards do.  They, in turn, rely on me to protect their asse(t)s.  That said, if my character idea for said Fighter is to be smart and wise enough to become - later in life - a military genius, then I'll put good stats on Int. and Wis. instead of Dex. and Con. perhaps, and let the min-max types complain all they like. 

*edit* I see the terms min-maxer and powergamer as meaning the same thing, and never use the term munchkin (though if I did it'd also mean the same thing).

Lanefan


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 26, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> a. rather than allocating points to cross-class skills that the character had the chance to develop, the player either spends the points on class skills that the character has not used in adventures over the past level or on a skill that the player had no chance to learn.




Are you saying that if the GM throws some encounters that levels up a Noble Diplomat without time to actually use Diplomacy in that level that you would consider putting a rank in diplomacy min/maxing?  What if the Bard solved a mystery and leveled up and didn't have to use Bardic Music throughout that level, would she not get to put a rank in Perform?


----------



## Barak (Jun 26, 2006)

I still don't see how min/maxing and roleplaying can even affect each other in a meaningful way (and yes, librarian_arcanum, I did read all your edifying posts).

Min/maxing solely relates to character building/levelling.  That's when it happens.  I don't know about you guys, but I create characters/level them not during actual game time.  It happens before gaming sessions for creation, and in-between them for levelling.  

Roleplaying, on the other hand, solely happens during game-time.  I don't roleplay before gaming sessions, or between them (my wife would kill me if I started talking in-character at such times).  

So..  Why does one exclude the other?  They never happen simultaneously!  Are the "roleplayers" out there telling me that they couldn't properly roleplay a character made by someone else?  They might as well have been.  

As for the "proper roleplayers sacrifice character efficiency for story!" argument..  Why?  Why would a less efficient character enhance the story in any way?  Sure, playing a one-legged fighter -can- be fun, but so can be playing a two-legged one.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 26, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Are you saying that if the GM throws some encounters that levels up a Noble Diplomat without time to actually use Diplomacy in that level that you would consider putting a rank in diplomacy min/maxing?  What if the Bard solved a mystery and leveled up and didn't have to use Bardic Music throughout that level, would she not get to put a rank in Perform?





I'm saying that if the character did not get a chance to use that skill *at all* the last time he leveled then yes some groups will see that as min-maxing.  As for myself, I would take into account the number of  adventures and the amount of time since the character last leveled.    If the party has been trekking around for months in some wilderness without encountering other races for the noble to have used diplomacy, I would say yes it would be min-maxing.  

As for the bard, they would not have had to use Bardic Music just whatever perform skill in which they already have ranks.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 26, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I'm saying that if the character did not get a chance to use that skill *at all* the last time he leveled then yes some groups will see that as min-maxing.  As for myself, I would take into account the number of  adventures and the amount of time since the character last leveled.    If the party has been trekking around for months in some wilderness without encountering other races for the noble to have used diplomacy, I would say yes it would be min-maxing.
> 
> As for the bard, they would not have had to use Bardic Music just whatever perform skill in which they already have ranks.



 I don't think I've seen anyone else express this opinion before--that's why I was curious.  Would it be okay if the Noble talked to his own party members diplomatically in an effort to placate the GM into letting him take ranks of Diplomacy?  Could he hire an NPC hireling to debate with so he could raise the Diplomacy.  These seem like metagaming of a far worse sort than taking another rank in Diplomacy for a character who already has the skill.  Say he was practising his technique at night in front of the mirror.  Now, if he randomly picked up an trained-only skill like Knowledge: The Planes without starting with a rank or ever doing anything related to planes or talking to anyone who knew anything about the planes, that would be a different story.  As for the Bard, what if he didn't get a chance to play his instrument?  What if you threw a Wizard with Fireball at him and he rolled a 1 and lost his harp until the end of the adventure but got it back just before leveling up to, say, level 9?  Would he have to miss out on his Inspire Heroics class ability for a full extra level (it requires him to take that last rank in perform).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

Bah min-maxing. Max-maxing is far more potent.

On a related note, a player in my game thinks of Iron Will (and its ilk) to be powergaming. It's very subjective.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 26, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> As for the "proper roleplayers sacrifice character efficiency for story!" argument..  Why?  Why would a less efficient character enhance the story in any way?  Sure, playing a one-legged fighter -can- be fun, but so can be playing a two-legged one.




(Gizmo puts pompous professor hat on)  Because, as my over-simplified post above explained:

Thespian DMs need to keep their NPC villains alive because it's how it works in the literature from which they adapt their stories.  Munchkin players are adept at killing said NPCs, and so it angers the DM.  If the munchkin's PC only had one leg, then he wouldn't be able to chase down the villain, and it would keep the DMs plot line alive.  So the munckinism is affecting the game and getting in the way of roleplaying (ie. letting the villain escape).

If you want to recreate Dracula, for instance, then everyone has to run around confused and over-powered until the last minute.  That's "exciting".  Thespian DMs count on manipulating the abilties of the players in order to produce this effect.  But adapting the novel to DnD runs the risk of someone taking their optimized Undead Hunter though it, and killing Dracula in the first 5 rounds.  Not exactly as exciting as the novel.  

But rather than force everyone to make up a 1st level commoner (which is probably the honest thing to do to simulate Dracula), the Thespian DM just blames the munchkin for not having read the same novels as him.   The munckin probably doesn't know that Dracula is a book - but he's seen the Van Helsing movie!

To be fair to the Thespian DM, the munchkin player is usually oblivious to anything not having to do with XP or GP going on in the game.  What you're saying is logically true - min-maxing doesn't happen during the game - but IME people that are heavily focused on character development (stat wise) tend to have a hard time comprehending the rest of the game.  

Go up to a munchkin and say "quick, name one NPC in last weeks game!" and you'll likely get a blank stare.  I don't know why that it is - you wouldn't think that ignoring NPCs names would help your BAB any, but apparently it does.


----------



## Izerath (Jun 26, 2006)

*Similar Sentiments*



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> There are different levels of powergaming from light optimisation to the most overt min/maxing.
> Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts. There is also the reverse of these as the flipside of the same gold coin (possibly gamers who look down upon those who prefer rules-lite game systems).
> 
> Because it is a dynamic that can greatly affect gameplay, it can quickly become an issue. Put a powergamer in with a a group of roleplayers and what is going on outside of the game starts to become more of a focus than what is going on inside the game.
> ...




I echo the above. The general reputation and "dislike" of min/maxing is the fact that many powergamers _*I'VE ENCOUNTERED*_ take the abuse to a level of dishonesty that degrades trust. Lemme give  apersonal example to help clarify.

I have a powergamer in my group. He's VERY GOOD at it. I actually appreciate his ideas, because they help point out to me areas where I should be watchful. For a while he min/maxed his PC and it became obvoius to others that he had some insane modifiers to skills, attacks, etc. that far outstripped their own. They cried foul. I examined the PC at the group's request and found, that while everything was legal according to published rules, he had expolited rules that by themselves look innocent enough, but when combined with others produced synergetic aftershocks that actually disrupted play.

Now I also agree that this is something all DM's have to deal with as a reality, but should it be? No. Better playtesting would show us that these combinations prove disruptive to balanced play, but who's responsibility is it? the DM? the players, the publishers? I'm not entirely sure.

What I do know is I asked the player to run things by me before he just used some rule or combination. I began to "approve" material before it was allowed into play and often gave new rules "trial periods" so I could assess the impact on the game. I reserved the right to change my mind or change the rules so things would be fair to all. 
I also flat out asked the "powergamer" to help me manage this aspect of the game because the other players felt cheated. Fortunately, we're really good friends, he agreed, and now the entire group asks him for ideas, while at the same time, if he sees something that's "too good to be true", he points it out to me and even writes up some notes on how it can really create advantages that are mind boggling.

So I don't mind min/maxing - I think it can actually help a game, but what I don't appreciate are people trying to "pull the wool over my eyes" by not being honest about how they generated the PC they play or being selfish in not sharing the same advantages with other players so they too can enjoy the game in the same ways.

In this sense, the powergamers I've encountered don't "disclose" their "trade secrets" like it's some competition over who can do the most with the least. Some view it as a "me vs. the DM" scenario and that too is unhealthy. As a DM I try to challenge my players, not kill them. If everything was a cakewalk, it victories would not be rewarding and the game would become boring for all involved. The bottom line - get your powegamer to share and alert you to things he thinks are "cool" and not only will the rest of the players have a little more fun trying to find the golden nugget, you as the DM will have a built in alert system to head off any disruptive mechanics.

I think that's where the doubt and suspicion is generated - by just a few bad apples. A shame really.....


----------



## zypherillius (Jun 26, 2006)

*maybe the greater good is being missed?*

youd probably have to decide from the onset of the campaign if you want that kind of play style.  i mean, even if you decide to run certian races, illumians for example, they play to the min/maxing aspect of the game for sure.  every second level of a class, you get another sigil.  then in your savage species, they give a prestige class for mind flayers where you can acquire all skill points in one skill that your victim had, even if it puts your ranks above the level max.  how could it not be an aspect of the game when right inside every book they give you ideas on how to min max?  heck, even if you decide not to specalize in one thing, if you run a druid sorcerer, then use the arcane hyrophant and then mystic theurge, thats using whats right in front of you, and by level 20, youve got 9th level druid and arcane spells.
also, everybody raves about the unearthed arcana, and right inside that, they give the gestalt idea for a campaign variant.  min maxing is a fun aspect of the game, it wallows the dm to throw heavier stuff at the players, and the plaers can respond in kind with a large dose of encounter slaying.
--- added more ---
and depending on your version of min maxing, you could even say that bonus spells granted by a high modifier would be 'min maxing' because youre getting more than the base charater allows you to have.  madding feats or becoming a specialty mage or domain mage could be taken as min maxing too, so depeing on haw much you look between the lines would be yoru aspect of min maxing.  id have  to say overall its a good thing, it rewards people that read their books and makes people that dont read want to go start scanning how they can make their pc bette.


----------



## morrolan (Jun 26, 2006)

I don't think min maxing is wrong or bad, just boring.  As a GM (or even as another player) I just get bored knowing what feats and weapons a pc is going to take, just because they allow most power.  Min-maxing tends to lead to cookie cutter characters, which is dull.  Someone at the start of the thread mentioned Longbowmen, who focused their training and equipment to a specific goal, which is great.  But I don't want to be one out of hundreds of identical longbowmen.  They don't get their names recorded in the annals of immortal valor.  I'd prefer to play someone unique, even if flawed.

Game systems encourage certain builds, which is fine.  It just comes down to what you want out of the game.  To me it's more fun for a party to _not_ be able to take down a baddie, cos they're not optimised in a certain area, to have to come back and find another way to deal with the problem.  But ymmv as they say.

It's the same with the Dribble clones.  It's not _bad_ to want to play a misunderstood dual scimitar wielding outcast elven ranger, especially if your excited cos you just read the books and thought he was a cool character.  It's just it's the 783rd time everyone else has see one, so the bloom is off the rose, so to speak.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> As for the "proper roleplayers sacrifice character efficiency for story!" argument.. Why? Why would a less efficient character enhance the story in any way? Sure, playing a one-legged fighter -can- be fun, but so can be playing a two-legged one.




I have my own answer to this one.

Because its martyrdom. It's proof of your values, a sacrifice you are making to show how devoted to anti-munkinism/powergaming/min-maxing/etc you actually are. If you're willing to make a Fighter with an 8 Str and 16 Cha, all ranks in diplomacy, and who fights with his fists, regardless of how well you actually roleplay the character you are showing that you value "roleplaying" more heavily than combat, regardless of your ability to do either one. It shows where your priorities are, and you can hold that up as a torch to your beliefs and what you're willing to sacrifice for them.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 26, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Folks,
> 
> Things in this thread ar going furiously fast.  I am perhaps going to have to make this explicit - please keep your comments focused upon the stated position, rather than the person of poster.  If you make things personal here, folks are going to start getting offended quickly, and that won't be good for the discussion.*



My apologies, Umbran. I was intending to comment upon the other poster's stated position: Namely, that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to play. I'll edit the offending post to clarify that.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Alright, before I begin the tirade, I'd like to clarify what I am understanding min/maxing to be:
> 
> minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another. 'Area' in this case means either combat, socializing, spellcasting; things like that.
> 
> ...



Interesting topic.

I would like to comment before I read others opinions so as not to bias my answer.

If you think about it, it is not a bad thing.  If you are good at something, why shouldn't you be the best at it.  If you are a spell caster, would you take a 12 in your prime spell casting ability?  Of course not, why?  Mainly because, if you plan on casting spells beyond 2nd level spells, then you need a higher score.  This is not the days of AD&D when you could cast just about any spell with a 13 or higher score.  Heck, back in the day, Raistlin only had a 17 INT, but as a 26th level black wizard he would not be able to cast 8th and 9th + level spells by todays standards.

  If you were a spell caster, would you take anything less than 4 ranks in conentration at first level?  Would you take anything less than 4 ranks in spell craft?  If you do then you are a min/maxer, if you don't then you are not only not a min/maxer but you really are stupid or ignorant of the game as there is nothiong else in the list of skills that a spellcaster must have ranks in in order to be efficient.

  From my prespective, you need to min/max your character because if you don't, you have a lesser chance of survival and first and foremost, in game as in life, living is what it is all about.  When you go to school, do you study art as a major if you are going to be a laywer?  Maybe if you are going to be an art laywer, but you certainly would put most of your credits in it.

  Man, err, okay, women too, have a basic primal instict to survive and they will do that every time.  Whether it is in a game or life, you will find yourself min/maxing all the time.  Ever drive around a few blocks to find a better price on gas?  Then you are min/maxing.  Ever ask around on where is a good place to get good pizza?  Then you are min/maxing.  Ever date one person and then decide that it is not working out the way you would like or cheat on them or any other of a thousand senerios that could take?  Then you are min/maxing.

  In D&D it is not a bad thing to want the best for your character, just like in Monopoly you obviously want all the propoerties, including the elusive Park Place and Board Walk.  Now, that said, a game that has Monty Haul aspects to it, is no fun, trust me on that, but that doesn't mean that a 1st level wizard with a 18 INT and max ranks in spellcraft and concentration and spell focus evocation is a wrong design.  What would you prefer?  14 INT, no ranks in spellcraft and concentration and skill focus craft (basket weaving)?  That would fall under the stupid or ignorant catagory I refered to earlier.  Just cause you got good stats and a well thought out plan for how you want your character to progress doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game as someone who is more into role-playing and has a "lessor" character concept.

  It is the way people, all people, are programmed.  Watch out for those that think min/maxing is bad, cause they are the ones trying to sell you the Brooklyn bridge or swamp property in Floridia.    

In the end, does it really matter if someone has a well thought out plan for their character.  If it makes them happy, and it doesn't ruin your basket weaving career, does it really matter if his spell resist DC is 1 or 2 higher than yours?


----------



## Barak (Jun 26, 2006)

morrolan said:
			
		

> I don't think min maxing is wrong or bad, just boring.  As a GM (or even as another player) I just get bored knowing what feats and weapons a pc is going to take, just because they allow most power.  Min-maxing tends to lead to cookie cutter characters, which is dull.  Someone at the start of the thread mentioned Longbowmen, who focused their training and equipment to a specific goal, which is great.  But I don't want to be one out of hundreds of identical longbowmen.  They don't get their names recorded in the annals of immortal valor.  I'd prefer to play someone unique, even if flawed.
> 
> Game systems encourage certain builds, which is fine.  It just comes down to what you want out of the game.  To me it's more fun for a party to _not_ be able to take down a baddie, cos they're not optimised in a certain area, to have to come back and find another way to deal with the problem.  But ymmv as they say.
> 
> It's the same with the Dribble clones.  It's not _bad_ to want to play a misunderstood dual scimitar wielding outcast elven ranger, especially if your excited cos you just read the books and thought he was a cool character.  It's just it's the 783rd time everyone else has see one, so the bloom is off the rose, so to speak.




That argument is a tad flawed, to my mind.  There isn't "one ultimate build".  The game is balanced enough to accomodate a lot of different characters that are built optimally, or semi-optimally.  As for the..



> But I don't want to be one out of hundreds of identical longbowmen.  They don't get their names recorded in the annals of immortal valor.  I'd prefer to play someone unique, even if flawed.




But who gets their name recorded?  Robin Hood was a masterful archer.  Conan was a optimized character.  Rand Al-thor is actually a character created by a munchkin.  You don't read stories about somewhat average characters that are middling about what they do.  Characters that do make it in the annals of immortal valor -are- min/maxed.  They also have character.  One doesn't exclude the other.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> That argument is a tad flawed, to my mind.  There isn't "one ultimate build".




Indeed. There are many wincingly bad (inappropraite or unbalanced) builds for a variety of situations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

It should be noted that the class system itself is a form of min/maxing.  I'm good at fighting, you're good at healing, and Bob over there sneaks around.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 26, 2006)

> Powergamer: as you wrote, but also the power gamer cares not for rp, but for power and loot. Not a bad thing for kick in the door dungeon crawl type games. However n a campaign that includes plenty of role, powergamers become a problem, because when the other players are roleplaying (social interaction, mystery games, etc.) the powergamer either refuse to take part, sulk, whine/demand that the gm and players skip over or handwave the rp stuff so that he or she can get on with killing things or tries to kill whomever the rp'ers are trying to interact with socially (It is this addition that seperates the powergamer from a min/maxer among the people with whom I have played. Hence, we consider it to be possible to minimax/optimize for combat without being a powergamer).



Interesting. Your definition definitely differs from mine, since I see the members of my group as Powegamers most the time, and they are quite willing to accept hours of roleplaying, mistery, social-interaction and so on. But we defnitely enjoy it when we go back to killing our enemies and taking their stuff, too.


----------



## morrolan (Jun 26, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> That argument is a tad flawed, to my mind.  There isn't "one ultimate build".  The game is balanced enough to accomodate a lot of different characters that are built optimally, or semi-optimally.




No there is not "one ultimate build", but instead a series of well trod paths.  Sure there are say different fighter specs you could follow, but not many fighters would choose to take say a skill focus or even quick draw over maybe great cleave etc.  And most of the Dribble clones finesse fighters are going to take the chain of two weapon fighting feats over something maybe less tangible but more uncommon and interesting.  The system rewards them for taking those feats by being more effective in combat, thus getting xp and gear more easily etc.  That's the way a lot of people play, and how they judge whether they are "winning" at the game, but the same could be said if you played a diplomacy heavy game.  You can min-max for that too, and what might be regarded as an "ultimate" build changes.  

Notice, I say there's nothing wrong with that, it just bores _me_.  YMMV.  But I always had a fondness for those gimpy WHFRP characters who started out with a crappy background and had to duck, run, scheme and scrabble to survive, and maybe croak in spite of it.   It's just what you find fun.




			
				Barak said:
			
		

> You don't read stories about somewhat average characters that are middling about what they do.




Death of a Salesman, anyone? Ulysses (L. Bloom I mean, not the greek dude)? Tony Soprano maybe?  Frodo?  



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> Characters that do make it in the annals of immortal valor -are- min/maxed.  They also have character.  One doesn't exclude the other.



I think some of the characters you mention are actually Max/Maxed     Rand does it all.  I only read a few books intothat series before I got bored with it.  Maybe I just have a short attention span!  

Min- maxed characters are by defenition one dimensional.  they do a certain thing well to the exclusion of others, right?  Which doesn't mean they can't have character, but in a novel you have greater leeway to explore that than in a game.  And frankly, I've seen a lot more people define characters based on class/weaponry/skillset than on any kind of "novelistic" development.  Which is not to say you can't do it, im sure there are better gamers than I out there who can do both.  I just don't see it a lot.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 26, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Because we roleplayer should be enlighted people that are more concerned about motivation of people and interaction with each other than about numbers?





Ah, but as a person, my motivation is deeply rooted in numerical applications! Thus, I strive for interactions as a means to determine what extent of statistical superiority my characters possess versus those of characters I'm interacting with!


----------



## Doctor Shaft (Jun 26, 2006)

Whether Min/Maxing is good or bad is moot point without establishing what kind of "game" you are playing in the first place, and I"m surprised that so many posts in this thread completely ignored that facet. We can complain until we're blue in the face, all day long, about whether min/maxing sucks or not, but it makes absolutely no sense unless we define what type of "game" we are playing.

There is nothing wrong with min/maxing, in and of itself.  By itself, min/maxing is just that... specialization.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's the context in which it is used.  


As a player, I min/max constantly. I want my character to be good at what he does. However, I'm not a complete combat freak, so I like to make my character "good" at a variety of things, rather than just being the "best swordsman in the world."  I want a character that is smart, at least somewhat charismatic, and capable of doing other skills beyond "Strike the tree... hard."  

I also like to play games that make use of these different facets. The minute I encounter a game where its clear that my BAB is an issue 90% of the time, as opposed to just 80 or 70, then I'm out.  I like games that make use of balance checks, jumping skills, the ability to hide, and other facets that seem to be of little or no issue in a lot of games that I hear about on forums.

Still, it depends on the game type being played. 

So long as the DM establishes the rules for "how the game shall be played," then there is no powergamer or munchkin. If you establish how the class system, the alignment system, the magic system, and the rewards system works in your games, then there is no problem.  If you make it clear that powergaming won't reward you with more xp, more kills, and more magic items, then there is no problem. Establish the atmosphere for your game before you play, and there is no problem or even question about "good or bad."

The only reason Min/Maxing is viewed as bad is because two groups of players, who play with radically different rule sets (not the D&D rulesets... the extra rules that they apply to their worlds, and are unfortunately left unspoken for some reason), see how each other plays, and can't fathom why they do so in that manner based on the D&D rules. But who gives a hooey about what the D&D rules say?  I mean, yes, we use them because we know they are balanced and reliable in most instances, etc., but it's not life or death. If you think a guy should be able to take Improve Natural Attack, who cares in what form of legalese you use to PROVE that it's against the rules? Do you think Wizards had such an infallible insight as to whether IMA would break the game when monks started employing its usage?  It's just unarmed attack.  Wizards can nuke cities!  

But enough of that. My viewpoint is this: Who cares if its bad or good. We're playing a game.

EDIT: Way too long of a post.


----------



## Barak (Jun 26, 2006)

morrolan said:
			
		

> No there is not "one ultimate build", but instead a series of well trod paths.  Sure there are say different fighter specs you could follow, but not many fighters would choose to take say a skill focus or even quick draw over maybe great cleave etc.  And most of the Dribble clones finesse fighters are going to take the chain of two weapon fighting feats over something maybe less tangible but more uncommon and interesting.  The system rewards them for taking those feats by being more effective in combat, thus getting xp and gear more easily etc.  That's the way a lot of people play, and how they judge whether they are "winning" at the game, but the same could be said if you played a diplomacy heavy game.  You can min-max for that too, and what might be regarded as an "ultimate" build changes.
> 
> Notice, I say there's nothing wrong with that, it just bores _me_.  YMMV.  But I always had a fondness for those gimpy WHFRP characters who started out with a crappy background and had to duck, run, scheme and scrabble to survive, and maybe croak in spite of it.   It's just what you find fun.




My problem with this is the "more uncommon and _interesting_.  While the uncommon part is self-evident, I don't get the interesting part.  How is having "Skill Focus (diplomacy)" or "Quick Draw" more interesting than having "Power Attack"?  My character's stats/feats/skills don't determine my character's personality, they determine what he can do.  And if you play long enough -everything- is done to death stats-wise.




> Death of a Salesman, anyone? Ulysses (L. Bloom I mean, not the greek dude)? Tony Soprano maybe?  Frodo?




Here I'll be cheap and say "Exceptions that prove the rule"..   



> I think some of the characters you mention are actually Max/Maxed     Rand does it all.  I only read a few books intothat series before I got bored with it.  Maybe I just have a short attention span!
> 
> Min- maxed characters are by defenition one dimensional.  they do a certain thing well to the exclusion of others, right?  Which doesn't mean they can't have character, but in a novel you have greater leeway to explore that than in a game.  And frankly, I've seen a lot more people define characters based on class/weaponry/skillset than on any kind of "novelistic" development.  Which is not to say you can't do it, im sure there are better gamers than I out there who can do both.  I just don't see it a lot.




I actually hesitated before including Rand, since I hated that serie after a few books as well.  And the Max/Max comment is well-taken, but the point was that despite that, they -still- had a story going, and in most cases an interesting one.  And they weren't one-legged farmers!  

And I disagree that min-maxed characters have to be one-dimensional.  As I said before, the numbers on the character sheet tell me what the character can do.  The personality..  That's something else entirely, and is not bound by numbers.  That's where the roleplaying comes in.  

And sure, people define their characters on class/weapon/skillset, because that's the easy way that everyone who plays D&D can relate to.  It's much easier to say "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!" than "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath (that's a merchant house in my DM's custom world) was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet (that's like, that really deserted territory) where he met the tribe of Caluther.  What?  Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs.  Anyway.  So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough.  But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too!  So..  Well, we fought, and I killed him."


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Why the hate for it? Is it not good to be good at one thing and bad at another? To be good at everything is to be powergaming(right?) and to be bad at everything is to be a bard(fecetiousness here. replace 'bard' with 'useless')




Well, there was hate for it before 3E. It was seen as a way to purposefully unbalance the party through synergy effects and specific 'sweet spots' in the rules. (_Dwarf with maxed CON using a belt of giant strength, gauntlets of ogre power and hammer of thunderbolts_ is the only one that comes to mind but there were others). 

There was little in the Rules As Written to deal with the consequences of such things even though the RAW took pains to mention and spell out such combinations, so people thought they had to (1) come up with some cheesy way of getting rid of certain items (_You teleport to safety. You didn't say differently so you all arrive naked, with no weapons or magic items_), (2) initiate 'the arms race' (_You see 66 trolls; they attack_).

The fact that there was little in the way of quality GM advice didn't help matters much. I still see people trying to throw off the shackles of the adversarial GM approach. Pretty much the only advice given was to be overly stingy with magic items, not on how to actually manage a campaign's power level. You still see that attitude today, passed down like a poisoned fruit from GM to GM.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 26, 2006)

Throws a couple of pennies in to the hat ...

For me, min/maxing makes me wince. 

A simple point:The game is about an inherent balance between challenge and ability. The appropriateness of the challenge is determined by the average ability of characters and their various power at any given level. I think that's why we have "levels" to establish appropriate power.

The key though is "average".

Min/maxing looks to change the balance by being "better than average". As a DM, for those players not min/maxing I have to strive to recreate balance for everyone in the party.

Just as I don;'t want 5th level players and 9th level players together, I don't want imbalance by taken advantage of the rules of the system.

No, if every one is min/maxed, in the immortal words of Messer Bush.. "Bring it on"


----------



## Satori (Jun 26, 2006)

I've found that the best people to play with are a mixture of munchkin and roleplayer.

They build in-depth characters with complete personalities, backgrounds, and goals.

They design the mechanics around these characters to make sense with their concept and to better work within a team atmosphere.

An elven archer that maxes out dexterity and loads up on ranged feats while pursuing archer prestige classes is NOT a min-maxer or a munchkin.  They are building their character to serve a specific purpose.

Without a bit of crunch to your otherwise complex, brooding, highly detailed character...what good are you to the group?  Sure, you can spend hours detailing your tortured childhood or argue about the current politics of modern Thay...but will you survive when a horde of orcs attack?

There are only two types of PCs that NO ONE can stand...at least in my experience.

1. Game Breaker
-Ftr/Rgr/Barb/Cheezit/google/furby/soccerball of doom.  You have more prestige classes than fingers, and you've found a way to cast every single spell persistent while maintaining full fighter BAB, immunity to everything, and the ability to mimic any class feature written in a WotC book.  You're name is something generic like "Bob the Destroyer", and your background consists of "Pure Awesomeness".  Your character description says, "Imagine a mixture of terminator, Highlander, and the Superbowl", and you put "Maximum Cool" in your personality block.  

One strike kills everything the DM throws at you, and you grow bored and fall asleep if anyone tries to roleplay.  In you're mind, DnD is a video game without cool graphics, and you're determined to unlock "God Mode".

2. The Fluff Monster
-You're the guy that creates a pixie frenzied berzerker with a tiny two handed sword, or a wizard with an intelligence of 8.  You get frustrated when you can't talk your way out of combat, or when you have to be bothered to roll a dice.  You want to be the guy that talks to everyone...everywhere...in every situation.  You often stop the game for an hour at a time so you can unleash a heart wrenching solo about your experience in the poorest part of Waterdeep.  You're known to burst into tears for no apparent reason at all...and when asked, you reply...in character..."I don't want to talk about it."

You consider the other players to be less artistic than you...and you scoff at anything bearing a statistic.  You seem to forget that you'd be dead several campaigns ago if these players didn't continually waste all their healing spells on "Valexius Von Vudervador", your midgit Troll Paladin that secretly wants to become a Bard...and so refuses to wear armor or use heavy weapons.  You're a burden to the party, an attention hog, and you view DnD as an informal Drama group...for which you are obviously the lead actor.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 26, 2006)

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To extend your analogy, you get beans in the tin but you also get sauce/juice/game mechanics or whatever happens to accompany the beans. As such, your analogy is glib at best.
What I'd prefer you to do is actually consider my questions above and answer them if able. The whole semantic thing of your "role" playing versus others "game" seems silly too. Both parts of the game that I like and enjoy are semantically represented here. I don't see why you're emphasising one and ignoring the other.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 26, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I wonder if this is your personal experience or just an observation from all the talk on Internet Boards? .




Personal experience. I played 2nd edition from the time it was released until the release of 3.0


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2006)

Satori said:
			
		

> I've found that the best people to play with are a mixture of munchkin and roleplayer.
> 
> They build in-depth characters with complete personalities, backgrounds, and goals.
> 
> ...




I've never said this to a person I've met on the internet, but I think I love you. Its... different this time...


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 26, 2006)

hey folks: here's the core of the problem...
THere's the argument between powergaming, min/maxing, and munchkinisim.







The problem is:
All munchkins are min/maxers, but not all min/maxers are munchkins.

It's one of those non-mutually exclusive things.  Here, take a look at this chart:






The grey area is munchkins.  The white area in Min/maxers, the black area is a portion of (gamers).  The lighter grey areas surrounding the central grey area is min/maxers with munchkin tendencies.

Now, here's the complication:

Many Min/Maxers see themselves as Real Men roleplayers, but when you come right down to it: what is Min/Maxing about? It's about getting whatever gives you the most plusses.  Very munchkinesque.  

That said, min/maxers, we could argue, are one step above munchkins in that thye are not overt in their quest for power. often, it will take several combats, or even game sesisons before the GM realizes how strong a min-maxer is becoming, as opposed to the "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie" nature of a munchkin.

Powergamers could be said to be several steps above Min/maxers, in that the GM may NEVER realize how strong they are, until they reveal their brilliant build in all it's glory.

Really, I think that's the difference, why powergamers are accepted more than min/maxers.  Underplaying their own abilities to keep in line with the other players, until the moment merits their full might.  Like demigods walking among mortal players.


----------



## morrolan (Jun 26, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> My problem with this is the "more uncommon and _interesting_.  While the uncommon part is self-evident, I don't get the interesting part.  How is having "Skill Focus (diplomacy)" or "Quick Draw" more interesting than having "Power Attack"?  My character's stats/feats/skills don't determine my character's personality, they determine what he can do.  And if you play long enough -everything- is done to death stats-wise.




They are not _inherently _more interesting.  They are uncommon, thus unexpected, thus interesting.  As a gm, if a player comes along and says "I wanna be a fighter, 18 str, power attack etc etc," I'm fine with that.  I expect it because the system encourages that to a degree.  

But if he comes along and says "I wanna be a fighter with 12 str and 16 int, and skill focus herbalism', I say "hmmm, well that's interesting, why?" And the player might say "well, dude wanted to become an apothecary, but couldn't afford to go to school, then was conscripted by the militia to fend off raids by the foul myrmidons etc, etc".  I know he's put some thought in and wants his stats and skills to reflect that, and i'm more interested in how he's gonna do against that first group of goblins or whatever.  Will his party be optimised for that combat? maybe not.  But what happens when they meet will be more interesting to me as GM, and hopefully that will translate to what I put into the game.  

Min/maxed fighter takes down goblin warchief is dog bites man, really.  You expect it, and can even statisticaly predict it.  Whoop de doo.   It might make him a hero in the village, but to us jaded types, it's just another day in D&D-land.  Time to make the donuts.  

But if our hapless apothecary finds he can't take down king gobbo, and the party has to come back later?  Maybe he can find some lesser fartbloom, and have the rogue sneak it into  the gob's stewpot, so that the next time they meet, King Gobbo's not feeling so good.  

But you get my point.  It's the same for me with backgrounds.  If someone comes at me with the old "my village was burned by orcs and swore revenge", I can roll with it, it gets the job done, but it's ho-hum.  





			
				Barak said:
			
		

> I actually hesitated before including Rand, since I hated that serie after a few books as well.  And the Max/Max comment is well-taken, but the point was that despite that, they -still- had a story going, and in most cases an interesting one.  And they weren't one-legged farmers!




As I said above, though, the same story wears thin quick.  Interest in stories (novels) comes from conflict and limitation.  You bite your nails when the character is up against something you know they can't get out of, and applaude when they find a way.  The Jordan books were kind of fun despite the characters, just from a world building aspect (ok, really just for the magic system).  But the characters themselves were sort of stock and boring really.  



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> And I disagree that min-maxed characters have to be one-dimensional.  As I said before, the numbers on the character sheet tell me what the character can do.  The personality..  That's something else entirely, and is not bound by numbers.  That's where the roleplaying comes in.




Well I meant by defenition min/max means one dimensional, ie you focus all development in one area at expense of the others.  Which sometimes _does_ affect personality.  If every barbarian buys points in str and con at the expense of cha and int, and people play characters accordingly, you have a bunch of dumb thugs who sit around picking their nose at dinner parties.  Maybe some have axes, and some greatswords, but you know...



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> And sure, people define their characters on class/weapon/skillset, because that's the easy way that everyone who plays D&D can relate to.  It's much easier to say "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!" than "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath (that's a merchant house in my DM's custom world) was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet (that's like, that really deserted territory) where he met the tribe of Caluther.  What?  Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs.  Anyway.  So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough.  But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too!  So..  Well, we fought, and I killed him."




But which is more interesting?  if someone tells me "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!", well, ok, bully for you.  If he says "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet where he met the tribe of Caluther.  What?  Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs.  Anyway.  So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough.  But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too!  So..  Well, we fought, and I killed him", 
Well then I've learned something of his story, and the gameworld.  

The OP wanted to know why min/maxing is regarded as bad, and I don't think it is really.  It's a valid play style.  I'm just thinking through under which circumstances I would find it "bad", and when things get stale, thats bad to me.

edited for grammar


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 27, 2006)

morrolan said:
			
		

> But which is more interesting?  if someone tells me "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!", well, ok, bully for you.  If he says "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet where he met the tribe of Caluther.  What?  Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs.  Anyway.  So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough.  But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too!  So..  Well, we fought, and I killed him",
> Well then I've learned something of his story, and the gameworld.
> edited for grammar




I'm with Barak on this one. If someone said
""Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet where he met the tribe of Caluther.  What?  Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs.  Anyway.  So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough.  But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too!  So..  Well, we fought, and I killed him", 

To me and I wasnt actually involved in the game, it'd come of like so much hot air to me. To me most gaming stores come off as those "You had to be there" things. I'm not interested in the long extrapolation of how you had to con the Seven Sisters of Saltmarsh into givng you a the contract to explore the forbidden cliffs of Redfern. Just tell me "yeah, my Bard made the ILL Bluff roll to get the thieves guild to give us the map we needed" and I get it. 

No pretentious wankery needed. That's just me though.


----------



## Barak (Jun 27, 2006)

If this go on, we might as well just start exchanging e-mails. 



			
				morrolan said:
			
		

> They are not _inherently _more interesting.  They are uncommon, thus unexpected, thus interesting.  As a gm, if a player comes along and says "I wanna be a fighter, 18 str, power attack etc etc," I'm fine with that.  I expect it because the system encourages that to a degree.
> 
> But if he comes along and says "I wanna be a fighter with 12 str and 16 int, and skill focus herbalism', I say "hmmm, well that's interesting, why?" And the player might say "well, dude wanted to become an apothecary, but couldn't afford to go to school, then was conscripted by the militia to fend off raids by the foul myrmidons etc, etc".  I know he's put some thought in and wants his stats and skills to reflect that, and i'm more interested in how he's gonna do against that first group of goblins or whatever.  Will his party be optimised for that combat? maybe not.  But what happens when they meet will be more interesting to me as GM, and hopefully that will translate to what I put into the game.



But I can write..  4-5 truly different backgrounds for that fighter with the 18 STR with Power Attack.  Why?  Because the base is a trope, and it's -easier- to concentrate on roleplaying aspect that disregard (while still taking it into account) tropes.  The herbalist fighter?  Well ok, it might work once.  From a truly RP perspective, other builds would probably make more sense, actually.  



> Min/maxed fighter takes down goblin warchief is dog bites man, really.  You expect it, and can even statisticaly predict it.  Whoop de doo.   It might make him a hero in the village, but to us jaded types, it's just another day in D&D-land.  Time to make the donuts.
> 
> But if our hapless apothecary finds he can't take down king gobbo, and the party has to come back later?  Maybe he can find some lesser fartbloom, and have the rogue sneak it into  the gob's stewpot, so that the next time they meet, King Gobbo's not feeling so good.



They can -both- be interesting..  Note that since most fighter builds do not depend on skills, they can pick some interesting skills to round up characters, instead of "jump/swim".



> But you get my point.  It's the same for me with backgrounds.  If someone comes at me with the old "my village was burned by orcs and swore revenge", I can roll with it, it gets the job done, but it's ho-hum.




For a min/maxer/roleplayer, background is very, very important, as it's the only part of character building in which the roleplaying part comes into play.



> As I said above, though, the same story wears thin quick.  Interest in stories (novels) comes from conflict and limitation.  You bite your nails when the character is up against something you know they can't get out of, and applaude when they find a way.  The Jordan books were kind of fun despite the characters, just from a world building aspect (ok, really just for the magic system).  But the characters themselves were sort of stock and boring really.




I've actually once used the exact same character (a dual-dagger-wielding halfing rogue/fighter, btw) twice, completely making them into different characters simply through background.  YOu can make up an infinite amount of stories.  Characters, while large, are limited.



> Well I meant by defenition min/max means one dimensional, ie you focus all development in one area at expense of the others.  Which sometimes _does_ affect personality.  If every barbarian buys points in str and con at the expense of cha and int, and people play characters accordingly, you have a bunch of dumb thugs who sit around picking their nose at dinner parties.  Maybe some have axes, and some greatswords, but you know...




I've actually always viewed the "min" part of min/max as "minimizing weaknesses" while maximizing efficiency.  But anyway.  D&D favors specialization, there's no doubt about that.  One of the rulebook actually -tells- you that it's better to maxed out a few skills than having 1 rank in a bunch of different ones.  And with the escalating DC system, it's true.  It's also why characters group together, since 4 specialists will be better than 4 jack-of-all-trades,



> But which is more interesting?  if someone tells me "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!", well, ok, bully for you.  If he says "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet where he met the tribe of Caluther.  What?  Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs.  Anyway.  So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough.  But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too!  So..  Well, we fought, and I killed him",
> Well then I've learned something of his story, and the gameworld.
> 
> The OP wanted to know why min/maxing is regarded as bad, and I don't think it is really.  It's a valid play style.  I'm just thinking through under which circumstances I would find it "bad", and when things get stale, thats bad to me.




My point with that example, which wasn't very clear, is that they are both meant to be the same people.  But one took me barely one sentence, and the other a paragraph.  So when people talk about their characters, unless the back story is relevant, they'll fall back on class/levels/whatever.  It doesn't mean the background isn't important, just that it takes longer to get into in this type of forum, so you are bound to hear more of the former than the latter.  

P.S. I also totally made up both situations.


----------



## Seeten (Jun 27, 2006)

morrolan said:
			
		

> No there is not "one ultimate build", but instead a series of well trod paths.  Sure there are say different fighter specs you could follow, but not many fighters would choose to take say a skill focus or even quick draw over maybe great cleave etc.  And most of the Dribble clones finesse fighters are going to take the chain of two weapon fighting feats over something maybe less tangible but more uncommon and interesting.  The system rewards them for taking those feats by being more effective in combat, thus getting xp and gear more easily etc.  That's the way a lot of people play, and how they judge whether they are "winning" at the game, but the same could be said if you played a diplomacy heavy game.  You can min-max for that too, and what might be regarded as an "ultimate" build changes.
> 
> Notice, I say there's nothing wrong with that, it just bores _me_.  YMMV.  But I always had a fondness for those gimpy WHFRP characters who started out with a crappy background and had to duck, run, scheme and scrabble to survive, and maybe croak in spite of it.   It's just what you find fun.




I recently created a Pirate type for a game, who had quick draw, finesse, and imp init, and high cha, and I am a terrible self avowed min/maxer and powergamer. I won't cheat, and I dont like to steal roles, but i like to OWN my role, and if my role is face, I'll be owning it, thanks.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 27, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I feel the need to assist a fellow poster who gave a great link.
> I read the rant a few years ago, and rereading it now makes me think it can be called a "Evergreen".
> 
> Maybe I should write a letter:
> ...




Thanks a lot Mustrum, Goblyn! I indeed believe this is an evergreen.


----------



## morrolan (Jun 27, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I'm with Barak on this one.
> 
> To me and I wasnt actually involved in the game, it'd come of like so much hot air to me. To me most gaming stores come off as those "You had to be there" things. I'm not interested in the long extrapolation of how you had to con the Seven Sisters of Saltmarsh into givng you a the contract to explore the forbidden cliffs of Redfern. Just tell me "yeah, my Bard made the ILL Bluff roll to get the thieves guild to give us the map we needed" and I get it.
> 
> No pretentious wankery needed. That's just me though.




Well, ultimately I agree.  Most of the time campaign stories are "ya had to be there".  In the context of the debate though, someone coming up and saying "I rolled a 20" is a lot less thrilling than someone telling me a story.  

Hell this whole topic amounts to wankery.  It's one of those things that people have their minds made up about.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 27, 2006)

1. There are no set definitions. For clarity, individuals need to define what they mean by those terms, because one person's powergamer is another's min/maxer or munchkin, etc.

2.  They are only problems when the style conflicts with those of the other players and/or DM and the the differences playstyles cannot be reconciled.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 27, 2006)

I personally see min/maxing, when done to an extreme, to be a) boring, and b) risky.  Boring in the sense that it may lead you to use one or two schticks for every encounter or situation.  Risky in the sense that you're putting all of your eggs in one basket.  You'll eventually come up against something that your "max factor" can't handle.  Of course if you're in a group where others have min/maxed in different directions, the group as a whole should do ok.  

But you know, DMs min/max all the time.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 27, 2006)

Doctor Shaft said:
			
		

> So long as the DM establishes the rules for "how the game shall be played," then there is no powergamer or munchkin.




Not from my experience.  The last DM gave the powergamer (as per the definition I gave earlier) at least three different warnings (not including those out of game), because the player's whining and offhand remarks about others taking the time to rp was ruining the enjoyment for everyone else.  After one particular session, the DM had enough and just stopped inviting the player.  The player promised to conform to the rest of the group and, after one or two session went right back to his old behavior.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 27, 2006)

morrolan said:
			
		

> Hell this whole topic amounts to wankery.  It's one of those things that people have their minds made up about.




True indeed. True indeed...


----------



## morrolan (Jun 27, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> If this go on, we might as well just start exchanging e-mails.




Are you hitting on me?  This isn't MySpace!     



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> But I can write..  4-5 truly different backgrounds for that fighter with the 18 STR with Power Attack.  Why?  Because the base is a trope, and it's -easier- to concentrate on roleplaying aspect that disregard (while still taking it into account) tropes.  The herbalist fighter?  Well ok, it might work once.  From a truly RP perspective, other builds would probably make more sense, actually.




I don't see a trope as being any easier, really.  If it is it's negligible.  Is coming up with base stats that distracting to deciding on character?  And what is a trope if not a stereotype?

As regards my herbalist, yes some other stats may suit him, but I was just pulling an example out of my butt.  My point is that the player had a story and personality worked out, and made his character to fit that mould, even if it was "inefficient".  That seems more sensible to me than coming up with a cool story and draping it over a preset munchkin build.

Take it a bit further.  Lets say my herbalist/fighter makes it to Metropolis and as reward for saving the village of Dunghill gets a choice of commission in the Imperial Army, or a scholarship to Hogwarts to study alchemy.  Following his childhood dream, he decides to study Alchemy, from whence he begins an illustrious career as a wizard.  From a min/max perspective he's farked. At the end of his career, he's got a basically useless fighter level which will stop him being the wizardly equal of the other lvl 20's.  But it reflects where he's been, helps tell his story.  

And really, if you maintain that stats do not affect the roleplaying aspect of the character, than I can generate as many backstories for my gimpy fighter as for your trope-y one.  

You're right D&D does favor specialization, if only in a game mechanics sense.  You are looking at it as a success/fail proposition. The pleasure in telling a story, if you enjoy that and not just the tactical game, is not dependent on success or failure.  And as a gm noone has me shackled to an arbitrary DC/CR system.  If I know my party is less than "optimal" I can adjust accordingly, or give non standard means to accomplish goals.

Edited for missing sentence!


----------



## Barak (Jun 27, 2006)

morrolan said:
			
		

> Are you hitting on me?  This isn't MySpace!



Darn it!  While I have a wife, I'm always looking for a bit on the side!  And that's not min/maxing, since it shortens my lifespan. 



> I don't see a trope as being any easier, really.  If it is it's negligible.  Is coming up with base stats that distracting to deciding on character?  And what is a trope if not a stereotype?
> 
> As regards my herbalist, yes some other stats may suit him, but I was just pulling an example out of my butt.  My point is that the player had a story and personality worked out, and made his character to fit that mould, even if it was "inefficient".  That seems more sensible to me than coming up with a cool story and draping it over a preset munchkin build.
> 
> ...




Granted.  And I've played such characters, too!  But that doesn't mean that a min/maxed character can't be just as full of story, which is sorta the whole point.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2006)

Min-maxing, in-depth role playing, munchkinning, community theater reject acting, heavy intrigue, railroading story, open plots, and beer-and-pretzels gaming are all different styles perfectly acceptible and equally legit as far as I'm concerned. The main trouble only starts when people emphasize one of these styles in contrast to the rest of their fellow players, other than that, they're all golden and fun ways to play.
I don't see much point in whizzing on someone else's play style just because I don't favor it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> (Gizmo puts pompous professor hat on)  Because, as my over-simplified post above explained:
> 
> Thespian DMs need to keep their NPC villains alive because it's how it works in the literature from which they adapt their stories.  Munchkin players are adept at killing said NPCs, and so it angers the DM.  If the munchkin's PC only had one leg, then he wouldn't be able to chase down the villain, and it would keep the DMs plot line alive.  So the munckinism is affecting the game and getting in the way of roleplaying (ie. letting the villain escape).
> 
> ...




Again, QFT.  Well said!

As far as min/maxing in 2e, well, all I can say is, I only ever saw two weapon fighters after the Complete Fighter hit the streets.  Why not?  Double your strength bonus, with penalties offset by a dex bonus and a couple of NWP's.  Nothing like being able to deal out 50 points of damage at 1st level.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 6, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Alright, before I begin the tirade, I'd like to clarify what I am understanding min/maxing to be:
> 
> minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another. 'Area' in this case means either combat, socializing, spellcasting; things like that.
> 
> Why the hate for it? Is it not good to be good at one thing and bad at another? To be good at everything is to be powergaming(right?) and to be bad at everything is to be a bard(fecetiousness here. replace 'bard' with 'useless')




Two specific situations that i think are generally seen as bad, rather than the general case you describe:

Taking a penalty in an area that never gets used in the game in order to get a benefit in an area that gets used all the time. The wizard who takes a limitation that she can't wear armor (as opposed to the default situation of it being a very bad idea, because of the penalties), in return for increasing her spellcasting. Thus, she gives up nothing (she wasn't going to wear armor anyway), and gains something.
Breaking role in order to maximize power. Most often demonstrated by dipping a level of a class whose flavor is anathema to the character's flavor. 

The first i only rarely worry about--if it's an issue, i make sure the character ends up in a situtaion where the penalty actually matters. The second is, to me, a bigger deal. But mostly the problem is the classes with too much flavor attached, combined with abilities that can only be gained through those classes. Classes that are purely functionalist, and/or more abilities as feats/skills, so that you don't have to take a class to take them, solves this problem--which seems to show up less in purely skill-based systems.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jul 6, 2006)

I am not really a min/maxer in the sense that I dont plan my character a lot.  I am happy as long as I am effective in the group.


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

I think that the difference between a min/maxer and a munchkin is the following:

A min/maxer chooses a greatsword for his weapon, after calculating it to yield greatest damage quotient.

A munchkin wants two greatswords hinged together, to use them scissor-style.

Min/maxers operate within rules. Munchkins slip anything they can under the DMs radar. Scissorswords, triple-wielding with juggling skill, etc..


----------

