Is min/maxing a flaw of a game, or the players?

[Aerozord]

This is abit of a philosophical question I was thinking over. So min/maxing the act of allocating points to maximize your advantage while limiting your weaknesses. Now most will agree its bad, it leads to stock stereotypical characters, balance issues, and can even break the game.

But who do you really blame for it?

On the one hand its logical for a player to try and be the best he can be, and hard to resist the temptation. If a game is properly balanced it should be hard to do this, or atleast to a game breaking degree

On the other, developers cannot be expected to make a flawless game. Not to mention the game might be "balanced" more from a story perspective then a mechanic one. With exploits never being an issue if the players show some restraint and just make a character.

So again I ask, who should you be more upset at. The player for twinking his character to hell and back, or the game for allowing it in the first place.

[Seil]

Dungeons and Dragons?

(I'm assuming it's a game that you created, a product of your endeavors: are you more than willing to assume its pacing, its plot, its formulae? (I'm using the right 'its' here, aren't I? I mean, 'its' is possessive, right?) So what you're hoping to acheive (I know the 'you're' thing is right, though, fellas. ...And ...um... female fellas.) is a confirmation of your first egotistical assumption.

My idea is that - and please, my initial joking aside - that you have to look from a different perspective. Imagine yourself as a player of said game, and how said player - not you, yourself (Whoo! Commas!) would react and/or enjoy such a game and/or campaign.

The idea of role playing, in Dungeons and Dragons, or, maybe, D&D as it is so amorously called, is to role play. To assume the different point of view, or at least a character that differs from your persona, and to open your mind to something new, something unfamiliar, something that kills those stupid bloody rats in the tavern basement for their first quest because everyone is an unimaginative hack.

Also, Mr. Zord: why not ask your players? Obviously you turn to us for answers because either you're a player, or you're asking about your players, either of which are viable options to ask your fellows... or female fellows as to how they feel about the situation. You don't even have to ask directly here! You could lead into it with a conversation about the weather, or their recent holiday of their religious denomination or their recent prostate exam!

But really, I don't have any idea of what you're talking about, sweetie: please be more direct and succinct and informative and all those words English professors love to use in grading papers.

(I used 'and' way too much in that last sentence. I know, I'm sorry.)

[Menarker]

I'd like to mention that under the circumstances of single player, min-maxing is just another valid method of enjoying the game, if the player gets their jollies in that way. Some of us just prefer to rush through the game with the min-maxed powers of demigods. :3

Then again, everyone on this side of NPF (especially the RP forum) knows that I am a Min-Maxer, so beware that I might have a bit of bias there.

The line however becomes blurred a bit when dealing with multiplayer games like DnD and the like. Of course, it generally varies on who you are playing with and if the game's gameplay is forgiving to failures. Games like DnD pretty much encourage Min-maxing because the game is meant to play in groups, with people playing specific roles, and the failure of a specific character who can't do their job well enough means permanent (or nigh permanent) character loss upon death. Also the success of other players can often rides on the capabilities of players other than themselves, hence the possible approval of min-maxing especially if the setting is riddled with tough traps or dungeons.
Other games like MMORPGs or trading card games generally tends to be less so in that regards, and the more individualistic the playing style, the less accepted Min-Maxing tends to be because the only players who might feasibly be on the same level as such a character is another min-maxer, sometimes to the point that even someone who is technically several tiers higher in equipments or stats is technically roughly equal in strength in practice.

To be honest, what would really upset me is if min-maxing is the only reliable way of winning a game without magnificent stroke of luck or excessive memory of game guides. As long as playing the game the "normal" way can reliably produce good results without excessive grinding or needing to follow exact specific steps to ensure success, then I'm more willing to allow for Min-Maxers if the player so choose to play in that fashion (although this normally doesn't work well for games with PvP).

[TDK]

The players.

You blame the players for not playing in the spirit of the game, and trying to break it instead.

[Aerozord]

stuff in pink

Just to clarify a few things, this is not asking for any help in the matter. I know full well that if someone is the type to min/max the only way to get them to not do it is to make it impossible, which they often resent and thus dont play anyways. Plus we have a thread for help about games.

For those curious me and some guys were talking about Exalted characters when the topic came up. Eventually leading to the question, was it the games fault for making it possible, or the players fault for doing it?

Really I'm not sure. I kind of blame both. Game should be balanced so dumping all your points into one skill isn't inherently better as another (which admittedly is hard when most are combat focused) but as a role player it does grate me that people care more about efficiently using their points then allocating them according to what fits the character.

I just wanted to know what others thought about the matter

[Seil]

The game can never be right. Or, rather, the games limitations are such that players are always able to find loopholes, or at least work-arounds.

Such as it always shall be.

Please forgive how... (I wanna say 'douche-y') that sentence sounded, but it's true. The players will always try to beat the system, and, to be honest, (Jagos) the system isn't as strong as it could be.

[Arhra]

Its fine unless its hurting peoples' enjoyment of the game.

The probably archetypal case is when you have one character who is so much more powerful than the others that you need to throw things at him which would paint the room with the other players' blood. Makes it a bit rough on the GM to come up with a game that keeps everyone engaged.

[Thadius]

If the game didn't want you to break it, it wouldn't be handing you any sort of weapon with which you could do such a thing.

Least, that's how I see it. If you didn't want me to use the artifact of unspeakable evil to seal a pact with an elder demon and gain horrific powers over the minds of men, then you shouldn't have given me the artifact in the first place!

[Seil]

The demon, of course, is Seil. Seil is always the answer. And the demon.

.

[Amake]

I don't know how useful it might be to assign blame, but balancing a game perfectly is a lot of work for a game developer if they want to make a game with any degree of complexity, and they could probably use that time to do something more interesting, like writing new games or new modules. Whereas the player abusing the system - obeying the letter of the law while ignoring its meaning, as it were - is probably doing something wrong if by doing so they're spoiling everyone else's fun. As I like to tell pirates in Eve Online, if you choose to be an asshole, just because the game allows it doesn't make you a nice person for being an asshole; you're still an asshole.

[Archbio]

If we're talking roleplaying games in the mold of ye olde Dungeons and Dragons, I think it can mostly be a flaw of the gamemaster.

If in their adventures the player with 3 Charisma never gets shunned as they are allowed to exist in a social vacuum without any ill-effects, there's something pretty weak about how the NPCs are being portrayed, which is the gamemaster's job. Sometimes it could just be a matter of applying the integrality of the rules (like, taking Charisma as an example again, those NPC reaction tables that I mostly recall as having been considered optional.)

A game in which not all stats are equally encompassed by cold hard mechanics isn't automatically an unbalanced game, it's just a game made to accomodate more roleplay.

There's an obvious flipside there of the players having the flaw of having to be dragged ass backwards into portraying how the stats affect the personality of their characters, but the gamemaster should really keep unrepentant gamebreakers out of that kind of game altogether.

But then, I suppose some stats can just be the right combination of being mechanically useless and hard to define in roleplay terms. That'd be a real balance problem.

[Krylo]

I'd mostly say Arch has it on the head, though with Exalted there are definitely serious issues that go beyond simple GM compensation and right down to 'you have to alter the core mechanics in serious ways to make putting any physical stat points into anything but dexterity not retarded.' Or 'Sorcery is made out to be magnificently powerful in the lore of the game but is basically terrible in practice.' This makes it the Dev's fault as well. As it does whenever GM compensation involves gutting and house ruling the hell out of the core.

I wouldn't ever really blame the players, though. Twinks are pretty irritating, but they're usually easily handled by a decent GM. Requiring in character justification for their stats is a good start. Granted, in exalted it's pretty easy to justify an invincible sword princess, but at that point it's just a matter of presenting challenges that can't be sworded to death. Same goes for any other ridiculous builds. Someone wants to bring a warstrider? Ride their ass about that upkeep, and drop the wyld hunt on them every time they get anywhere near civilization with it, etc.

[Loyal]

The flaw lies with the GM, for approving the character in the first place and allowing it to exist.

[Azisien]

The players, obviously. You can take a power gamer to any game under the sun and they'll power game. It's just what they like to do.

In some circumstances that method of play is incompatible with others (other PCs, DMs, etc), but sometimes they thrive as well. From my DM point of view, I would just give the power gamer increased challenges to either sate his lust for glory, or break his spirit.

[Aerozord]

Its fine unless its hurting peoples' enjoyment of the game.

The probably archetypal case is when you have one character who is so much more powerful than the others that you need to throw things at him which would paint the room with the other players' blood. Makes it a bit rough on the GM to come up with a game that keeps everyone engaged.
this is the main issue I have, its basically impossible to balance challenges when the DV and attack pools of one character is twice that of the second highest. But there is another issue

I wouldn't ever really blame the players, though. Twinks are pretty irritating, but they're usually easily handled by a decent GM. Requiring in character justification for their stats is a good start. Granted, in exalted it's pretty easy to justify an invincible sword princess, but at that point it's just a matter of presenting challenges that can't be sworded to death. Same goes for any other ridiculous builds. Someone wants to bring a warstrider? Ride their ass about that upkeep, and drop the wyld hunt on them every time they get anywhere near civilization with it, etc.

which is this. Yes thats a good way to punish them, in fact its often what happens because I normally toss various threats at the players. Like I had an abyssal that attacked with pure social attacks. However this is the opposite of the above. Min/maxed characters have giant gaping holes that can be exploited and its very hard to not kill them. In my RL game I used to run I had one player that always twinked a character, and he ended up dying or completely useless every few sessions. He was very relaxed about it, not like he quit or got upset that I made him pay for neglecting entire aspects of the game, but he also never changed and made more well rounded characters

[Fifthfiend]

or the game for allowing it in the first place.

Literally no system exists that won't be gamed by someone who perceives a benefit to be gained by doing so.

If they can't figure out how to prevent it in armies and corporations they sure as fuck aren't going to stop it happening in Goblins and Dragonhammers.

EDIT: crafts

EDIT:

I wouldn't ever really blame the players, though. Twinks are pretty irritating, but they're usually easily handled by a decent GM.

Being able to handle them doesn't exactly exclude blaming them for the shit that causes you to need to handle them.

Like sure you could spend a whole lot of your game punishing your player for his decision to play a shitty imbalanced totally unrealistic character, but man I'm just saying, as someone with zero experience mastering dungeons, it sure seems like it might be fun for a lot of people to like... not have to do any of that shit, and instead, get on with just like playing their game.

[Fifthfiend]

Like I'm not going to say there isn't a certain vicious pleasure to be derived from deviously punishing people for their determined stupidity but I'd still generally call it a distant second to the pleasure of not having to punish anybody because nobody's being stupid.

[Krylo]

I don't know if I'd really call it stupid, either, in a lot of cases (like, okay, the warstrider would be pretty stupid, as is taking tons of flaws usually), but rather that this is just how a lot of people get their primary enjoyment out of a game. And it should only ever really cause balancing issues in cases where the game isn't very diverse either because of the developers making the mechanics focus only on one narrow area (like combat) or because the other players were all trying to do the same thing but weren't as good at it OR because the GM just sees no need to put more than one kind of challenge in a game.

I also don't really consider it punishing them, in most cases, to present situations they can't deal with--so long as you inform them that this will be the case ahead of time. That is to say I don't really see any problem if the guy who is supposed to be the super juggernaut warrior who also has social problems crushes all physical opponents with the other players not doing much, so long as one of the other players is a social guru who gets to talk the group out of certain death at the hands of a despot king, and/or another is focused more on studying ancient cultures and finds the location of an ancient weapon for the party as well as helping them to navigate the traps in the ruins it is in, etc.

If everyone focused entirely on combat (or anything else) to the exclusion of all else, and/or the system/specific game only relies on that, then, yeah it's a problem and maybe you need to talk to your players and see whether they'd all like to take lessons from Mr./Mrs. Twinklytoes to be on equal footing, or if they'd just rather the power level be ratcheted back a little in which case that player has to control themselves and make something reasonable (or maybe, if so much of their enjoyment comes from making the system their bitch, see how good they can be with a set of pre-determined weaknesses they've chosen).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If the player wants to minmax and the the other player/GM wants to like roleplay and shit you should just find different groups. Cause you want different thigs out of the game.
THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU FROM A FOREST

[TDK]

I disagree that it is a case of enjoying different things out of the game, and suggest instead that the minmaxers are doing it wrong. It is a roleplaying game. Not roleplaying, while it can be enjoyable, is not an equally valid way to play the game. It is an incorrect one.

[Loyal]

I disagree that it is a case of enjoying different things out of the game, and suggest instead that the minmaxers are doing it wrong. It is a roleplaying game. Not roleplaying, while it can be enjoyable, is not an equally valid way to play the game. It is an incorrect one.

I bet you're the kinda guy who scoffs at anyone coming up with creative uses for the Free Parking space, huh.

[TDK]

Adding a use for the free parking space would be adding something to the game, not subtracting from it.

[Nikose Tyris]

He is.

[Marc v4.0]

Adding a use for the free parking space would be adding something to the game, not subtracting from it.

Only relevant if min/maxing and Roleplaying were 100% mutually exclusive.

[TDK]

I'd be inclined to believe that if I had ever seen anyone do, or have an interest, in both at the same time. It doesn't seem like a stretch to completely disassociate the two, since roleplaying well means basing character decisions (including stat, class, etc choices) on what the character would do, whereas minmaxing means making character decisions (in and out of game) on what is mechanically the best and makes for the most powerful character. So unless the character has complete knowledge of the gameworld so he knows what is best to choose/practice, and just happens to have all of the traits that minimize his disadvantages and maximize his advantages, the two don't mesh.

One of the best examples you can make of a great roleplayer in a game is someone who makes a choice that places his character at a disadvantage, but does so without hesitation because it is what his character would do. To have a minmaxed character and still roleplay well, your character would have to, without fail, only be interested in that which would make him most powerful and work out the best for him. Ignoring the other problems with that, you would almost certainly have to use out of character knowledge for your character to do what would make him the most powerful in any given situation.


Its also, in my opinion, much more interesting to play a character who isn't all-powerful, but then I enjoy roleplaying.

[Azisien]

Nah, if it was a pure roleplaying game there wouldn't need to be mechanics. You could roleplay literally every aspect of the game (and indeed, some do).

[Loyal]

Its also, in my opinion, much more interesting to play a character who isn't all-powerful, but then I enjoy roleplaying.

So between this and the prior posts, your position is that anyone whose definition of fun doesn't match yours is wrong.

Nice to know.

[TDK]

I never said I didn't enjoy minmaxing. It just isn't roleplaying (I personally enjoy roleplaying more). It is perfectly fun and acceptable to play the game incorrectly, but it is still not correct.

Furthermore, minmaxing is an all or nothing thing in a game. It takes away enjoyment from other players if one player minmaxes and the rest don't, so either everyone has to minmax or no one does. In my experience, a large portion of players do not want to minmax, so it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that anyone minmaxing takes away from the enjoyment of the game, since tabletop roleplaying games, by and large, are group activities.

[Marc v4.0]

It's personal pref, except it's the only way to play right, but that's just my opinion but anyone who doesn't agree is doing it incorrectly.

Perfect sense, please tell us more http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4549162/emot-allears.gif

[TDK]

I'm sorry if you are confused by the correct way to play roleplaying games being roleplaying.

The game was designed to be played a certain way. You can enjoy another way all you want (in fact, I encourage it), but its still incorrect within the context of the game. You're perfectly justified in saying "I don't care if its incorrect to play this way, I enjoy it more". I do it all the time.

[Marc v4.0]

Oh, Ok, So you -do- play a pure RP, no-mechanics game that relies solely on how you RP to determine such silly mechanical details that DnD and others seem to be so focused over.

My apologies, serah~

[TDK]

Any choice you make for a character in a game with "silly mechanical details" such as dnd should be based upon what makes sense for your character. For instance, if you are playing a thin, dexterous fighter, it would still benefit you to have a high strength, but it might not make sense for the character.

So placing your high score somewhere besides your strength stat would place you at a relative disadvantage, but it would be the correct thing to do because it would be good roleplaying.

[Loyal]

"You're doing it wrong. I don't think there's anything wrooong with that mind you, I just want you to know how wrong you are.

P.S. wroooooooooong
P.P.S. totally not passing judgment here."

[Marc v4.0]

Any choice you make for a character in a game with "silly mechanical details" such as dnd should be based upon what makes sense for your character. For instance, if you are playing a thin, dexterous fighter, it would still benefit you to have a high strength, but it might not make sense for the character.

So placing your high score somewhere besides your strength stat would place you at a relative disadvantage, but it would be the correct thing to do because it would be good roleplaying.

HAHAHAHAHA

That isn't min/maxing at all oh my lord.

[Nikose Tyris]

Pete doesn't actually know what MinMaxing is. Pete actually minmaxes all the time.


Post that Tibbit you were playin', Pete.

[Azisien]

I'm sorry if you are confused by the correct way to play roleplaying games being roleplaying.

The game was designed to be played a certain way. You can enjoy another way all you want (in fact, I encourage it), but its still incorrect within the context of the game. You're perfectly justified in saying "I don't care if its incorrect to play this way, I enjoy it more". I do it all the time.

The "designed to be played a certain way" passage is true but game designers and book authors are pretty upfront about that "way" being multiple ways, not one specific way.

Like, it's pretty simple concept here. If hardcore playing a ROLE was the only correct purpose of the game, rule books wouldn't be rule books. They would be, like...hook books. Books that are just filled with different adventures, or ideas for adventures, to aid in the GM in a roleplay-only affair.

Except that's not what the games are strictly about and I am baffled TDK doesn't seem to get that.

Shit, I could open the Pathfinder book and pretty sure they have a whole chapter discussing different types of players, what they tend to like, how they like to play, and how GMs should handle it. It's canon shit. Game designers design these games because many have done it for decades and know how people play games. It isn't just folks that show up dressed as their characters.

[TDK]

Pete doesn't actually know what MinMaxing is. Pete actually minmaxes all the time.


Post that Tibbit you were playin', Pete.


I never claimed not to. Like I said, I play games incorrectly all the time. I just prefer to roleplay instead, especially since being introduced to 2e.

HAHAHAHAHA

That isn't min/maxing at all oh my lord.

No, it is not. It is the opposite of minmaxing.



The "designed to be played a certain way" passage is true but game designers and book authors are pretty upfront about that "way" being multiple ways, not one specific way.

Like, it's pretty simple concept here. If hardcore playing a ROLE was the only correct purpose of the game, rule books wouldn't be rule books. They would be, like...hook books. Books that are just filled with different adventures, or ideas for adventures, to aid in the GM in a roleplay-only affair.

Except that's not what the games are strictly about and I am baffled TDK doesn't seem to get that.

Shit, I could open the Pathfinder book and pretty sure they have a whole chapter discussing different types of players, what they tend to like, how they like to play, and how GMs should handle it. It's canon shit. Game designers design these games because many have done it for decades and know how people play games. It isn't just folks that show up dressed as their characters.


Having mechanical rules and different options for said rules means roleplaying is not the sole purpose of the game? I don't follow.

Roleplaying IS the sole purpose of dnd (and all roleplaying games). You play the game to play a role and be a part of a story. The mechanics exist to add elements of randomness and define variables within the game, to have specific rules for how things operate, and to an extent take some responsibility off of the dm. The mechanics are the difference between a roleplaying game and an interactive story.

[Marc v4.0]

For instance, if you are playing a thin, dexterous fighter, it would still benefit you to have a high strength, but it might not make sense for the character.

That is NOT what min/maxing is about

So placing your high score somewhere besides your strength stat would place you at a relative disadvantage, but it would be the correct thing to do because it would be good roleplaying.

That is NOT good roleplaying.

Nor is it giving you a disadvanatge. As a Dex-based character, you wouldn't have any need for Strength because your skills and abilities wouldn't call on Strength for anything, so you would be Disadvantaging yourself to actually put the points in Strength instead of spending that point in something that makes sense.

[TDK]

It is good roleplaying if your character concept would not indicate your character being strong, and makes them out to be lacking in muscle, etc. ie, thin and dexterous.


And there is no way to completely remove strength from melee combat in dnd. No fighter (No dnd character at all, in fact) would NOT be at a disadvantage having a low strength score. A low score in anything is a disadvantage.

[Azisien]

Having mechanical rules and different options for said rules means roleplaying is not the sole purpose of the game? I don't follow.

It should be easy to follow. Those different options include playing the game in different ways. A D&D group could consist of some PCs that just create characters, a different one every session, and fight monsters the DM makes with no context at all. The rules fully support this, and there's no line in the manuals that say "Okay guys, you better take part in a story or you're not playing this game!"

Part of the magic of PnP RPGs is that they are sitting there ready to be moulded. Basically, the term incorrect is the only problem with your stance to me. It's not incorrect to mould the game to what a group of players wants. Every RPG book I've ever read has passages that encourage it. By your stance, house rules would be incorrect, which is a hilarious idea. Because the canon rules that state this SOLE DIVINE PURPOSE OF ROLEPLAYING encourage house rules.

You've taken a hard line where you think roleplaying is the ONE AND ONLY purpose of say, D&D. I'd say it's a primary and often most primary one, yes. But that doesn't exclude other purposes at all.

Your own earlier anecdote is even invalid because you said you observe that most players of these games are there to roleplay, not to power-game. I've DMed entire groups that just want to power-game, and roleplay is given a passenger seat. This is why a lot of the answers to the OP were "it's the GM's fault." Because a GM there to roleplay hardcore and players wanting to power-game will just not work. A GM must adapt to his group and make things compatible, or find another group.

[Marc v4.0]

And there is no way to completely remove strength from melee combat in dnd.

Tell that to a Swordmage.

Or to a Ranger who takes the feat to check Dex instead of Str in melee rolls.

Or to anyone who takes that Feat, actually, since it is a baseline Feat that anyone can take and even a casual glance over of good melee feats would have that listed as one to compliment races with low STR or classes that don't rely on STR but still use Melee.


EDIT: Basically, at this point I am close to calling complete BS on you ever having played a PnP RPG, regardless of the assurance from others that you actually have played before.

[Loyal]

[...]The mechanics exist to add elements of randomness and define variables within the game, to have specific rules for how things operate, and to an extent take some responsibility off of the dm. The mechanics are the difference between a roleplaying game and an interactive story.This sentiment brought to you by the guy espousing an interactive story in which no player ever performs an action, takes a skill, or gains a stat point inconsistent with what their character would naturally develop.

[Aerozord]

Loyal, I get that you disagree with TDK, but doing nothing but sarcastically quoting him really doesn't make a good counter argument.

[Nikose Tyris]

Loyal, I get that you disagree with TDK, but doing nothing but sarcastically quoting him really doesn't make a good counter argument.

As opposed to offhandledly saying every opposing viewpoint is retarded.

-wait, sorry, no, "This discussion" is retarded.

[Aldurin]

Min/maxing is an inherent part of the player, who will find what they're good at and do their best to be better at it, while making sure that their "downsides" are either minor issues or covered by other players (if present). In gaming it's one of those things where you'll either have an indestructible god of destruction in one category, or be the apocalypse equivalent of a jack-of-all-trades. Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is a good example of the benefits of min-maxing, in terms of defense. The good system to have with a unit is to either be able to dodge everything or resist the fuck out of it, and a moderate middle ground leaves you with a very ineffective unit that won't last long. Note that this isn't the same as having both sides of the defense equation maxed out (i.e. Harr, Jill and, once again, Harr), which is also brings the point that any balanced character has to be overpowered in order to be effective, since being mildly passable at everything won't get you as far as being awesome at a specific set of tasks/situations.

[Loyal]

Loyal, I get that you disagree with TDK, but doing nothing but sarcastically quoting him really doesn't make a good counter argument.The entirety of my argument is that his argument is preposterous even on a fundamental level. The "Sarcastic quoting," as you've put it, is in this case a tool employed to highlight how his position does a fantastic job defeating itself even without being addressed on its own merits. To that effect I should imagine it's quite sufficient as a counterargument.

[Archbio]

Marc is wrong in that the mindset of min/maxing is anathema to roleplaying.

But Azisien is correct in that actual roleplay isn't a prerequisite to playing a RPG.

Therefore, min/maxing in a RPG isn't necessarily wrong.

[rpgdemon]

I think, generally, it's the player's own imperative whether or not they want to min/max, and if it only impacts their enjoyment, they can do whatever they want. If the game allows them to, and it's something they like, great! If it does, but they don't want to, they can play it how it's meant to be played.

So, I think the game shouldn't be min/maxed, but if it's single player, go for it. If it's DnD, definitely don't. Being the one powergamer in a campaign ruins it for everyone. Either everyone else is useless because the campaign has to be tuned to the powergamer, or the campaign is crazy easy (And everyone is still useless), because the powergamer has to go, "Look at me being awesome!", and one shots everything. In a multiplayer/team environment, one player shouldn't be better than everyone else, they're not beating the DM, they're just beating up their own party.

[Marc v4.0]

Min/maxing has nothing to do with playing a genetically engineered/perfect character. Nor is it anathema to Roleplaying.

A person who sets a character to have poor social and mental attributes in order to push or enhance their physical and combat related abilities is MIN/MAXING.

Nothing about that is incompatible with Roleplaying the character at all.

If they are trying to roleplay a suave, smooth-talker while they are built like a toolshed and have the face of a shriveled mushroom that is a problem with the player and not the character they made.

If they build a fuck-ugly dumb as shit Meat Shack Melee Beast and then Role Play a Fuck-Ugly Dumb as shit Meat Shack Melee beast...then where is the problem?

Edit: Or a Physically deficiet Super-Wizard. WHATEVER Your Flavo(u)r May Be.

And yes, in a good system a person trying to Min/max is going to have to make sacrifices in order to get what they want out of their Specialization.

It is also worth noting that we all do it to one degree or another in any game where it can be done as part of the supported mechanics, most without thinking about it as such.

[Archbio]

If they build a fuck-ugly dumb as shit Meat Shack Melee Beast and then Role Play a Fuck-Ugly Dumb as shit Meat Shack Melee beast...then where is the problem?

The problem isn't the result in that one specific character, but it's the mindset and the effect overall on the game (and subsequent games) of that mindset.

Sure, you can roleplay that type of character, even if the areas penalized by the priorities chosen are those that have to do with social interaction and conversational skills and interests, making roleplay more... optional. Coincidentally. However, what if every strenght oriented character that player makes is just like that?

What if every strenght oriented character every player make is just like that? What if the party is composed of three such mute, social pariah brutes and two wheelchair bound superbrainy wizards?

Like Aerozord said, it leads to "stock stereotypical characters."

That's a problem, roleplay-wise.

Edit: And yes, there a lesser degrees of doing "min-maxing" that are more common and less problematic.

[Sithdarth]

Like Aerozord said, it leads to "stock stereotypical characters."

That's a problem, roleplay-wise.

That is not a problem with min/maxing. That is a problem inherent with playing with uncreative morons who wouldn't now a good backstory if you shoved it down their throats. Those same uncreative morons would still be playing stock stereotypical characters regardless of their desire to min/max because they are uncreative morons. Someone that is decent at min/maxing derives fun not only from making strong characters but making them in unique and original ways. Perhaps using a class or a game mechanic that everyone thinks sucks and attempting to make it functional. If you are playing with people who don't do this then your problem is that you're playing with uncreative morons not min/maxing.

[Archbio]

It's a problem of uncreative morons compounded by (and, I think, satistically linked to) min/maxing.

Look, if in your entire party you somehow have only stats that are at 3 or 18, no matter how creative are the individual backstories are to justify this, and how unique and original the dispositions of the 3s and 18s are, then I don't think that what you have is a group really fit for roleplay.

Unless it's some kind of circus freak troupe.

But I get what you're saying. Extremely high or low stats do help create a striking characterization, and there's a question of degree there, too.

[POS Industries]

Unless it's some kind of circus freak troupe.
When I read this, I can't help but be reminded of the Final Fantasy RP we did on the forums a while back.

[Sithdarth]

It's a problem of uncreative morons compounded by min/maxing.

Look, if in your entire party you somehow have only stats that are at 3 or 18, no matter how creative are the individual backstories are to justify this, and how unique and original the dispositions of the 3s and 18s are, then I don't think that what you have is a group really fit for roleplay.

Unless it's some kind of circus freak troupe.

For starters, you're in a world of magic and extremes. Your characters are categorically supposed to be freaks of nature in some way shape or form. That is to say they are blessed by destiny and supposed to be set apart from everyone else in the world. Being stupid as a box of rocks (int 3) is a perfectly valid way to do that. Now if everyone in the party has the same stat set to 3 then that isn't min/maxing that is being complete and utter morons. Which leads me back to my original point.

But seriously you don't think a group consisting of a street-smart agile rouge whose actually quite physically weak, a burly tank of a man that isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, a wizard who while quite powerful in wizardry looks like the bottom of a shoe, and a cleric that is constantly tripping over himself but is exceedingly wise and charismatic despite that can be roleplayed well? Because man right there I see some awesome potential. The tank can totally play straight man to the rouge. The rouge probably going to just constantly tease the whole party in fact. The wizard and cleric should be able to retort decently well. The cleric should be the face of the group and there should be some fun stuff there in terms of playing a low dex not to mention trying to convince the wizard to go hide somewhere so he doesn't scare some small children.

The point being there is plenty of roleplay and story potential there you just need people that aren't uncreative morons to find and exploit it. So once again the problem is with the people you are playing with being idiots not with the style of play.

[Archbio]

Everything can be roleplayed, I get that. Like, you can make wine in prison with ketchup and a radiator. Ketchup had potential.

Extreme stats are extreme for a reason. A character with a INT of 3 in D&D isn't just not "the sharpest tool in the shed." It's brain damaged or animalistic. So while I think characters should be "set apart" and that extreme stats make for striking characterization, but entire parties composed of literal freaks brought together for no freak-related reason makes freakishness... normal. Expected. Especially if this always how the mechanics of the game are being operated.

So while combining min/maxing to a certain degree with roleplaying opportunities is a thing that exists, there is diminishing returns when too common, so a whole party of freaks is problably stronger on the "uncreative" or badly gamemastered side of things.

[Sithdarth]

Well to be blunt if you're min/maxing and can't find a way not to have a stat set to 3 then you're doing it wrong. Which of course goes back to the uncreative moron point I made originally. There really should be an excuse for having a weakness that glaring and a character that tries it needs to be justified to the DM. With characters like that it is 100% the DM's responsibility to be all "No you can't do that because you're an idiot and there is no good justification for it."

[Archbio]

Well to be blunt if you're min/maxing and can't find a way not to have a stat set to 3 then you're doing it wrong. Which of course goes back to the uncreative moron point I made originally.

You said having a stat of 3 was a valid way to set a character apart in roleplay. And I presumed you meant that you could also "min/max" correctly and do that.

Personally I have nothing against the occasional minimal stat.

[Sithdarth]

You said having a stat of 3 was a valid way to set a character apart in roleplay. And I presumed you meant that you could also "min/max" correctly and do that.

You assumed incorrectly as the point has already been made it is possible to roleplay without min/maxing and to min/max without roleplaying. There is no direct causal connection between the two things. Though there is the possibility of overlap.

Although I may have been a little to absolute. There are probably min/maxing situations where having a 3 does make for an overall stronger character but such situations are very rare and thus it should be very unlikely to have a group of such freaks. It should be has hard for a player to get his stats down to 3 as it is for a player to get them up to 18. It is the DM's job to make sure this is so. Either through rolling, stat tables, or point buy systems with diminishing returns, all of which are allowed for in the rules (at least for 3.5 DnD). One way or another getting stats that low and that high should require some form of serious sacrifice on the part of the player which makes them less desirable for min/maxing.

Because it bears repeating; a group of PCs with a 3s in some stats is the fault of the DM for being an idiot and letting his idiot players do what comes naturally.

Edit: As an example, I once played a GURPS game as a fighter that was well quite stupid. Not sure exactly how stupid stat wise anymore. His solution to every locked object was to hit it until it broke open. At one point we accidentally killed this priest/cult leader that was escorting us through this church like fortress. (Don't ask it involved a critical miss and a very interesting chain of events.) Not long after we were accosted by guards dead priest still in tow. So I grabbed the nearest party member and stuck him behind the priest and instructed him to basically do the weekend at Bernie's thing with the corpse. Now there is no way this course of action should have worked. It was so utterly moronic no one in the party should have gone along with it. Hilariously the guards where somewhat far away and the GM and string of really horrible rolls. So by some miracle we managed to fool the guards with the world's stupidest plan ever. Now while examples don't prove a positive they do disprove a negative. In particular this one disproves that you can't min/max and roleplay well/have fun at the same time.

[Arhra]

View Post
Unless it's some kind of circus freak troupe.When I read this, I can't help but be reminded of the Final Fantasy RP we did on the forums a while back.
To be fair, it WAS a Final Fantasy RP.

Also, if you're min/maxing, why do you have a 3, unless that 3 is relatively low-cost as far as drawbacks go?

[Archbio]

Well, the 3 thing was an extreme example... but yes, basically what I was thinking of when I said 3s was of dropping stats that have less (combat mechanic oriented) drawbacks in a game like D&D to the benefit of stats which are essential to combat mechanics.

[Red Mage Black]

I'm not sure if this point has been discussed YET, but lets step away from ability scores for a moment. Now, would min-maxing apply to JUST those or can I also assume it applies to things added from core/splat books? Backgrounds, Feats, Flaws and Advantages(or the equivalent)? From what I've seen, the only discussion has been on Ability Scores. Then again, I've only been skimming over pages. I was just curious, because I could swear a bard I made for one of Nik's games was pretty set charisma-wise. As in, all Cha based skills were totaled at 23, which not only included the +8 from the ability score and +10 from ranks, but a load of stuff I thought would help that along.

[Azisien]

I must admit the ability score talk is fun to read for me if only because our group tends to roll our ability scores, and like all things d6, we tend not to get the Yahtzee's needed for this line of conversation.