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]

Originally Posted by Seil

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.