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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

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.

Originally Posted by Marc v4.0

HAHAHAHAHA

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

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

Originally Posted by Azisien

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]

Originally Posted by TDK

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

Originally Posted by TDK

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]

Originally Posted by TDK

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.