PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Terms: Is "Min-Maxing" Bad?



Shazzbaa
2007-01-31, 03:51 PM
So, I didn't really want to do a poll because I mostly want to know how people are interpreting this phrase.

I'd always assumed it meant having an extreme strength with a glaring weakness. Sacrificing something to an almost crippling level in order to pump whatever strength you have that much higher. And I...well... sort of like the idea of this.

However, when I hear the phrase used on these boards, it seems to be most frequently used as an adjective to modify the word "munchkin."

Have I misinterpreted "Min-maxing?" When you hear or use the phrase, is it used pejoratively? Does it just have a negative connotation because munchkins tend to do it, or is it actually a shameful practise?

I know everyone's probably got their own definition, but I was curious how the majority is using it.

MightyMuenster
2007-01-31, 04:01 PM
I'm fine with min-maxing, honestly. It makes for a more interesting roleplaying session when characters have a massive strength and a glaring weakness. I'm going to start a game soon where our Wizard has about a 17 Intelligence but a Dexterity of around 8 (in point buy, mind you). He's brilliant but has lots of coordination issues and is basically a clumsy oaf. While I don't require it, I always try to get a player to get one "min"ed stat for the purpose of roleplaying a weakness.

It's only bad when a person is doing it for the sake of crunching numbers. When you have the Half Orc that realizes that, by lowering his Charisma score a few points, he'll be able to push his Strength up to 18 (thus having an overall 20), is when the stigma around min-maxing becomes apparent. Even then, it's not a terrible concept; this is, afterall, a game where the actions are decided purely by numbers.

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-31, 04:01 PM
I think it comes from a lot of computer RPGs and older versions of dnd when you had to have certain stats to even qualify for a class. You could lower stats to very low levels to pump stats you wanted more. It mostly has a negative connotation but In all reality I don't have a problem with it. It makes sense you would want to have stats that reflect your "job" in the fantasy world. The books that have classes even include the best stats to boost. Unfortunately it leads to weaker role playing sometimes because people let their stats determine their whole personality. Just because your fighter is dumb doesn't mean he can't have flashes of insight or remember obscure facts because he takes the time to write down copious amounts of notes about every aspect of their adventure.

Fhaolan
2007-01-31, 04:07 PM
Min-Max, to me, means you've done everything you can to boost certain abilities, while sacrificing others. However, you've found things to sacrifice that has no net effect on the character. In other words, it's not really a sacrifice at all, just a free boost. However, everything is by the rules.

Munchkin is much like a min-maxer, but is deliberately ignoring the effects of the sacrifice, or ignoring the rules altogether.

Gorbad the Limb Rippa
2007-01-31, 04:08 PM
My role plying group tends to min max because most of the time it adds character, like a rouge with a low wisdom thats overly curious,that sort of stuff.But it is often abused by players when they dont role play their disadvantages tend to be overly powerful.
Hope that helps

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-31, 04:10 PM
The way I think of it, it's finding a way to minimize the disadvantages while maximizing the advantages. Usually this does NOT mean putting all your points in one ability, while leaving you weak in another area - unless that weakness won't matter for some reason. For instance a dex-based sneak-attacker can probably afford to dump STR because he's going to take Weapon Finesse for his to-hit, and sneak attack is providing the damage. That's min-maxing.

And, yes, a lot of folk do use it pejoratively. Personally I think it's pretty neutral. And it's completely unrelated to how much you care about RP.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-31, 04:17 PM
As Spider Brigade said, but also as follows: min-maxing often is misused to refer to people who are breaking the game by exploiting specific loopholes in the system to minimize their losses while increasing (often to vastly overblown proportions) their own net potential.

Like Divine Metamagic: good concept, but easily abused and quite possibly what makes Clericzilla.

Telonius
2007-01-31, 04:19 PM
It's potentially problematic. If the min-maxed character starts outshining the others too much, or if they start blowing through encounters by pumping up their strengths too much, it can make things not as fun. But this doesn't necessarily always happen with a min-maxed character. The rest of the group might be min-maxed as well, or the DM might plan for this and take steps to make things more difficult. So, potentially problematic, but not utter evil.

Ramza00
2007-01-31, 04:21 PM
No: On its face no.

Yes: When you have min-max to the point where you have disbalanced the game so its no longer fun for you, your fellow players, or the DM.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-31, 04:25 PM
Fax, I don't know if I would count that as a "misuse" of the term; what you describe is pretty clearly a case of minmaxing. It's just being used for evil. The problem is that some people lump all minmaxing together into the "evil" category.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-31, 04:37 PM
Fax, I don't know if I would count that as a "misuse" of the term; what you describe is pretty clearly a case of minmaxing. It's just being used for evil. The problem is that some people lump all minmaxing together into the "evil" category.

True. I just see a difference between "optimization of limited resources" and "abusing said resources for personal gain over the benefit and needs of the group."

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-31, 04:42 PM
The way I see it, you can set up a Greimas rectangle to describe gamer types.


(A)-------(B)
| X |
(-B)-----(-A)Where A is rules-focused gamers, B is RP-focused gamers. -A would then be gamers who don't care about rules, -B gamers who don't spend a lot of time thinking in-character.

Then, you come up with the combinations, so (A and B), (A and -B), etc. AB is what I would call a "powergamer," who cares about having a strong build but is still RP-focused. (B and -A) would be someone who prefers diceless or rules-light games, focusing mostly on RP. (A and -B) is your munchkin, caring only about power. (-B and -A) I guess I would call a godmoder, who doesn't care about the rules or RPing his character, and basically wants to "win D&D."

clericwithnogod
2007-01-31, 04:45 PM
Personally, I consider it a necessity in any system that you have a limited amount of points/selections to allocate.

You want to get the most out of those points/selections to get as many of the skills/feats/abilities that best fit your character and be capable of doing what you need to do to be effective.

I dislike that you need to do it the way you do in DND, because it's hard to be a great, charismatic warrior. you can be great and unlikable or get your ass handed to you a lot and be likable...or great and stupid, with no other interests. Tumble - 1 skill point, Profession (Basketweaving) - 1 skill point, Gather Information - 1 skill point, Power Attack - 1 feat, Skill Focus:Profession (Basketweaving) - 1 feat, Persuasive - 1 feat, STR cost = DEX cost = CON cost = INT cost = WIS cost = CHA cost.

This is one of the areas that Classic Champions handled really well - your personality traits and getting to a competent level in a skill didn't cost that much in relation to your combat abilities and your combat abilities were capped, so there was no reason to ignore all other aspects of your character. You worked to sharpen your skills and broaden your ability to use your powers rather than using every point of experience to boost your max damage per round.

Being limited to a certain level of social/non-combat ability in relation to your combat abilty, having social/non-combat abilities/skills cost as much as your combat abilities, and having social/non-combat ability/skill expenditure keep you from being as good at combat as someone who dumps everything (or just most) into combat forces min-maxing on you.

I wonder why, if rules can't be copyrighted, WotC doesn't use good rules from older games... It's not like Feats, Flaws and stuff were new ideas that hadn't been done well in other systems with a point cost.

Thomas
2007-01-31, 04:47 PM
Min-maxing means minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths - usually in character creation. (Since only an idiot would NOT do that with, say, tactics and strategy during play.) It's mostly used derisively or disapprovingly. I wouldn't say dumping a certain area of ability in favor of another is min-maxing; that's specialising. You're not minimizing a weakness, you're emphasizing it. (A cleric is a great min-maxed character class straight out of the PHB. They're good at everything.)

It can become an issue, depending on the system. GURPS is the game where you really see this; people minimize the inconvenience of the disadvantages they pick, and maximize their ability in whatever areas they want to be good at. It's harder in D&D; what can you do, aside from putting your high values in useful abilities and the low ones in abilities where they won't hurt you?

I certainly expect my players to do some of this; they don't create one-legged fighters or wizards with Int 11, and so on. I do it, too, as a DM: all the melee mooks have their lowest scores in Cha, Int, and Wis, and so on.


"Munchkin" is a combination min-maxer, hack'n'slasher, & monty-hauler (Monty Haul describes a campaign or game, but it's the gaming style munchkins are usually associated with), and usually not any good at any of it.

Now, a powergamer is usually a good min-maxer, and a good kind of player to have around the table (unless you're out to tell a story as a GM, rather than play a game), since they keep themselves - and usually the rest of the party - busy, with minimal prodding from the GM.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-31, 04:52 PM
The way I see it, you can set up a Greimas rectangle to describe gamer types.


(A)-------(B)
| X |
(-B)-----(-A)Where A is rules-focused gamers, B is RP-focused gamers. -A would then be gamers who don't care about rules, -B gamers who don't spend a lot of time thinking in-character.

Then, you come up with the combinations, so (A and B), (A and -B), etc. AB is what I would call a "powergamer," who cares about having a strong build but is still RP-focused. (B and -A) would be someone who prefers diceless or rules-light games, focusing mostly on RP. (A and -B) is your munchkin, caring only about power. (-B and -A) I guess I would call a godmoder, who doesn't care about the rules or RPing his character, and basically wants to "win D&D."

Probably the best representative model I've seen.

CrazedGoblin
2007-01-31, 05:21 PM
i am not very keen on Min-Maxing, to me it doesent seem to create a well rounded person that has a good chance at doing things. When you make a character that has really high strength all hes going to do is bash people into jelly and leave nothing open for other things, to me this doesent seem fun but i guess to others it might.

Diggorian
2007-01-31, 05:35 PM
Min-Maxing is in my experience extreme specialization. Ability X is the highest, therefore chief ability. All skill ranks are invested in those tied to Ability X and all feats enhance stats tied to Ability X. If flaws are taken, they penalize the Ability Y, the lowest, and the benefits go to ... right, ability X and it's derivatives.

When Y is showcased for comic relief it can be fun to have a min-maxer. In Alternity, a skill based D20 precursor, a friend made a Weren Uber-martial artist who could rip cars apart but was so dumb and techno-illiterate we could pay him in toys instead of full shares. :smallamused:

It's negative to me only when this kind of optimization results in a single dimensional characters (SpiderBrigade's A with -B type). A new player to our table min-maxed his halfling wizard (which was fine). When asked to describe him for his first scene, he said "Uh ... standard halfling." :smallannoyed:

Munchkins I've met want to Max-max: be great at everything. They cant tolerate a min.

JadedDM
2007-01-31, 05:35 PM
Min/Maxing is more or less treating character generation like balancing a checkbook. The objective is to find a way to make the most possibly powerful character within the confines of the rules, even if the choices don't make any real sense.

One example of min/maxing might be to take some disadvantages that you know will never come up. For instance, back in the old days it was common for people to dump CHA because many DMs wouldn't bother enforcing it.

Another example of min/maxing is making choices that are designed to improve combat ability, even if they conflict with your character's background. For example, I've had several PCs that would say...be born in small farms in the middle of nowhere in some land-locked nation. But amazingly, they would know Blind-Fighting and Swimming, but not Agriculture or Animal Handling.

Green Bean
2007-01-31, 05:50 PM
IMHO, min-maxing can be a sign of a game-breaker, but isn't the reason. Most munchkins are min-maxers, but not all min-maxers are munchkins. It's the difference between the symptom and the disease.

Dairun Cates
2007-01-31, 05:58 PM
I think min-maxing can be a great thing for a player. Having a special power with a crippling weakness or restriction allows them their time in the limelight without hogging other people's time. However, it can be overdone by a LOT and that's where the real problem is. When a person minimizes so much and puts it all into one ability for their "maxing", it can be catastrophic.

I know a guy that ran in a Star Trek campaign, and one of the players was so good at one thing that it made him have to basically jam up the difficulty of some tasks. If the guy can perform the impossible on routine, the GM has to throw the impossible to keep him from always winning. This doesn't give him the limelight, it makes the other characters disappear completely.

Also, when someone min-maxes too much, they become useless in everything else and don't want to play when it's not their time in the limelight. It can be really distracting to the session.

So, to answer the general question. Certain degrees of it are WONDERFUL, but once someone crosses the line, it's a cancer to the game. It grows and eats everything.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-31, 06:03 PM
The way I see it, you can set up a Greimas rectangle to describe gamer types.


(A)-------(B)
| X |
(-B)-----(-A)Where A is rules-focused gamers, B is RP-focused gamers. -A would then be gamers who don't care about rules, -B gamers who don't spend a lot of time thinking in-character.

Then, you come up with the combinations, so (A and B), (A and -B), etc. AB is what I would call a "powergamer," who cares about having a strong build but is still RP-focused. (B and -A) would be someone who prefers diceless or rules-light games, focusing mostly on RP. (A and -B) is your munchkin, caring only about power. (-B and -A) I guess I would call a godmoder, who doesn't care about the rules or RPing his character, and basically wants to "win D&D."

So, would a BA be the DM who is roleplay focused ("You don't need great stats, it's the roleplay that matters."), but demands that players roleplay their INT and CHA stats?

Thomas
2007-01-31, 06:09 PM
So, would a BA be the DM who is roleplay focused ("You don't need great stats, it's the roleplay that matters."), but demands that players roleplay their INT and CHA stats?

I think that's the "schizophrenogenic GM"... :smallamused:


i am not very keen on Min-Maxing, to me it doesent seem to create a well rounded person that has a good chance at doing things. When you make a character that has really high strength all hes going to do is bash people into jelly and leave nothing open for other things, to me this doesent seem fun but i guess to others it might.

In a game like D&D, what else can a fighter conceivably do? Negotiate? No class skills or skill points for it. Sneak around? Find things out? Notice things? Open locks? He can't do any of that, for the same reason. Magic? Nope, not a caster class.

There's no reason for a fighter not to dump the mental stats (unless he's looking to take a feat tree that requires good Int or Cha). What's use is it to spread those points into useless ability scores?


I think min-maxing can be a great thing for a player. Having a special power with a crippling weakness or restriction allows them their time in the limelight without hogging other people's time.

That's not really min-maxing, though. They haven't minimized weaknesses. If they had a special power and an effectively meaningless disadvantage or restriction (Rolemaster's "can't use any weapons except X" comes to mind)... that'd be min-maxing.

Matthew
2007-01-31, 06:11 PM
Usually when I hear MinMaxer it has the pejorative meaning, same as Power Gamer usually occurs in the pejorative sense.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-31, 06:14 PM
Min-maxing means minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths - usually in character creation. (Since only an idiot would NOT do that with, say, tactics and strategy during play.) It's mostly used derisively or disapprovingly. I wouldn't say dumping a certain area of ability in favor of another is min-maxing; that's specialising. You're not minimizing a weakness, you're emphasizing it.

Ahh! I see! With this explanation, the association of minmaxing with munchkinry makes a lot more sense.


One example of min/maxing might be to take some disadvantages that you know will never come up. For instance, back in the old days it was common for people to dump CHA because many DMs wouldn't bother enforcing it.
Another example of min/maxing is making choices that are designed to improve combat ability, even if they conflict with your character's background.
...I can also see how this'd be a problem.

So it seems the issue with Minmaxing is not with creating a strength and a weakness, but with trying to pump up your strengths with completely negligible weaknesses.

...like taking the Murky-Eyed flaw!


i am not very keen on Min-Maxing, to me it doesent seem to create a well rounded person that has a good chance at doing things. When you make a character that has really high strength all hes going to do is bash people into jelly and leave nothing open for other things, to me this doesent seem fun but i guess to others it might.

I find characters who are moderately good at everything to be boring, so I like being extremely specialised. Low stats can be roleplayed too. :smalltongue:
And the thing is, I find low stats are often more fun to RP, for me. I've mentioned before that I love dumping Charisma just because of the socially disfunctional characters it creates. ^^ At the moment, I'm working on an extremely low WIS character, also... Sure, putting those points in CHA means he's a powerful sorceror, ...but you could probably talk him into purchasing your high-quality "bottled air" without too much trouble.

So, yeah, it is fun to me. :smallsmile:

Thomas
2007-01-31, 06:31 PM
The best examples of problematic min-maxing come from games like GURPS or the newest Rolemaster, with point-based character creation. I referred to Rolemaster already, so I'll expand the example to explain.

Bobby is creating a character, Killjean. Killjean's a warrior, and therefore would pay through the nose for learning the tiniest smidgeon of magical ability. So Bobby takes the disadvantage Fear of Magic, that makes Killjean unable to learn magic. This nets him 20 extra points. Then Bobby takes Weapon Bane, which prevents Killjean from learning to use weapons in any category except one (say, 1H Edged), but doesn't increase the cost of that category; this gets another 15 points. Then he takes Directed Weapons Master, which lets him learn one 1H Edged weapon at triple skill, and all other 1H Edged weapons at double skill. That's only 15 points - the same as he got for Weapon Bane! Then he takes a bunch of other cool advantages with the remaining points...

Bobby's picked pretty irrelevant disadvantages, and gotten huge advantages. He's min-maxing, and it looks nasty.


Edit: I can't really think of any comparable examples from D&D, unless you're using some optional rules. A Knight with the Murky-Eyed flaw, maybe...? But it's not very flagrant, whereas it can be almost game-breaking in Rolemaster or GURPS.

JaronK
2007-01-31, 07:53 PM
Min Maxing (Minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths) is something almost everyone does. If you put you strength as your highest stat when making a character designed for tripping, you're minmaxing. If you have a high Int and a low Str on your Wizard, you're minmaxing. There's nothing wrong with this.

Problems arise when players treat their characters as "toons" and just see them as a stat block. Those players often minmax too, but the problem is not the minmaxing.

JaronK

Thomas
2007-01-31, 08:55 PM
Again, is that build so bad? After all, 'Fear of magic' doesn't sound like it was meant for a casting class to take, it makes an IC sense for someone who doesn't know anything about magic to be afraid of it, like old people and computers. I'm assuming that the DM can enforce other penalties for the magic flaw, such as 'No magic weapons for you!' or 'Congrats, you now wet yourself every time someone uses pidly cantrips, like 'dancing lights,' around you.'

It's not game-breaking (well, it might be, if I wasn't running the game), but it's min-maxed. I'd ask a player to select disadvantages that will actually come up in play. The reason you get points for those disadvantages is because they're hooks for the GM to use, to make the game more fun (and more challenging), or because they limit your character. If they don't effectively do either, you shouldn't have them.

Low-impact isn't bad, but -15 and -20 point disadvantages in Rolemaster are Major and Greater disadvantages - and those two have zero effect.

Fear of Magic for a half- or semi-caster (a Ranger, for instance) would actually have an impact; for anyone else but a Warrior or Rogue, really.

Disadvantages like Rival, Sense of Duty, One Arm, etc. have actual game effects for the characters, which is the intention.

JadedDM
2007-01-31, 09:21 PM
And the thing is, I find low stats are often more fun to RP, for me. I've mentioned before that I love dumping Charisma just because of the socially disfunctional characters it creates. ^^ At the moment, I'm working on an extremely low WIS character, also... Sure, putting those points in CHA means he's a powerful sorceror, ...but you could probably talk him into purchasing your high-quality "bottled air" without too much trouble.

Yeah, it can lead to fun times. One of my players has a WIS of 5 and so plays her character (a human fighter who is also an exotic dancer) as reckless, impatient, and completely lacking in foresight.

Dairun Cates
2007-01-31, 10:47 PM
That's not really min-maxing, though. They haven't minimized weaknesses. If they had a special power and an effectively meaningless disadvantage or restriction (Rolemaster's "can't use any weapons except X" comes to mind)... that'd be min-maxing.

Ah true. Got me there. I suppose it's more of min-maxing's good spirited cousin.

Still, I don't honestly care how much a character breaks a system as long as they don't overshadow the other players. I can always make harder enemies, and since I know my systems a hell of a lot better than my players, I can do that with relative ease. When a player just overshadows the other players, it becomes boring for the other players and for me since all my time is devoted to making an encounter that can hold off that character without killing the others.

Dareon
2007-01-31, 11:31 PM
Yeah, min-maxing can be good, or horrid, smelly cheese.

Flaws are one of the best examples one can use here. My Warlock has the flaws Noncombatant (-2 on melee attack rolls) and Feeble (-2 on all STR/DEX/CON skill and ability checks). Since I don't intend to have him making any of those rolls, that's almost two free feats. DM has put me in some melee situations, though.

Since it's still possible the DM will be nudging me into situations where I'll be needing to be affected by those flaws, they're still quite viable, however.

The Munchkin's Guide to Powergaming (Steve Jackson Games) provides some much more broken ideas, however. In the "Sample Advantages and Disadvantages" sidebar are such gems as "Chocoholic" (Become moody and irritable, suffering penalty to Charisma if you go without chocolate. Munchkins tend to be about smashing things, who needs charisma?) and "Trouble Magnet" (About what it sounds like, always seem to attract hostile people. Free XP! What munchkin wouldn't like that?). Naturally, neither of those two is available as a flaw in D&D, but the spirit is the same. Want a free feat on Athas? Try Allergy (Fish)!

Naturally, all min-maxing is generally assumed to occur in a vacuum, with that most mythical of creatures, a DM who lets you do anything. I doubt I could run Allergy (Fish) by my (upcoming) Athas DM.

Min-maxing is really like duct tape. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together. ...Wait, that's the Force. ...Min-maxing is also like the Force.

geez3r
2007-01-31, 11:36 PM
I always min/max my characters. Always. But I do it in the see-saw way. If one side goes up, the other side goes down by an equal amount. My characters may (but usually don't) have insanely high physical scores, but if they do, they are a stuttering, blithering idiot. And that is not fun to play, it is actually better off not to min/max too much. Going back to the see saw model, a munchking is someone who wishes to bend the bars so their net power gain is increased, because one side didn't fall to much when the other was raised.

Red Sky Knight
2007-01-31, 11:42 PM
Unfortunately, I often get the feeling that there is actually a right and a wrong way to stat up characters. I have often selected other than optimal choices in character generation so that i could play out a character concept that i really enjoyed, and they unfortunately frequently perform quite poorly in adventures, which to be made challenging are usually heavily tactical and balanced with optimal characters in mind. I feel that if i don't min-max as much as possible, my character just wont survive.

In reading WOTC articles, I am always told what a character of a certain class _should_ have, which sucks, but does tend to encourage both min-maxing and munchkinism.

felblood
2007-02-01, 05:04 AM
So much great stuff in here.

I suppose I should just voice my opinion on everything. :smallwink:

Min/max in one of those terms that has been misused in so many different ways that it has actually grown a slew of new meanings. (Sort of like hacker has done over the last century. Incompetent woodcutters and survialists are breaking into my computer!)

Originally it refered to the practice of working over the crunchy bits of your character to minimise his weaknesses and maximise his usefulness. Every character needs a little bit of this or they could come out as useless as a mute orc sorcerer, with no arms and the power attack feat. Specialization is an important part of min/maxing, but it is not the whole. Unless, you are one of these people who uses Min/maxing to mean specializing, which is okay with me, but contributes to ambiguity, so I wont do it myself.

Used within the context of your party Min/maxing can actually be a good thing and is a basic assumption of the game's design. You are expected to use the other party members' strengths to minimize your weaknesses. Take the wizard for example: He's got poor BAB and barely any HP, but he brings some much needed burn to your arsenal. A good min/maxer will recognise this weakness and minimise it by gaining the help of a party member who can protect him and keep him out of melee, like a fighter. (The fighter is sad:smallfrown: because his most important abilities have more to do with where he's standing than what he's doing.:belkar:: "What kind of idiot could mess up a lame assignment like protecting the spellcasters!?") This frees the wizard to specialize in maximising his ability as a burner (or better yet buffer, as it enhances the whole teamwork feel and makes both players see how much they need one another) without worrying about keeping his strength, HP and AC where they would need to be otherwise.

An evil "munchkin" min/maxer would try to find ways do away with his weaknesses (In the above wizard example, usually by using the polymorph spell to get good HP, strength, AC, BAB and healing from a single spell, hence it's removal from the game). Freed from his weakness and thereby his dependence on the other party members he is free to become a player killing, campaign destroying abomination. This is a Bad Thing which leaves the other PCs with nothing cool to do because the Immature Jerk can do it all at least as well.

The sister term to Min/maxer, powergamer, usually implies a min/maxer who is highly skilled or favors a highly maximised ability of power in their playstyle. Lately people have been trying to encourage me to only use "powergamer" to refer to min/maxers who use their powers for the good (Like the guy who helps you find the right feats to make your character concept work, or a GM who homebrews you a PrC that makes Elan useful.) of the party, but I'm old and set in my verbal ways, so I'll just stay politically incorrect for now.

If you do use that standard this handy, multi-generation pop-culture guide tells you everything you need to know:

Min/Maxer = Force User = Super = Person with Skills

Munchkin = Dark Lord of the Sith = Super Villian = Jerk with Skills

Powergamer = Jedi Knight = Super Hero = Friend with Skills

Thank you for taking the time to read this whole post!

Zincorium
2007-02-01, 06:20 AM
Well, Fellblood, thanks for the tentative thumbs up, but I've discovered that even power gamer is taken and given by many people as an insult in the same sense that munchkin is.

A more palatable, nuetral term that I prefer, since it doesn't make any assumptions as to the person's character, good or bad, is Optimizer. It's self explanatory as well. An optimizer will take something and make it work as well as possible (optimized) for a certain situation. Most optimizers work quite a bit with the crunch parts, since there is a provable mathematical difference between certain options, but a great many are well into fluff. The thing is, it's very hard to advise and compare fluff in an objective sense, so it's much more rarely brought up in that way.

Thomas
2007-02-01, 11:54 AM
Usually when I hear MinMaxer it has the pejorative meaning, same as Power Gamer usually occurs in the pejorative sense.


A more palatable, nuetral term that I prefer, since it doesn't make any assumptions as to the person's character, good or bad, is Optimizer. It's self explanatory as well. An optimizer will take something and make it work as well as possible (optimized) for a certain situation. Most optimizers work quite a bit with the crunch parts, since there is a provable mathematical difference between certain options, but a great many are well into fluff. The thing is, it's very hard to advise and compare fluff in an objective sense, so it's much more rarely brought up in that way.

We must start the Power Gamer Heritage Pride Foundation.

"Powergamer is not an insult!"

"Game for power, power for gamers!"


I don't think powergaming, min-maxing, and optimizing necessarily have anything in common, though. Optimization is very neutral. Powergaming doesn't require either; in fact, I'm pretty sure one of my old players could have powergamed with a book-standard goblin. (He'd have become King of Goblins in three sessions, and would have been singing and dancing by the fourth...)

Powergaming is about the attitude. In some games, your starting abilities limit your scope of options in the game, but in most games, you can become powerful just by playing really "hard." Real powergamers think big - they don't think about the next level or the next magic item, but about the next throne they will topple or the next deity they'll challenge. And the good ones won't even need to push against the rules - they just come up with such fiendishly clever plans that the GM has to admit (through a haze of tears) that it works...

Oh, fond memories. :smallamused:

Diggorian
2007-02-01, 12:14 PM
Naturally, all min-maxing is generally assumed to occur in a vacuum, with that most mythical of creatures, a DM who lets you do anything. I doubt I could run Allergy (Fish) by my (upcoming) Athas DM.

Long time Dark Sun fan, this made me chuckle deeply. :smallamused: True Athas Flaws: Albino, Heat Vulnerability, Kreen Savor (you smell especially savory to thri-kreen) :smallwink:

It's been my experience that D20 is pretty Min-Max resistant. A low Wis fighter can take Iron Will and Alertness, but has spent two precious feat slots on it which could've been spent on the strength maximizing. Or is the weakness minimized by other party members that are strong in their weak category? Are party members min-max enablers?

A friend of mine, who rarely games anymore, has a tendency to make Batman-esque munchhkin concepts. In pursuit of this ideal, he made a stealthy gnome bard (cause bards are masters of skill, combat, and magic right? :smallwink: ). When with the party he tried to be the commander, in combat he snuck off alone and tended to limp back to the party swiss cheesed.

Tormsskull
2007-02-01, 02:25 PM
Since this thread is about what we think min-maxing means, I'll give my opinion:

When I hear the term min-max I cringe. The reason I cringe is because I always run/play heavy Role Play games. In a heavy Role Play game the objective is not to defeat challenges by rolling dice. The objective is to role play the persona you have created, see the world through your character's eyes, and act accordingly.

Most of the time when people play D&D they think of it in terms of fighting monsters, getting treasure, gaining levels, with a dash of role play in between those things to add a bit of cohesiveness. Knowing that they are going to be fighting a lot, they naturally want their characters to be good at fighting. This makes sense.

However, I try to create a deeper immersion type of game. The type of game where a player actually thinks in-character 99% of the time. In this type of game, min-maxing is counter to the type of atmosphere I am trying to create. Min-maxing is an inherently OOC action. A character moves some of A to B, or lowers C but raises D, etc. There is rarely any kind of in-character justification for this.

As I said above, min-maxing is an inherently OOC action. Instead of creating a person as part of a real (fantasy) world, the player creates a tool. The tool will have a specific function: blaster, battlefield controller, Party face, etc. Min-maxing leads to creating a character separate of the campaign world, rather than how I prefer, creating the character as a part of the campaign world.

Thomas
2007-02-01, 02:45 PM
It's been my experience that D20 is pretty Min-Max resistant. A low Wis fighter can take Iron Will and Alertness, but has spent two precious feat slots on it which could've been spent on the strength maximizing. Or is the weakness minimized by other party members that are strong in their weak category? Are party members min-max enablers?

Covering each others' weaknesses is just called "smart" ...

Zincorium
2007-02-01, 04:08 PM
Covering each others' weaknesses is just called "smart" ...

Honestly, optomizing could just be called taking the smart choice any time you're presented with options, and it's really easier to optomize a whole party towards challenges than an individual character, since you can be very versatile and cover everyone's weaknesses while retaining the strengths of individual specialization.

Person_Man
2007-02-01, 04:56 PM
I ban the most abusable stuff, like Divine Metamagic and Polymorph. But generally, as long as the players each fill a niche that they're happy with, I pretty much allow anything.

JadedDM
2007-02-01, 05:00 PM
I agree with Tormsskull. My own game is quite similar, so to me, min/max is a bad word. But so is powergamer, munchkin, and metagamer. And to me, 'optimizer' is just another way of saying min/maxer with a less negative connotation. It all sounds the same to me, though.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-01, 05:35 PM
Tormsskull, I see what you're saying, and that's a fun kind of game to play in, but at what point does your cringe factor for minmaxing kick in? The thing is, the mechanical rules are pretty inherently out-of-character things. When you level up, you take a step back and make some decisions. Should I take Toughness, or Power Attack? How should I spend my skill points this level? Do I want my character to get stronger, or wiser, or more dexterous?

Now, your character might have some opinions about this in-game. "Man, those orcs really hurt me; I wish I were tougher." Or, "I've been really interested in blacksmithing lateley..." Or even, "I really need to be less clumsy." But why is your character making those decisions? Isn't it to get better at something they want to be good at, or to shore up some perceived weakness? That's minmaxing.

Granted, there is a point where mechanical decisions make no kind of sense in-character. Taking 15 unrelated prestige classes to set up some rules trick, or using the classic "Candles of Invocation Celestial Chain Reaction" because hey, RAW, it works. But to me that's much more being a munchkin than it is minmaxing. Something like Wizard 5/incantatrix 10/Archmage 5 might be a very powerful build, but it could also make perfect sense in-character.

A lot of people think like you do, and I have some trouble understanding it. Making effective characters doesn't mean you aren't thinking in-character. Now, that's not to say that some people don't have trouble doing both. But you can usually tell. When somebody has a whole build planned out before anything's happened to their character, they might be more focused on the rules. If that's not the kind of game you play, they might not be a good fit for your campaign. But you can engage in a lot of min-maxing without losing your RP focus.

From the way you describe your game, I wonder what it is about the 3.5 D&D system that you like. If thinking about rolling dice to defeat challenges is inimical to your playstyle, might not a less dice-heavy or even diceless system appeal to you more? (Please, don't think I'm going for some kind of "jeeze, why do you even play D&D" thing. I'm not. Just curious!)

Saph
2007-02-01, 06:27 PM
I'd agree that d20 is pretty min-max resistant. About all you can do to min-max is dump stats like Charisma and Wisdom, and even those aren't freebies. Making a wizard with a low Strength is so basic that I wouldn't even call it min-maxing.

The systems that have problems with min-maxing are point-based systems with disadvantages, which allow you to get extra points by taking 'weaknesses'. Thing is, any munchkin worth his salt can quickly spot with an eagle eye which 'weaknesses' are completely irrelevant to game play or can be made that way by choosing a character build that will ensure you'll never be affected by them. (Eg Dareon's example - having your wizard take a bunch of 'flaws' that make him bad at melee combat, which he's never going to get into except for fun anyway.)

I could tell you some horrendous stories about our old GURPS party. GURPS has physical disadvantages (which usually give you game-mechanic penalties) and mental disadvantages (which usually give you RP penalties). Guess which kind of disadvantages everyone picked? Yup.

So we had two characters who were Paranoid, three with Major Delusions, four with Bad Temper, two with Pyromania, and three with Hatreds. One character had Bad Temper (which makes you start fights with people who annoy you) and Bloodthirsty (which makes you always try to kill anyone you're fighting) and Stubborn (which makes you unlikely to listen to advice after you've decided to do something) along with Odious Personal Habits (which is . . . you can probably guess). Just the kind of guy you want as a travelling companion. He ended up killing more PCs than the monsters did.

- Saph

Talyn
2007-02-01, 07:04 PM
Ironically, it's the min/maxers in my game who always get killed - mostly because I do my best to actively discourage it. My party leader is a Lizardman Monk/Fallen Paladin with a (nerfed via house-rule) spiked chain. Why? Because he's a former slave, and he used his chains as weapons when he escaped the slave camp. He (and an orc barbarian run by a relative novice) is the only character who started the campaign that's still in it.

The warmage with the pushing-30 armor class? Dead. The horrifically min/maxed dwarf fighter/cleric? Dead (though that's almost too bad, because he was a VERY COO CONCEPT with a majorly broken build). The Master of Forms druid? Almost killed several times, though once I house-rule nerfed him, he's become a valued member of the team...

I, as the GM, despise min/maxing because a) it means I have to min/max the monsters to keep things challenging, which is a pain, and b) people spend more time playing their stats than their characters...

Yes, a good player can and should do SOME optimizing to make an effective character, but a good player will also pick a feat or a prestige class because "it's what the character would do" - or, at least, because it's very damn cool. Not because it allows you to get around the rules or gives some kind of mathematical advantage.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-01, 07:18 PM
Yes, a good player can and should do SOME optimizing to make an effective character, but a good player will also pick a feat or a prestige class because "it's what the character would do" - or, at least, because it's very damn cool. Not because it allows you to get around the rules or gives some kind of mathematical advantage.See, the problem with this is, where's the line? Especially in a game where you pretty openly are killing off characters if you think they're "too good." I mean, a druid who goes into Master of Many forms just makes sense, since changing into various things is part of what druids DO. Yeah, it can be brokenly strong. That doesn't automatically make it out-of-character.

I'll admit, it's a very tricky issue. And I actually do trust you to decide when something's munchkinry, and when it's just a good build. But I consider it important to remember that you can have an awesome build, even a broken build, without forgetting "what your character would do." And I'm not talking about BS like "well, my character concept is a kobold who wants to rule the universe," either :smallbiggrin:

clericwithnogod
2007-02-01, 08:23 PM
(nerfed via house-rule) spiked chain.

How did you nerf the Spiked Chain?

Diggorian
2007-02-02, 02:56 AM
OK, the Monk's keen spot and listen compensate for his stupid fighter ally's lack in that department ... teamwork, check. Now I'm confused on where I stand on the min-max spectrum :smallconfused:

My group plays a very deep immersive style game like Tormsskull describes, but we're true powergamers (cause if you aint in our games, ya die!) My fighter has better Dex than Con so I've got a slew of defensive feats, and even warblade manuevers, to not get hit; sword and boarder as well. I've got cross class ranks in listen, cause getting caught flat-footed aint pretty.

Am I a min-maxer though? I built an exotic parrying scabberd, cause my samurai concept cant include shields (though I'm proficient). I've got ranks in Craft Tattoo cause my race does ornamental scarification. I'm cynical LN but take orders from an idealistic CG cleric cause I've sworn to. I do these things cause that's the kind of character I'm playing.

Journey
2007-02-02, 11:53 AM
Whether min/maxing is bad or not is entirely dependent on the group and the kind of campaign. I've played in every kind of group and campaign and they can all be fun. I strongly prefer rules-light, role-playing heavy games, though.


Tormsskull, I see what you're saying, and that's a fun kind of game to play in, but at what point does your cringe factor for minmaxing kick in? The thing is, the mechanical rules are pretty inherently out-of-character things. When you level up, you take a step back and make some decisions. Should I take Toughness, or Power Attack? How should I spend my skill points this level? Do I want my character to get stronger, or wiser, or more dexterous?This is handled by not divorcing the mechanics from the events in game. If I were DMing 3.x D&D, I'd keep track of just about everything my Players have their characters do and then discuss with them the feats and skills and spells (etc.) they'd take at level up and wouldn't be hesitant at all about banning taking feats, improving skills, or taking spells that are out of line with character actions. I have always done that, in fact.

Just as an example, suppose we have a fighter who is of the "swing first, ask later" mentality. He gets his butt handed to him by charging a wizard who's prepared his defensive spells thoughtfully and uses a bunch of will-save spells at the fighter. The fighter's player might try to take a feat that boosts will and/or wisdom to support his brash fighting style, but I wouldn't allow it if he's always wading into melee because clearly his character isn't that wise and clearly does have a weakness regarding his will (can't control himself when a fight starts).

And the rest of your post sums up why I don't care too much for 3.x D&D (and why I do not, in general, play it--although I have been known to try occasionally when I want to play the kind of game it's good for). Unlike others, I am of the opinion that d20 practically begs players to min/max, even unintentionally in some cases (but this is related to that dead horse issue that will never be resolved, so to each his own).

Tormsskull
2007-02-02, 12:44 PM
Tormsskull, I see what you're saying, and that's a fun kind of game to play in, but at what point does your cringe factor for minmaxing kick in? The thing is, the mechanical rules are pretty inherently out-of-character things. When you level up, you take a step back and make some decisions. Should I take Toughness, or Power Attack? How should I spend my skill points this level? Do I want my character to get stronger, or wiser, or more dexterous?


It is pretty difficult to point at one thing and say "That is min-maxing." A lot of it is listening to your players throughout the session, their attitude. I know my players pretty well, so I can usually see when they are min-maxing and when they aren't. However, my experience has led me to believe that people either are or aren't min-maxers. The people that aren't you don't have to worry about. The people that are you have to pay closer attention to and occassionally ask them "Why did your character do x, or take x feat, or x skill" and see what they come up with.

My playstyle is a bit different than most. I don't believe in preplanning characters out, because I think characters should grow inside of a campaign. So if someone says to me on level 1 that they are planning this character to take x prestige class at level 7 I'd say "That's interesting. How do you know that PrC exists in this world?" I make up many of my own PrCs for each campaign world for just this reason. Often times players don't learn about them until they are close to being able to achieve them, other times they learn about them in advance.

For example, I had an NPC show up one time to the group of 4 PCs. His class was Knight Protector, a home-brewed PrC that combined some fighter skills, mounted combat skills, and a few campaign-specific benefits. When he showed up the PCs were level 3, and one of the players really liked this NPC, and so asked him what the life of a Knight Protector was like. The KP told the PC all about his order and such, and the PC said he was interested in becoming a KP. Through the next three levels the PC listened to instruction from the NPC and took the requirements needed, spoke with some of the KP organization leaders, and through some intensive RP, became a KP.

To me that is in-character growth. I even had the player stop over for an individual session to do some of his KP RP because I didn't want to detract from the rest of the group and because this deserved special attention. That player had a blast, and I did too. In addition, the player had no idea what kind of skills/feats/abilities the KP class got other than what he had experienced/heard from by the NPC. He was basically taking a chance when he took the first level in the class.

Now, many campaigns a player can simply look at all of the PrCs and what abilities they get throughout then level progressions and then make a metagame decision on what best fits their character. To me this usually creates pre-defined RP, which is not enjoyable at all.



Now, your character might have some opinions about this in-game. "Man, those orcs really hurt me; I wish I were tougher." Or, "I've been really interested in blacksmithing lateley..." Or even, "I really need to be less clumsy." But why is your character making those decisions? Isn't it to get better at something they want to be good at, or to shore up some perceived weakness? That's minmaxing.


Again, it can be very difficult to point at one thing specifically and say "That is min-maxing." However, if you know your players, you can often times see it. If a PC encountered anything in-game and his character showed an interest in it, then I wouldn't suspect them of min-maxing if they devoted time/skills/feats to learning it. Its when it comes out of the blue that I have a problem with it.

Take multi-classing for example. You will often times hear someone say something like "I'm going to take 2 levels of fighter for the extra feats", that is a very metagame line of thinking. That is why I often put restrictions on multi-classing because rather than focusing on what their character would do, the player is trying to make his character a certain way.



From the way you describe your game, I wonder what it is about the 3.5 D&D system that you like. If thinking about rolling dice to defeat challenges is inimical to your playstyle, might not a less dice-heavy or even diceless system appeal to you more? (Please, don't think I'm going for some kind of "jeeze, why do you even play D&D" thing. I'm not. Just curious!)

As for a less dice-dependent or diceless game, I don't think I'd be interested. For me the dice are the ultimate decision-maker. A PC or NPC tries something and the dice say what happens. I like that because it puts everyone on an equal playing field. I don't think I'd be able to get into a game where the DM or group consensus tells you what happens, I like the randomness of the dice.

Honestly, I only play D&D because that's what I've played for the past close to twenty years. I learned to play D&D when I was very young, and I have stuck with it through the years. I don't think it is inherently a bad system (3.5 that is), but I wouldn't doubt that there is a different system that fits my playstyle better. However, working 40 hours a week, going to school, being a book editor, trying to write my own books, and then stitching a meager social life somewhere in-between all that has left me with very little time to pick up a new system and try to learn it.

Sam K
2007-02-02, 01:29 PM
One thing to consider is that most adventurers are the equivilent of a mix of professional athletes and special military forces. They live by their skills and abilities, and usually face extremely dangerous situations with little or no support beyond their group. They're going to be focusing on the fields that will help them with their task in the group, because if one person fails, they may all die. If Minmax the Unstopable Warrior cant keep the swarm of enemies off his buddies, the squishies will get killed, and minmax is out of fire support and healing. Obviously, Minmax will be trying really hard to be the best tank he can, and learn things that will cover up for his weaknesses, because his life and the life of his friends and brothers in arms is depending on this.

Ofcourse, if you think minmaxing is getting too far, just remember that most reoccuring villans, or any villan with the ability to do some research, can probably figure out a way to exploit the weakness. Minmax has int and cha of 3 because those stats doesn't do anything for him anyway? Make sure all your minions use arrows poisoned with mind numbing poison. "Minmax is hit once, makes his fort save for half ability damage, takes 1d6 intelligence damage. Oh my, he seems to have gone catatonic..." Psions are the masters of this, but most people with some creativity can figure out a way to exploit it. Villans have access to divination spells too. The cleric in your desert setting thought he was cute by taking a phobia of water? Lets see how much fun it is when the villan opens a gate to the elemental plane of water ;)

Thrawn183
2007-02-02, 03:32 PM
Hmm, I have something I'd like y'all to comment on: my barbarian. I decided, after having played a caster for my first character, that I wanted to play a rock'em sock'em melee type: hence the barbarian (and I've always had a sort of liking for the class). Initially I'd meant to have a decent all around fighter with a lot of hp but then I found out that another player was playing as an ac monkey.

This is when my idea began to form. His character was going high ac/very low damage. I'd do the reverse: low ac/very high damage. My 6th level character had 18 AC at rest. When raged, power attacking, leap attacking, shock troopering it went down to 6. I looked at the build and had a great/horrible idea: why wear breastplate at all? His AC then hit 1, that's right, 1!

Now, I have always considered min/maxing to be maximizing your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses. Apparently, one of the other players, who also DM's other campaigns, thinks that my character is min/maxing because i'm maxing some of my abilites while minimizing others. I disagreed because I feel like I have left such glaring weaknesses as an AC of 1, will save of 0 or maybe 1 when not raging. He could be killed by a swarm of cats for crying out loud.

Is my character min/maxed? Whose definition of min/max do you believe to be the one that min/max actually stands for?

Shazzbaa
2007-02-02, 04:08 PM
Now, I have always considered min/maxing to be maximizing your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses. Apparently, one of the other players, who also DM's other campaigns, thinks that my character is min/maxing because i'm maxing some of my abilites while minimizing others. I disagreed because I feel like I have left such glaring weaknesses as an AC of 1, will save of 0 or maybe 1 when not raging. He could be killed by a swarm of cats for crying out loud.

Is my character min/maxed? Whose definition of min/max do you believe to be the one that min/max actually stands for?

This is kind of the question I was originally asking: What does the phrase even mean? My first introduction to the idea of min/maxing was Minmax, from the Goblins comic, who more or less pumped his fighting skills at the expense of everything else. So I had always assumed that minmaxing was maxing out one thing at the expense of something else (which is something I enjoy -- have a great strength with a glaring flaw, rather like your barbarian).

I gather from the posts to this topic thus far, that when the phrase "min/max" is used to mean a tool of muchkinry, it refers to the idea of minimising weaknesses and maximising strengths (trying to be a god at everything important). As Thomas pointed out, having a strong point and a weak point is considered by these people to be "specialising," not min/maxing. This seems to be the most prevalent definition.


A few of the first posters to this topic seemed to share my initial thoughts on min/maxing; that is, that it represents maximising something at the expense of something else. This one's not as prevalent; the phrase CAN be used this way, but I probably won't in the future, just to avoid confusion.

Zincorium
2007-02-02, 06:05 PM
Now, many campaigns a player can simply look at all of the PrCs and what abilities they get throughout then level progressions and then make a metagame decision on what best fits their character. To me this usually creates pre-defined RP, which is not enjoyable at all.

While I agree with what you said previous to this, I have to take issue with the way you're portraying this. Prestige classes, in my mind, are intended to be extensions of a character concept that the PC already holds to. If it fits, why shouldn't they take it? Every time a character levels up, the player is metagaming. Why? Because real people don't level up, they improve gradually. Knowing the same set of spells for a week and then suddenly being able to use 6 others in a single night of studying, or just suddenly getting to smite evil for the first time, ever, spits on suspension of disbelief. You have to be able to metagame a little or the system as it is doesn't work


Again, it can be very difficult to point at one thing specifically and say "That is min-maxing." However, if you know your players, you can often times see it. If a PC encountered anything in-game and his character showed an interest in it, then I wouldn't suspect them of min-maxing if they devoted time/skills/feats to learning it. Its when it comes out of the blue that I have a problem with it.

Take multi-classing for example. You will often times hear someone say something like "I'm going to take 2 levels of fighter for the extra feats", that is a very metagame line of thinking. That is why I often put restrictions on multi-classing because rather than focusing on what their character would do, the player is trying to make his character a certain way.

But, after all, it is their character. IF they have a decent reason for it, as simple as "My fighting style is too simple, I need to get some tricks so I don't lose next time", then those levels of fighter make sense. It's a very abstract class. NPCs probably couldn't distinguish between a warrior, a fighter, or a simply well-equipped peasant.


As for a less dice-dependent or diceless game, I don't think I'd be interested. For me the dice are the ultimate decision-maker. A PC or NPC tries something and the dice say what happens. I like that because it puts everyone on an equal playing field. I don't think I'd be able to get into a game where the DM or group consensus tells you what happens, I like the randomness of the dice.

Diceless is awesome if you have a good rapport throughout the entire group and you don't like things happening unreasonably. Dice place randomness before logic, so if logic is your group's preference, then using dice less makes sense.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 06:26 PM
I gather from the posts to this topic thus far, that when the phrase "min/max" is used to mean a tool of muchkinry, it refers to the idea of minimising weaknesses and maximising strengths (trying to be a god at everything important). As Thomas pointed out, having a strong point and a weak point is considered by these people to be "specialising," not min/maxing. This seems to be the most prevalent definition.

Yeah. You're "minimizing and maximizing." Nobody intentionally minimizes any area of ability; rather, the term indicates maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. ("Maximizing some strengths and minimizing other strengths" sounds a bit... stupid.)

Tormsskull
2007-02-02, 06:37 PM
While I agree with what you said previous to this, I have to take issue with the way you're portraying this. Prestige classes, in my mind, are intended to be extensions of a character concept that the PC already holds to. If it fits, why shouldn't they take it? Every time a character levels up, the player is metagaming. Why? Because real people don't level up, they improve gradually. Knowing the same set of spells for a week and then suddenly being able to use 6 others in a single night of studying, or just suddenly getting to smite evil for the first time, ever, spits on suspension of disbelief. You have to be able to metagame a little or the system as it is doesn't work

But, after all, it is their character. IF they have a decent reason for it, as simple as "My fighting style is too simple, I need to get some tricks so I don't lose next time", then those levels of fighter make sense. It's a very abstract class. NPCs probably couldn't distinguish between a warrior, a fighter, or a simply well-equipped peasant.


I think that PrCs are something that a character has to learn about. So a level 1 character doesn't know that he can train in a certain way to eventually become a Horizon Walker. He actually has to learn about the Horizon Walker in game.

I don't view classes (especially PrCs) as simply a set of skills. I don't think a character simply chooses to concentrate on his fighting skills a little better and then can gain a level of Fighter. Also, I require the players to train for their levels, so they can't suddeny use 6 additional spells between night 1 and night 2.



Diceless is awesome if you have a good rapport throughout the entire group and you don't like things happening unreasonably. Dice place randomness before logic, so if logic is your group's preference, then using dice less makes sense.

I'm not digging on anyone that uses diceless, but it seems to me an extensive form of make-believe, and I'm just not interested in that.

Logic is very important, but randomness is equally important in my games. A PC may succeed at something very illogical if they happen to roll high enough, and I think that totally makes sense.

I mean, if the person who was favored to win, always won, then the world would be incredibly boring. However, add randomness as a factor, and suddeny everything is changed. A level 10 fighter might think he can wipe the floor with a level 8 fighter. The two get into a battle and because of lucky rolls by Mr. level 8, he kicks the crap out of the level 10 guy. That's unexpected, it adds excitement & danger to the game because it doesn't happen often, etc.

Townopolis
2007-02-04, 05:24 AM
It really depends on the PrC. If it's something like the Horizon Walker or, to use an example I'm more familiar with, the Eye of Gruumsh, then I agree completely. Characters need to learn about that style before attempting to train that way. On the other hand, a PrC like the Frenzied Berserker is a much different matter. The frenzied berserker class is something that could easily just grow out of a character's personality. At level 1, my barbarian could already be set out to become a frenzied berserker as soon as possible by simple virtue of the fact that I am roleplaying him as one. Walks like a frenzied berserker, talks like one, fights like one, I see no reason not to just become one at the first chance. Whereas a more formalized class like the eye of Gruumsh is a more esoteric technique (not to mention a religious choice) that must be discovered.

Alternately, there is the idea of playing a character who's lifelong goal has always been to be a knight."

"I want to become a Knight Protector."
"How do you know that?"
"I grew up near a large garrison of knights, every day I saw them riding past all shiny like. As I grew older, I ate up stories of the glorious past and deeds of the knights. I heard about their valor and prowess and honor and thought to myself 'I want to be like that.' and ever since, I have always dreamed of becoming a knight. In fact, that's why I'm a fighter. I know knights must be powerful fighting men as well as morally upright. So at the first chance I got, I took up a military carreer so that I could become the mighty fighter I knew I would have to be to be accepted into the ranks of the knights."

daggaz
2007-02-04, 08:23 AM
Min/maxing is kinda hard to do with point buy, but comes naturally if you roll stats and (as the odds usually have it) you have a couple good stats and one or two really bad ones.


Basically, its the optimization following the laws of game theory. Success in a system is usually best optimized by stacking resources on a strength while putting any negatives onto an already existing weakness, rather spending resources to bolster a weakness, while taking a hit on your strengths, which generally results in a mundane system with no overall strengths. (Minimizing weaknesses inherently minimizes strengths. If you are in a situation where you can cover all the bases, you have too many resources and the system is out of balance.)

Most people do this without thinking about it, and most of the time, its not even thought of with the usual negative connotations.. You got a six in your stat list and you are a dwarven fighter? It most likely goes on charisma. Why on earth would you toss it on con so you get an 8 and put that 16 on charisma so it ends up on a not-to-low 14?

With point buy, the best you can do is leave some of your stats at 8 while boosting your main attributes to 18. Interestingly, with point buy, its much more common to see people balancing their characters out. Perhaps because you can see those -1's in the beginning, but the diminishing returns on buying higher stats probably plays as great a roll. At any rate, the player actually has control and can choose to balance things or to min/max.

Personally, I actually prefer min/maxing. Mechanically, its just better in most situations. Pump those strengths. Besides, your party members will most likely cover your weaknesses. Thats why you are in a party. Fluffwize, it just makes for far more interesting characters. Hey! I've got a reality-bending intellect, but I'm so weak I need the fighter to carry my spellbooks and the last time I caught the flu, I almost died..., or meh, I'm pretty much average all around Joe.

Matthew
2007-02-04, 08:26 AM
Eh? I would have though MinMaxing would have been even easier with Point Buy. Just stick all your points in your primary stat and level out the others to minimise penalties and their effect on the game.

Saph
2007-02-04, 08:37 AM
Eh? I would have though MinMaxing would have been even easier with Point Buy.

It is. If you roll stats and get a bunch of 12s, 13s, and 14s, then it's pretty near impossible to min-max.

- Saph

Diggorian
2007-02-04, 09:10 AM
Has anyone referenced this wiki-article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min/max) yet? It's a good summary of our conclusions.

Seems to me overall min-maxing as a character generation/developement method is cool, as long as it doesnt lead to metagame judgements that break character ingame.

Journey
2007-02-04, 11:58 AM
Has anyone referenced this wiki-article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min/max) yet? It's a good summary of our conclusions.

Seems to me overall min-maxing as a character generation/developement method is cool, as long as it doesnt lead to metagame judgements that break character ingame.

Traditionally min/max has always been associated with munchkins/powergamers. This thread, in fact, is the first I've ever seen it suggested that "min/max" can be associated with character specialization (e.g. in a point-buy dumping points into the one or two primary attributes and leveling out the rest).

There's a huge difference. The former is done specifically for the purpose of building a character that can "win the game", with laughable, trite "minimized" traits, while the latter may or may not be (depending upon the circumstances).

I wouldn't say it's ever "cool" to min/max, unless the campaign is specifically geared for munchkins and powergamers (which is fine; everybody likes a good hack fest now and again).

jono
2007-02-04, 12:37 PM
Min/Maxing is personal preference, and is certainly not something that a DM can be beaten by. Over-specialisation in fighting for example leaves you completely vulnerable against other things.

The way I see it, it’s only a matter of time before the max-strength Barbarian fails his will save against dominate person. Then it’s one short round later that he’s pinned the brain-box wizard who fudged on his strength. Again, not long before the elven rogue gets hit by the poison spear, fails his fortitude save, and is dead from Constitution drain. All that leaves is cleric with no charisma to run back to town and try to convince the populous to mount a rescue operation!

Thomas
2007-02-04, 12:51 PM
Hey, careful with the labeling. Powergamers and munchkins are nothing alike. (If only because powergaming requires smarts, and munchkins tend to be defined by a lack thereof...) :smalltongue:

Journey
2007-02-04, 01:11 PM
Min/Maxing is personal preference, and is certainly not something that a DM can be beaten by. Over-specialisation in fighting for example leaves you completely vulnerable against other things.

The way I see it, it’s only a matter of time before the max-strength Barbarian fails his will save against dominate person. Then it’s one short round later that he’s pinned the brain-box wizard who fudged on his strength. Again, not long before the elven rogue gets hit by the poison spear, fails his fortitude save, and is dead from Constitution drain. All that leaves is cleric with no charisma to run back to town and try to convince the populous to mount a rescue operation!

This is my point: there's a difference between min/maxing and specialization.

A person who is attempting to min/max would take care that his will save is as good as it can possibly be while at the same time maximizing his strength (and everything else). That's the whole point.

The "min" in min/max isn't "minimizing an ability or bonus;" it's "minimizing a deficiency or negative trait."

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-04, 01:11 PM
I hate min-maxing because I think it's unrealistic. How many people do you know who are excellent in one area but otherwise wholly deficient? Aside from autistics, people are generally not like this.

I counter it as a DM by just throwing a lot of different scenarios at my players. Maxed out for archery? Should have thought of that before you went into the Kobold tunnels, now you've got them springing out of the walls. Sunk every feat into your greatsword? Hope you don't lose it. Got the perfect spell combo for any encounter? What if, instead of just raiding a dungeon at your leisure, you have to take the defensive? What if your enemies stagger their assault?

My players have learned to be versatile and that it pays to have ranks in a variety of skills. Even ones that are usually ignored like Swim and Use Rope often find a place in my games. They seem to enjoy the variety.

Thomas
2007-02-04, 01:17 PM
I hate min-maxing because I think it's unrealistic. How many people do you know who are excellent in one area but otherwise wholly deficient? Aside from autistics, people are generally not like this.

Y'all keep working on the wrong definition. A min-maxed character is great at one or more things, with no deficiencies or weaknesses that ever come into play.

(And aside from that, your argument is pretty poor. A score of 8 in each of Int, Wis, and Cha is quite realistic and conceivable; it's someone with across-the-board barely-below-average mental abilities. I knew tons of people like that in school... :smalltongue: )

Starbuck_II
2007-02-04, 03:29 PM
I hate min-maxing because I think it's unrealistic. How many people do you know who are excellent in one area but otherwise wholly deficient? Aside from autistics, people are generally not like this.

Almost everyone I've ever known.

I for one have no common sense. But I am practically a genuis (High Int, low Wisdom). People are often Min/Maxers or Max/min-ers.
The first is minimizing definceincies and maximizing strengths.
The second is specializing (whether genetics did it for your or what).

Matthew
2007-02-04, 03:37 PM
No common sense, but ingeniously practical?

Diggorian
2007-02-04, 08:30 PM
I wouldn't say it's ever "cool" to min/max, unless the campaign is specifically geared for munchkins and powergamers (which is fine; everybody likes a good hack fest now and again).

OK, lemme do some operational definitions:

min/max (no caps)- pouring everything into one or two abilities, leaving the rest weak. This, IMO, is naive/dumb. As Piedmon points out, this leaves ya with hugely gaping vulnerabilities. This is what the munchkins I've known do ... but not for long :smallamused: . (Diggorian does NOT endorse this "method")

Min/Max (caps)- reducing the detrimental effects of weaknesses. This is what optimizers (like me:smallbiggrin: ) do. This, IMO, is cool as long as it's not the raison d'etre of a character. (Diggorian endorses this method)

Further, why would anyone not Min/Max (the second term) in 3.x D&D?

(EDIT: Changed powergamer to optimizer to describe myself. The former connotes a lack of character depth, which I find essential for my PCs. And, qualified the question.)

Thomas
2007-02-04, 08:36 PM
Further, why would anyone not Min/Max (the second term)?

Because it can be abusive. I've already outlined how and given examples, and I don't feel like repeating myself again...

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-04, 08:42 PM
Y'all keep working on the wrong definition. A min-maxed character is great at one or more things, with no deficiencies or weaknesses that ever come into play.

Well, if by Min/Maxing you mean outright powergaming then I'm generally against that too. ¬¬


(And aside from that, your argument is pretty poor. A score of 8 in each of Int, Wis, and Cha is quite realistic and conceivable; it's someone with across-the-board barely-below-average mental abilities. I knew tons of people like that in school... :smalltongue: )

That has nothing to do with what I said. o_O There's nothing inherantly wrong with playing a character who has all subnormal mental stats (although it's tougher to RP than most people think). Admittedly I'd advise against it, because such characters are going to find living without help extremely difficult, and, if their charisma sucks, help will be hard to come by.

What's stupid is when people build themselves around a single feat chain or technique in combat (like spiked-chain cheese) and then become completely screwed if they get into a difficult situations. (I'm not talking about outright boning the players like saying "a dragon drops out of the sky on you, lol" I mean if they find themselves needing to use the Climb or Swim skill or if their weapon gets sundered.)

Dark
2007-02-04, 08:49 PM
I think the min-max term originally came from game theory, which is the mathematics that models strategy games.

Min-max is the name of a specific algorithm for playing turn-based games such as Chess. It works like this: you first project every possible move you can make, and for each of those, every move your opponent can make in response. You calculate a point value for the advantage that your opponent gets from each of those possible moves. Then you make the move that minimizes the maximum advantage the opponent can get.

An example: Suppose you can make move A, B, or C. In response to A, the opponent could do A1 for 6 points or A2 for 8 points. In response to B, the opponent could only do B1 for 10 points. In response to C, the opponent could do C1 for 3 points or C2 for 9 points. So you make move A, which means your opponent's best result is 8 points. 8 is the minimum of the maximums.

(Yes, I know it's a pretty simple strategy. It works well for computers, because they can calculate the point values by doing another round of min-max, from the opponent's point of view. And then another, and so on, until they run out of processing time and have to make some guesses based on board position, etc. But by that time they've thought so many rounds ahead that all the stupid moves are easily identified.)

So, given this, I've always assumed that min-maxing in RPGs was a direct metaphor for this algorithm. It's so well known in game theory that game designers will have heard of it. In RPGs it would mean that you design a character with no weak spots: you've minimized the maximum harm.

Diggorian
2007-02-04, 09:03 PM
Because it can be abusive. I've already outlined how and given examples, and I don't feel like repeating myself again...

Cool, it wasnt directly solely at you. :smalltongue:

From re-reading your illustration from GURPS/Rolemaster, I should have qualified the question with "in 3.x D&D". I'll do that.

Beleriphon
2007-02-04, 09:20 PM
Cool, it wasnt directly solely at you. :smalltongue:

From re-reading your illustration from GURPS/Rolemaster, I should have qualified the question with "in 3.x D&D". I'll do that.

I would suggest that that Min/Maxing in D&D 3.5 is actually quite hard to do. The best that most people can achieve is reducing one ability score they don't intend to use and raising one that they do plan on using.

Mutants and Masterminds can get some pretty wacky drawbacks, but fortunately they are directly related to how often they come up in play and how severe the drawback is when it does. So Superman's Powerloss and Weakness to Kryptonite are both the highest level of severity, but only appear sometimes meaning he doesn't get that many points back.

In many ways systems that use Drawbacks are the worst for Min/Maxing because they allow ways to get all kinds of free benefits. Being Myoptic in melee combat isn't a big deal, nor would being illiterate. I think thats ultimately the point of Min/Maxing, as mentioned. It is to get the greatest benefit for the leasts cost. This is different then Optimizing which is simply making your character the best they can be within their skill set, without intentionally damaging their character's abilities. Thus a greatsword wielding fighter that takes feats to boost his melee skills with a greatsword isn't min/maxing. When he adds the myoptic drawback to the mix to get even more benefit is Min/Maxing. I don't have any particular issue with that train of thought, provided that your extra benefit has something beyond an nearly immaterial cost.

Thomas
2007-02-05, 02:30 AM
Cool, it wasnt directly solely at you. :smalltongue:

From re-reading your illustration from GURPS/Rolemaster, I should have qualified the question with "in 3.x D&D". I'll do that.

Then I'll agree with you. D&D 3rd edition is very resistant to min-maxing; the only way to really do it is with Flaws, and even that isn't very abusive, compared to how you can min-max in games with point-based character generation.

Just putting low scores in abilities where they don't hurt you is common sense, and not abusive. If someone wants to call it min-maxing, they can go ahead, but that just dilutes and confuses the term so badly it shouldn't be used at all.


Well, if by Min/Maxing you mean outright powergaming then I'm generally against that too. ¬¬

Nope, I don't mean "outright powergaming." I meant what I said - being great at one or more things and effectively having no weaknesses (instead often having "apparent" weaknesses that actually don't come into play as weaknesses).

Powergaming is playing the game with the intention of having a very powerful character; character generation actually doesn't automatically play any part there.

One of my ex-players was a real powergamer; his characters always ended up plotting for political power, making elaborate plans to take control of huge areas, to gain incredible wealth, and to gather influence. They'd manipulate NPCs, come up with carefully-crafted plans for dealing with just about everything, hole up in a certain area and take control there, etc. They'd invariably acquire a good deal of personal power and ability, too - naturally. They also had this knack for acquiring more magical items and wealth than any other PC (it's still a bit of a running joke in our group; "Does anybody else need this? No? Well, I can take it off your hands...").


What's stupid is when people build themselves around a single feat chain or technique in combat (like spiked-chain cheese) and then become completely screwed if they get into a difficult situations.

But that's how D&D works. You can be good at one thing, or you can suck at a lot of things. Fighters, for instance, only have 1-3 skill points per level, usually; they can't afford to split those around. Sorcerers and Wizards can't afford to learn skills like Jump, Climb, and Swim - they'd suck at them, but would now also suck at Spellcraft, Knowledge (arcana), and so on.

A character with one or more strengths, and one or more weaknesses is, in fact, a realistic character, and a good character from the DM's point of view, since they're easy to challenge. A character who's good in every situation is bad from the DM's point of view, since they can't really be challenged, but good from the player's (and PC's( point of view.

Shazzbaa
2007-02-05, 07:16 AM
I hate min-maxing because I think it's unrealistic. How many people do you know who are excellent in one area but otherwise wholly deficient? Aside from autistics, people are generally not like this.

Well, yeah, if you're talking like, INT of 18 and WIS of ....4 or something. But generally in D&D, even in point buy, you just have a stat that's below average. And that strikes me as the norm.

I mean, occasionally you'll meet the genius who's incredibly perceptive who also works out and can calf press upwards of 800 lbs and tends to attract people who will follow her willingly, but in my experience, such people tend to stand out rather a lot as being unusual.
More often than not, people are good at something, not everything. I spent my whole life practicing art (which I continue to associate with sorcerous magic), so I'm a decent artist... but I can assure you, my non-mental scores would be cripplingly low. The reverse is pretty common, too -- the guy who's awesome at sports but struggles in school, for example.

So while I can understand having a problem with people wrapping their entire build around a single weapon as being a bit extreme, I really don't see the issue with having a character who's poured everything into their one strength and left their weaknesses open. In reality, most people work to improve the things they're already good at, so I don't see such a character being unrealistic.

***

Besides, as I've mentioned before, I find mediocre-at-everything characters to be significantly more boring to me. I like having a glaring weakness. Not because I'm one of those "I've gimped my character so I'm a better roleplayer than you" people, but because a weakness makes the character considerably more fun, in my eyes. Perhaps I'm just odd, but it could be that players who do this specialisation thing aren't necessarily just Min/Maxing poorly or Optimising stupidly; they may simply, like me, genuinely enjoy a character with a fantastic strength and a glaring flaw.

Thomas
2007-02-05, 07:38 AM
So while I can understand having a problem with people wrapping their entire build around a single weapon as being a bit extreme

I don't know what's wrong with that, either...

I mean, you've got Elric, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser (although those two do lose their weapons, but they always get new ones and give them the same names), and countless other fantasy heroes who are specifically renowned for one certain weapon (or mastery of a single weapon). In almost all RPGs, characters are best off focusing on one or two weapon skills (and since "Shield" isn't a skill in D&D...).

A Fighter is always better off taking the Specialization tree all the way to Weapon Supremacy for one weapon than taking Weapon Focus for 10-15 weapons. It's not a silly build - in fact, the opposite would be silly. And there's nothing fundamentally wrong about, say, the Kensai PrC (which is all about focusing not on just a single kind of weapon, but on a single specific weapon).


Besides, as I've mentioned before, I find mediocre-at-everything characters to be significantly more boring to me. I like having a glaring weakness. Not because I'm one of those "I've gimped my character so I'm a better roleplayer than you" people, but because a weakness makes the character considerably more fun, in my eyes. Perhaps I'm just odd, but it could be that players who do this specialisation thing aren't necessarily just Min/Maxing poorly or Optimising stupidly; they may simply, like me, genuinely enjoy a character with a fantastic strength and a glaring flaw.

As a GM, I think every character should have at least one flaw, weakness, disadvantage, or similar feature. A GM needs those in PCs, to create better hooks and challenges.

Journey
2007-02-05, 07:58 AM
Then I'll agree with you. D&D 3rd edition is very resistant to min-maxing; the only way to really do it is with Flaws, and even that isn't very abusive, compared to how you can min-max in games with point-based character generation.

Just putting low scores in abilities where they don't hurt you is common sense, and not abusive. If someone wants to call it min-maxing, they can go ahead, but that just dilutes and confuses the term so badly it shouldn't be used at all.
I think I'd disagree with this. I believe that not only is 3.x not resistant to min/maxing, it practically encourages it, especially if point buy is used.

In fact, with average point buy or better, the only way to not min/max a character is to deliberately leave several abilities at 8. Bumping every stat to 9 or 10 and then dumping the rest in a primary and secondary attribute fits the very definition of "min/max" perfectly--one is maximizing strengths (primary/secondary attributes) and minimizing weaknesses (negating penalties in the rest).

There's a bit of give and play, of course, but the basic system itself practically encourages characters that have few or trivial weaknesses, regardless of whether flaws are used.

Dark
2007-02-05, 08:21 AM
Hmm, but that looks only at ability scores. The major part of character creation in D&D is class selection, and there you will find that the classes with the fewest weaknesses (monk and bard) are also the least effective overall. The system definitely encourages you to specialize by accepting glaring weaknesses in exchange for powerful class abilities.

The possible exception is the CoDzilla effect, but that's why people consider it broken :)

Thomas
2007-02-05, 08:53 AM
I think I'd disagree with this. I believe that not only is 3.x not resistant to min/maxing, it practically encourages it, especially if point buy is used.

In fact, with average point buy or better, the only way to not min/max a character is to deliberately leave several abilities at 8. Bumping every stat to 9 or 10 and then dumping the rest in a primary and secondary attribute fits the very definition of "min/max" perfectly--one is maximizing strengths (primary/secondary attributes) and minimizing weaknesses (negating penalties in the rest).

But that's not maximizing anything; you're just creating a very blandly average character who's not much good at anything. No min-maxer would do that.

On this level, min-maxing would be dumping stats you don't need - like a Fighter with low Wis, Cha, and Int. (A human fighter particularly, since the skill point bonus negates the -1 Int mod for all practical intents and purposes). Everything at 9 would be especially stupid, since you'd still have the -1 penalty but would have lost 3-4 points (i.e. 1 whole point of ability score in a high ability).

For instance, in 25-point-buy, a human fighter with Str 16, Con 16, Dex 13, Int 8, Wis 8, and Cha 8 would be as minmaxed as is really possible, but is still a very reasonable and viable character.

There's very little room for any manipulation on this level. You have to include flaws for min-maxing to be possible (so you can actually take a redundant flaw - like Noncombatant for a warlock, or Murky-Eyed for a melee knight - that never really affects you in a significant way).

You're confusing min-maxing with regular ability score assignment.


Every game system that includes them tacitly "encourages" players to give their characters irrelevant flaws or weaknesses, simply because those flaws and weaknesses almost invariably give you points to get some sort of good ability; if there's some combination where you can take redundant or irrelevant weaknesses (and there invariably is), it makes min-maxing a mechanically "smart" choice, even (especially!) where it's abusive (like my Rolemaster example of the single-weapon master).

Journey
2007-02-05, 09:28 AM
But that's not maximizing anything; you're just creating a very blandly average character who's not much good at anything. No min-maxer would do that.

On this level, min-maxing would be dumping stats you don't need - like a Fighter with low Wis, Cha, and Int. (A human fighter particularly, since the skill point bonus negates the -1 Int mod for all practical intents and purposes). Everything at 9 would be especially stupid, since you'd still have the -1 penalty but would have lost 3-4 points (i.e. 1 whole point of ability score in a high ability).
No, I think you're using the "maximize some stats, minimize others" definition which seems to be the one taking hold these days.

There are ways to min/max by leaving abilities at 8, particularly if the min/maxer believes he can obtain equipment to overcome his other deficiencies.

I would say that a min/maxer--one who is intent on maximizing his strengths and minimizing his weaknesses--would do just that and assign all ability scores equal to 10 (or perhaps a couple at 9 or even 8 depending upon the value of the point buy), with one or two at 15+.



You're confusing min-maxing with regular ability score assignment.


Every game system that includes them tacitly "encourages" players to give their characters irrelevant flaws or weaknesses, simply because those flaws and weaknesses almost invariably give you points to get some sort of good ability; if there's some combination where you can take redundant or irrelevant weaknesses (and there invariably is), it makes min-maxing a mechanically "smart" choice, even (especially!) where it's abusive (like my Rolemaster example of the single-weapon master).

It depends on the implementation of ability scores and how they are purchased. Systems like GURPS or point buy D&D encourage min/max ability score assignment that goes beyond specialization if the GM allows it. Adding flaws exacerbates the effect, but by no means are flaws required to min/max a character.

Harnmaster, on the other hand, is quite prohibitive when it comes to min/maxing in this way.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-05, 11:08 AM
Sheesh, alternatively accused of forcing my PCs to gimp themselves and making sure they suck at nothing. I've never had my comments misread not one but -two- ways before.

Guys, I wasn't saying nobody in my campaigns should have a stat before 10. I don't make them all be McGuyver anymore than I would say to one of my players, "y'know Steve, you've invested too much in your Greatsword. I want you to replace Improved Sunder with Skill Focus [Swim] and put some cross-class ranks in Survival."

What I'm against is my players turning themselves into one-trick ponies. A fighter who can do nothing but spring attack and trip is going to get screwed the first time he has to fight a giant. At least have some contingency in place if your main trick fails, and I'm not just talking about "run away very fast." Even Mugen kept a knife under his belt for when his sword skills weren't up to par.

I'm not saying it's bad to weapon-specialize, either. The Weapon Supremacy feats are great, really. I'm talking about a character who uses the EXACT SAME move EVERY TIME. It's gimmicky, gets boring, and eventually smart enemies are going to use your reputation against you. The Weapon Supremacy tree won't use up every feat your fighter ever takes, so why not give him a few neat tricks in addition to his focus?

Take my Paladin for an example, in a campaign I played back in the days of 3.0. It got a few raised eyebrows when I gave him Improved Unarmed Strike, Iron Fist and Ki Shout (the latter feats from Oriental Adventures) for some of his feat selection (He also had Power Attack & Improved Sunder, since he primarily fought with a Greatsword.) I think my DM's words were "very odd kingdom he must come from..." not the best build? When we got captured and stripped of our weapons in the outer planes, and I ended up KOing the (armed) guards with the Fists of Rocky Balboa, you better believe it was the sweetest build ever.

So what I'm saying is not that you should never specialize. Or that your characters must have no weaknesses Just that it pays to have a few surprises up your sleeve and think creatively. And I think that's one of the hallmarks of a good player in any game.

Dark
2007-02-05, 11:23 AM
My favorite example of GURPS min-maxing was a player who made a character that was a small statue (a bust). He took all sorts of disadvantages related to being a statue -- No Arms, No Legs, Blind, Cannot Speak, and in fact a complete inability to move. Then he took the enormous number of extra points from all that and put it into magical powers -- including necromancy, which he used to animate a skeleton to carry him around!

Thomas
2007-02-05, 11:51 AM
No, I think you're using the "maximize some stats, minimize others" definition which seems to be the one taking hold these days.

Nope. In D&D, minmaxing requires that. The whole point (the only way, in fact, that minmaxing can be abusive) is to take irrelevant disadvantages to purchase higher abilities in some areas. Int 8, Wis 8, and Cha 8 are irrelevant disadvantages to a D&D Fighter. You're not minimizing any area of ability - you wouldn't have had any ability in skills related to those ability scores anyway.


Sheesh, alternatively accused of forcing my PCs to gimp themselves and making sure they suck at nothing. I've never had my comments misread not one but -two- ways before.

You're not being "accused" of anything. The argument you present is being taken out of whatever context you (and only you) have for it, and being treated as a general argument, so that it can be addressed, refuted, corrected, or agreed with on a general level. Talking about you, your group, and your PCs would be a little useless.


My favorite example of GURPS min-maxing was a player who made a character that was a small statue (a bust). He took all sorts of disadvantages related to being a statue -- No Arms, No Legs, Blind, Cannot Speak, and in fact a complete inability to move. Then he took the enormous number of extra points from all that and put it into magical powers -- including necromancy, which he used to animate a skeleton to carry him around!

That's a great example of min-maxing (although not quite foolproof; it's very easy to destroy the skeleton).

GURPS is the most vulnerable to abusive min-maxing of all the games I know (with Rolemaster a close second).

Lilivati
2007-02-05, 12:00 PM
I use the term to mean someone who is trying to build the most powerful character they can within the rules- they will go right up to the edge, but never quite break anything. (As opposed to a munchkin which I see as more willing to bend/break/ignore/hope the others don't notice with regard to the rules in the pursuit of strengthening their character.)

Min-maxers get a lot of flack from roleplayers, but I don't see why. The two activities are not mutually exclusive.

Diggorian
2007-02-05, 01:03 PM
Min-maxers get a lot of flack from roleplayers, but I don't see why. The two activities are not mutually exclusive.

Very true. My love of characterization is the main thing that seperates me from being the Min/Maxer (caps) stereotype.

That the most min/max (no caps) option in D&D is the point buy system (which sets the base of stats at 8) is clear proof of it's min-max resistance. An 8 in a score is far from the minimum, 3 is the minimum PC stat in D&D.

If point buy was you get a base 3 in all abilities then get to distribute 42 pts 1:1 amongst them to a max of 18, we'd see true min/maxing. Fighter- Str 18 Dex 15 Con 18 Int 3 Wis 3 Cha 3. Add the Flaw for Feat option and we've got it. This is what systems like GURPS and Rolemaster seem to allow/encourage, my experience of it was with the mostly point based Alternity game.

A friend of mine (powergamer10/min-maxer 17) making a PC for the first time in Alternity broke the game with min-maxing. Our GM had to revamp the game system to make it capable of challenging him. Still, by taking the species mins and maxes, with flaws to lower the mins and perks to raises the maxes, he created a Weren (think sapient bipedal bear) martial artist named ... brace yourself ... Whirl Smashim. :smallamused:

Whirl strolled through sci-fi combat taking plasma and flechette blasts hard enough to stop an SUV, closing to melee range then plucking out our enemies organs like grapes from a stem. His saving grace was that he actually RPed his low mental stats accurately: cooking steaks over a toaster, hardly noticing if he was on fire, signing away his share in millions of credits for robotic toys. :smallbiggrin:

Thomas
2007-02-05, 01:12 PM
That the most min/max (no caps) option in D&D is the point buy system (which sets the base of stats at 8) is clear proof of it's min-max resistance. An 8 in a score is far from the minimum, 3 is the minimum PC stat in D&D.

If point buy was you get a base 3 in all abilities then get to distribute 42 pts 1:1 amongst them to a max of 18, we'd see true min/maxing. Fighter- Str 18 Dex 15 Con 18 Int 3 Wis 3 Cha 3. Add the Flaw for Feat option and we've got it. This is what systems like GURPS and Rolemaster seem to allow/encourage, my experience of it was with the mostly point based Alternity game.

I wouldn't agree. With stats that low, you'd have actual noticeable disadvantages (if only because you'd have to roleplay your character as a blithering idiot who doesn't understand how to wield a weapon and communicates by biting).


I'm pretty sure I broke Rolemaster when I converted my players' old MERP/previous RM edition characters. The melee characters all have 150+ hit points, everybody's got their main attack at 160+, and so on... at levels 6-9.

But I throw level 20 black trolls, Nazgūl, and dragons at them, so it all works out. (And the high-level opponents help with Rolemaster's biggest problem - incredibly slow character advancement).

Diggorian
2007-02-05, 02:08 PM
I wouldn't agree. With stats that low, you'd have actual noticeable disadvantages (if only because you'd have to roleplay your character as a blithering idiot who doesn't understand how to wield a weapon and communicates by biting).

I agree that is would be horrific Min/Maxing, but it fits the idea of min/maxing. I'd re-state my operational definitions, but I dont feel like repeating myself. :smallwink:

Although you and I may RP our abilities, many dont and nothing in the rules makes them. Our group has a wuss player (afraid of drawing AoO's from mooks) with a paladin who is immune to fear. Many of us dont like it, but it's within the rules.

As long as the fighter from my example doesnt have to serve the party as information font, threat detector, or spokesman by the rules he's playable.

Party Wizard: "Mongo, kill that mage!"
Fighter: "Mongo, kill!"
Villain Mage: "Dominate Person! Kill them!
Party Wizard: "Dang it ... sorry Mongo, Deep Slumber."
Fighter: "Mongo kill friends after nap. Zzzzz"

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-05, 06:33 PM
You're not being "accused" of anything. The argument you present is being taken out of whatever context you (and only you) have for it, and being treated as a general argument, so that it can be addressed, refuted, corrected, or agreed with on a general level. Talking about you, your group, and your PCs would be a little useless.

****, my bad. Of course, why would you want to hear how I DM a game? It's not like I know what I'm talking about, right?

Shazzbaa
2007-02-05, 06:38 PM
No, no, I don't think that was what was intended. :smallfrown: It's more that it would be pointless for the rest of us to sit around arguing about "I think Piedmon Sama is wrong, and he should DM like this instead."

Instead, we're taking your example/argument almost hypothetically, so we can discuss what we think of it as a general policy, rather than argue about what you should or should not do.

....At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-05, 07:01 PM
On reflection, I don't think you've been mis-getting me at all. I've just assumed that if you don't agree, clearly it must be you didn't understand. Sometimes I forget the annoying fact of other opinions, sorry. =p

I also just kind of assumed we weren't talking in terms for all gaming groups, since the idea is inherantly rediculous. Different groups will have different styles, etc. etc. The way I encourage my players to build their characters works well for my games, which is the only endorsement I can give since I'm not psychic.

Zincorium
2007-02-05, 08:26 PM
On reflection, I don't think you've been mis-getting me at all. I've just assumed that if you don't agree, clearly it must be you didn't understand. Sometimes I forget the annoying fact of other opinions, sorry. =p

I also just kind of assumed we weren't talking in terms for all gaming groups, since the idea is inherantly rediculous. Different groups will have different styles, etc. etc. The way I encourage my players to build their characters works well for my games, which is the only endorsement I can give since I'm not psychic.

Y'know, this is not something worth stressing over. The entire point is that each and every group is a special case. There are trends, there's a lot of general advice, but you can't prove something works or doesn't work based on any one case. If someone builds one of the charop thought experiments and it somehow works in that game, that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the build is essentially broken.

Thomas
2007-02-06, 12:13 AM
Instead, we're taking your example/argument almost hypothetically, so we can discuss what we think of it as a general policy, rather than argue about what you should or should not do.

....At least, that's how I interpreted it.

That is precisely how it was intended. Examples need to be generalized into, as you say, hypotheticals so they can be addressed in a useful way. So when someone takes a part of a post and responds to it, they're probably not responding directly to the poster and about the actual case, but are responding to the principles and precedent they see in the example.

Tormsskull
2007-02-06, 07:18 AM
Alternately, there is the idea of playing a character who's lifelong goal has always been to be a knight."

"I want to become a Knight Protector."
"How do you know that?"
"I grew up near a large garrison of knights, every day I saw them riding past all shiny like. As I grew older, I ate up stories of the glorious past and deeds of the knights. I heard about their valor and prowess and honor and thought to myself 'I want to be like that.' and ever since, I have always dreamed of becoming a knight. In fact, that's why I'm a fighter. I know knights must be powerful fighting men as well as morally upright. So at the first chance I got, I took up a military carreer so that I could become the mighty fighter I knew I would have to be to be accepted into the ranks of the knights."

The thread exploded since I last checked it, but I wanted to reply to this.

A character's lifelong goal of anything is great. But think of how a player would react if they didn't know what PrCs were in the world. The example you gave is inherently flawed because I don't tell my players on day 1 "These are the PrCs that are available". They wont learn that the PrC even exists until they are close to being able to join the PrC (as I mentioned in a previous post).

If you sit down with a group of 4 players and tell them you are playing core only, the only PrCs available are the ones in the DMG. Now, if I created 8 more PrCs but never told my players about it until they discovered it in-character, then they would have to react in-character to the discovery.

Think of a PC wizard who seemed to cast fire spells all the time. I create a PrC called "Elementalist" or something. I design the PrC, the PC wizard finds a tome from long ago detailing an organization of wizards who had a supreme mastery over fire. The PC wizard studies the tome, learns a little bit about the PrC Elementalist. Now the player of the wizard has to decide if they should take a level in it or not.

The way this ties into min-maxing is that I believe a person who is defined as a 'min-maxer' would take PrCs to maximize the abilities/skills/feats he is focusing on while minimizing his character's weakness'. I prefer when a character selects a PrC for a role-playing reason.

Edit: V It is possible, but in my experience it usually doesn't work out that way.

Rigeld2
2007-02-06, 07:29 AM
The way this ties into min-maxing is that I believe a person who is defined as a 'min-maxer' would take PrCs to maximize the abilities/skills/feats he is focusing on while minimizing his character's weakness'. I prefer when a character selects a PrC for a role-playing reason.
And its not possible for those to cooincide?

Journey
2007-02-06, 08:17 AM
And its not possible for those to cooincide?

It's not impossible, of course, but you generally end up with one (or both) of two scenarios:

1. The "Drizzt Do'Urden" effect. "My character is a pragmatic sort who always seeks the tactical advantage. Amazingly, all of my characters are like that, and so are all of my peers' characters. What a coincidence!" You know, just like that diamond-in-the-rough good-hearted dark elf ranger in exile.

2. The "super mario brothers is a role-playing game" definition of "role-playing."

ZekeArgo
2007-02-06, 08:30 AM
It's not impossible, of course, but you generally end up with one (or both) of two scenarios:

1. The "Drizzt Do'Urden" effect. "My character is a pragmatic sort who always seeks the tactical advantage. Amazingly, all of my characters are like that, and so are all of my peers' characters. What a coincidence!" You know, just like that diamond-in-the-rough good-hearted dark elf ranger in exile.

What does the backstory of said trite character and his companions have to do with the mechanical aspects of the PC? Just because each of the characters (an adventuring party no less, so assumed to be far above average) can do amazing things very well is a seperate part of their "personalities". ie: how they're played


2. The "super mario brothers is a role-playing game" definition of "role-playing."I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean by this? All characters being exactly the same save their names/clothing? Because dispite the fact that certain parties (namely wizard, wizard, cleric, druid) are far more optimal than others, players still create concepts that they want to play and explore. It's the optimization of these concepts that lead to characters even if they are "suboptimal" compared to other choices.

Jayabalard
2007-02-06, 09:00 AM
Min-maxing is kind of a vague term; people use it to mean more than one thing:
When someone has a min that does not affect their character, min-maxing is bad (ie, munchkinism). This is the real min-maxing.

When someone is min maxing and actually making a sacrifice in order to strengthen some other facet of their character, min-maxing is fine; in this case, the GM should be occasionally throwing situations at the group that exploit that weakness. (ex: Repeat villains should be exploiting the PC's weaknesses). This isn't really min-maxing, but some people refer to it as such.


a Dexterity of around 8 (in point buy, mind you). He's brilliant but has lots of coordination issues and is basically a clumsy oaf. An 8 dex is hardly a clumsy oaf... that's just slightly more clumsy than average.

Journey
2007-02-06, 09:05 AM
What does the backstory of said trite character and his companions have to do with the mechanical aspects of the PC? Just because each of the characters (an adventuring party no less, so assumed to be far above average) can do amazing things very well is a seperate part of their "personalities". ie: how they're playedThat's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I don't divorce the mechanics from the characters' personalities. They can be separated, of course, but to do so, for me, ruins the verisimilitude because it removes the characters' rationale for practicing the particular skills he has to the realm of metagaming out of necessity (with very rare possible exceptions). Not to suggest anything derogatory, but it's entirely not coincidental that one of the munchkins' best friends is the concept of metagaming.


I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean by this? All characters being exactly the same save their names/clothing? Because dispite the fact that certain parties (namely wizard, wizard, cleric, druid) are far more optimal than others, players still create concepts that they want to play and explore. It's the optimization of these concepts that lead to characters even if they are "suboptimal" compared to other choices.

I mean basically what I said. "Super Mario Brothers is a role-playing game because the player 'plays the role' of a plumber trying to save a princess." It's basically such an over-broad definition of "role-playing" that it makes the term meaningless.

Penguinizer
2007-02-06, 09:09 AM
A little bit of min-maxing is ok but only a bit. If its taken too far it (munchikining) then its no longer fun.

Rigeld2
2007-02-06, 09:11 AM
That's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I don't divorce the mechanics from the characters' personalities. They can be separated, of course, but to do so, for me, ruins the verisimilitude because it removes the characters' rationale for practicing the particular skills he has to the realm of metagaming out of necessity (with very rare possible exceptions). Not to suggest anything derogatory, but it's entirely not coincidental that one of the munchkins' best friends is the concept of metagaming.
First of all, everyone metagames. Guaranteed. Have you looked in the rulebook? Whoops, metagame. Yes, different people do it to different lengths, but still...

Now, there isnt a seperation of role-play and mechanics. But I dont see any reason that my Wizard/Monk should be barred from entering Enlightened Fist simply because its optimal, if I have role-played a way into the class.
Its not about being, and I quote, a "pragmatic sort who always seeks the tactical advantage." Its about picking a concept and picking the classes that fit the best in my opinion, without turning me into the equivilant of the CWar Samurai.

Beelzebub1111
2007-02-06, 09:17 AM
The worst I've faced in min-maxing is people who play elves like humans with +2 to dexterity. That annoys the hell out of me. My entire party one time consisted of only elves and half-elves. I was the lone human, but it didn't feel like it.

Tormsskull
2007-02-06, 09:50 AM
First of all, everyone metagames. Guaranteed. Have you looked in the rulebook? Whoops, metagame. Yes, different people do it to different lengths, but still...


That again gets into a different definition of metagame. When gamers say metagame they usually refer to acting on information they know out of character that their character wouldn't know. Knowing the rules isn't metagaming.

Metagaming becomes a problem in a role-playing game when it interferes with the role-playing.



Now, there isnt a seperation of role-play and mechanics. But I dont see any reason that my Wizard/Monk should be barred from entering Enlightened Fist simply because its optimal, if I have role-played a way into the class.
Its not about being, and I quote, a "pragmatic sort who always seeks the tactical advantage." Its about picking a concept and picking the classes that fit the best in my opinion, without turning me into the equivilant of the CWar Samurai.

But typically a player will pre-plan all of his character advancements. So it isn't like your character started as a wizard, an in-character event occured which made him take levels in monk, and then another in-character event occured which made him take levels in Enlightened Fist.

Basically you sat down and said "I'm going to have a Wizard/Monk who's going to take all of the preqrequisities for Enlightened Fist and then enter that class as early as possible." Then you proceed to "role-play" those events occuring. That's what I would call fake role-play or staged role-play. Its boring because it isn't something that occured naturally.

Personally I want players to start their characters at level 1. They write a nice background and may even write in their something that their characters are interested in becoming. Then the events of the game occur and the characters respond accordingly. Through role-play they may grow in an entirely different way than they thought they may have.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-06, 11:51 AM
Personally I want players to start their characters at level 1. They write a nice background and may even write in their something that their characters are interested in becoming. Then the events of the game occur and the characters respond accordingly. Through role-play they may grow in an entirely different way than they thought they may have.

And some of us find the whole "your not good at a damn thing, here are some stupid rats to kill" levels to be extremely annoying. I personally prefer "heroic" fantasy so having a character who leaps 40 feet from a standstill to barrel into an opponent and rush them back into a wall is more interesting than swinging a longsword over and over again. .

This is of course a difference of opinion, but the point is: some people like to begin a character with a premade backstory, or even as a character with no *actual* experience but with a great deal of inborn talent.

From there anything can happen, even re-training, but I personally don't understand the attraction people have to lower levels.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 12:00 PM
I think whether or not Min-Maxing is bad depends on whether or not the party can come to concensus on whether or not they are all going to do it. Of course if you have one "Min-Maxer" and one "purposely creates under-powered characters for role-playing purposes" in your group there is going to be conflict no matter what.

Rigeld2
2007-02-06, 12:23 PM
Basically you sat down and said "I'm going to have a Wizard/Monk who's going to take all of the preqrequisities for Enlightened Fist and then enter that class as early as possible." Then you proceed to "role-play" those events occuring. That's what I would call fake role-play or staged role-play. Its boring because it isn't something that occured naturally.

Personally I want players to start their characters at level 1. They write a nice background and may even write in their something that their characters are interested in becoming. Then the events of the game occur and the characters respond accordingly. Through role-play they may grow in an entirely different way than they thought they may have.

I dont see a difference, at all, between the last two paragraphs. If I want to play an Enlightened Fist, for example, starting at level one and writing a backstory, which I do for every character I'm planning on playing for more than a flybynight, is not going to change how I roleplay. In fact, starting at level one gives me a reason to continue to roleplay - but every one of my characters has a goal, because every person has a goal in life. Requiring an in-game event before allowing me to take Combat Casting (for example) is silly.

While roleplaying, I ask myself (very often) What Would Johnny Do? Johnny being the current character. If his goal in life is to study martial arts and academia, then Enlightened Fist is the way to go, and no amount of role-play is really going to change that (short of say... losing an arm or leg).

Tormsskull
2007-02-06, 12:46 PM
I dont see a difference, at all, between the last two paragraphs. If I want to play an Enlightened Fist, for example, starting at level one and writing a backstory, which I do for every character I'm planning on playing for more than a flybynight, is not going to change how I roleplay. In fact, starting at level one gives me a reason to continue to roleplay - but every one of my characters has a goal, because every person has a goal in life. Requiring an in-game event before allowing me to take Combat Casting (for example) is silly.

While roleplaying, I ask myself (very often) What Would Johnny Do? Johnny being the current character. If his goal in life is to study martial arts and academia, then Enlightened Fist is the way to go, and no amount of role-play is really going to change that (short of say... losing an arm or leg).

I guess you just play dramatically different than I do. When I start a level 1 character I write a background for him, with goals and aspirations and such. However, my level 1 characters don't know very much about the world, after all they are level 1. Then I role-play the character and let the campaign influence what he decides to do.

If I roll up Bob the fighter and the PC group he runs with keeps getting into encounters with undead, and then Bob hears about the SuperHolydins of Holyland and how they are crusaders in the fight against undead, he may decide to join that organization. I don't see how I could say beforehand that Bob is going to join some other organization that Bob has never heard of.

When I look in a book and see a bunch of different PrCs or items or spells or whatever it is, I don't assume that the character I am playing knows all of that information just because I do.

I'd say this still all comes back to how you view classes in general. If you view them simply as a set of skills, then your way makes sense. Your character just develops these skills on his own. Otherwise, it is a big break role-playing.

Rigeld2
2007-02-06, 12:51 PM
If I roll up Bob the fighter and the PC group he runs with keeps getting into encounters with undead, and then Bob hears about the SuperHolydins of Holyland and how they are crusaders in the fight against undead, he may decide to join that organization. I don't see how I could say beforehand that Bob is going to join some other organization that Bob has never heard of.
A Wizard who also studies martial arts extensively is the literal definition of an Enlightened Fist. So if Johnny started off that way (Lvl 1 Wiz, intending to take some Monk levels soon), theres no reason for him not to have heard of that order. Surely you have done research into things that interest you greatly... so would Johnny.


When I look in a book and see a bunch of different PrCs or items or spells or whatever it is, I don't assume that the character I am playing knows all of that information just because I do.
Neither do I. If its similar or related to what my character does, s/he may know about it, but its not guaranteed.


I'd say this still all comes back to how you view classes in general. If you view them simply as a set of skills, then your way makes sense. Your character just develops these skills on his own. Otherwise, it is a big break role-playing.
Mechanics dont define roleplaying. Roleplaying defines itself, and mechanics let you roll lots of dice for fun.

Jayabalard
2007-02-06, 01:36 PM
A Wizard who also studies martial arts extensively is the literal definition of an Enlightened Fist. So if Johnny started off that way (Lvl 1 Wiz, intending to take some Monk levels soon), theres no reason for him not to have heard of that order. Surely you have done research into things that interest you greatly... so would Johnny.
There are plenty of reasons why Johnny wouldn't have researched that:
-There may be a small number, or even just a single group of that order.
-They may be in a remote area compared to the campaign start.
-Even if they are close, news and information travel slowly, so they may not be known to Johnny.
-They may be secretive.
-etc

To a certain extent, pre-planning and optimization are meta-gaming; you're choosing a particular progression path based on what is the most effective by the game mechanics.

I'm not saying that it's a wrong or bad way to play, but it doesn't hold any interest for me.

Starbuck_II
2007-02-06, 01:48 PM
I guess you just play dramatically different than I do. When I start a level 1 character I write a background for him, with goals and aspirations and such. However, my level 1 characters don't know very much about the world, after all they are level 1. Then I role-play the character and let the campaign influence what he decides to do.

Are you saying the charactes have never been outside their town in your world, news doesn't travel, no Bards to deliver stories, etc. Does'nt seem like a very real world to me. Unless every character must start isolated.

Plus if they can't know thew world how do they write a backstory. You can't know the past without being there (or evidence of it).

JaronK
2007-02-06, 01:59 PM
Wait, Torm, are you seriously maintaining that people who manage to integrate mechanics and roleplay somehow aren't roleplaying right? Because that's just silly. In my experience as an actor, the best acting comes from taking the mechanics (usually a script, in this case) as a guideline and creating a character that fits those mechanics and yet is an interesting character as well. Basically, you want to create a character with a personality such that he's going to want all those things. In acting, the things he wants to do include saying all his lines, being where the director needs you to be, etc. In RPGs, those things include wanting to be a Fighter or Paladin or Frenzied Berserker or whatever.

That's how you're supposed to do it!

JaronK

Journey
2007-02-06, 02:19 PM
Wait, Torm, are you seriously maintaining that people who manage to integrate mechanics and roleplay somehow aren't roleplaying right?
That's how you're supposed to do it!

JaronK

No, I think he's saying that pre-planning a character's class build and then ad-hoc role-playing after the fact is metagaming. That is of course the truth; it is metagaming at its purest. Whether it's "roleplaying right" or "bad" or whatever is subjective.

endersdouble
2007-02-06, 02:19 PM
And some of us find the whole "your not good at a damn thing, here are some stupid rats to kill" levels to be extremely annoying. I personally prefer "heroic" fantasy so having a character who leaps 40 feet from a standstill to barrel into an opponent and rush them back into a wall is more interesting than swinging a longsword over and over again. .

This is of course a difference of opinion, but the point is: some people like to begin a character with a premade backstory, or even as a character with no *actual* experience but with a great deal of inborn talent.

From there anything can happen, even re-training, but I personally don't understand the attraction people have to lower levels.
QFT. Actually, if you like heroic fantasy, you should really try playing some Exalted. It's a far superior system mechanically, nine kinds of fun, and as heroic as they get. Stunt dice are the best mechanic in existence.

My take on this whole thing is probably infected by my experience with classless systems (Storyteller in all its incarnations, for example). I think of classes more as sets of abilities than backgrounds. As said earlier, an Enlightened Fist is just an arcane caster who likes martial arts--it's no different from playing a Wizard/Monk straight (except probably way more effective.)

Take my current character. I'm playing a Beshadowed Blade (Check the ToB Build Compendium on the CharOp boards.) It's a TWF build with 4 classes. When someone asks Adotlin "So, who are you and what do you do?" do I answer "Well, I'm a Swordsage 6/Warblade 3/Fighter 2/Bloodclaw Master 3"? Hell no. I talk about being a mercenary taught by masters of mysterious styles of swordplay, etc.

Similarly, a "Paladin" is just a holy warrior. If someone calls themselves a paladin, that just means they fight for right and their god. This "paladin" might have fighter levels, crusader levels, monk levels, cleric levels, pally levels, who knows? That only effects whether their god blessed them with the ability to lay on hands (pally levels) or beat the everliving crap out of enemies with their bare hands (monk levels, probably), or use divinely inspired tactics to coordinate the death of evil (Crusader levels with a focus on WR)...you see how it goes.

Anyway, that make sense?

Tormsskull
2007-02-06, 02:27 PM
Are you saying the charactes have never been outside their town in your world, news doesn't travel, no Bards to deliver stories, etc. Does'nt seem like a very real world to me. Unless every character must start isolated.

Plus if they can't know thew world how do they write a backstory. You can't know the past without being there (or evidence of it).

That all depends on the character. A person who is a farmer on a small community before becoming an adventurer sure isn't going to know about a small group of knights off in the big capital city. Theoretically you could create a background that has your character being a librarian and he has read books about nearly everything that there is to know. However, that's cheesy. When you create a level 1 character in my group we all agree not to be "something special" above and beyond everyone else. No one is a noble with access to special funds. No one is the long lost son of so and so, etc.



Wait, Torm, are you seriously maintaining that people who manage to integrate mechanics and roleplay somehow aren't roleplaying right? Because that's just silly. In my experience as an actor, the best acting comes from taking the mechanics (usually a script, in this case) as a guideline and creating a character that fits those mechanics and yet is an interesting character as well. Basically, you want to create a character with a personality such that he's going to want all those things. In acting, the things he wants to do include saying all his lines, being where the director needs you to be, etc. In RPGs, those things include wanting to be a Fighter or Paladin or Frenzied Berserker or whatever.

That's how you're supposed to do it!

JaronK

Integrating mechanics with roleplay is one of the very important aspects of D&D, its HOW you do it that cause the discussion. Player A says "I want to be an Enlightened Fist so therefore I have determined that my character grew up in a city located next to a temple that trains Enlightened Fists. He has studied long and hard and one day wants to be one."

Player B talks to his DM prior to, and the DM says "You guys are starting in the city of Saro, a small port town on the western coast of the Iller Continent. This city has a lot of sailors, fisherman, and cooks. It also has........." Now player B makes a background that incorporates this information.

It sure is easy to say "Yeah, it doesn't matter where we start the campaign because my character comes from Cro'shel. Its this city that all the powerful people live. There's schools and wizard universities and bard colleges and everything." <------ Once again, cheesy role-playing.

Player A is making his character devoid of a campaign. He is creating the character is some kind of a void and then plugging him into whatever campaign/setting the DM has created. Player B is making his character as part of the campaign/setting. As a DM I'd prefer to have 4 player B's in my group, because I aim for heavy role-playing.

Jayabalard
2007-02-06, 02:29 PM
Are you saying the charactes have never been outside their town in your world, news doesn't travel, no Bards to deliver stories, etc. Does'nt seem like a very real world to me. Unless every character must start isolated.In a low tech/dark ages type world, news travels very slowly. A typical person will know
-Quite a bit about the area that they grew up in.
-Some very general social and political knowledge for the larger country/kingdom/whatever that they are a part of, more depending on their rank and how close they are to the capital.
-Some vague info on rival and nearby kingdoms, much of it misinformation.
-Stories and legends about far away places; "far away" being dependant on the level of technology and magic, but is almost certainly less than a continent. Most than what they "know" about those exotic lands is probably false.
-nothing about the rest of the world.

News travels very slowly; there isn't any centralized communications network except at the very top end of the society, and even then it's pretty faulty.

Literacy is far from universal, and most of the people who are literate "know their letters" rather than being fluent; there is no movable type print, printing presses, newspapers, mass printed books, etc.

Education is so-so at best for the nobility, and nonexistant for lower levels of society.

Travel is dangerous, and the majority of people don't travel from near the area that they are born in.

Some of that depends on the game world... perhaps you play a much more advanced world.

Dark
2007-02-06, 03:50 PM
That all depends on the character. A person who is a farmer on a small community before becoming an adventurer sure isn't going to know about a small group of knights off in the big capital city. Theoretically you could create a background that has your character being a librarian and he has read books about nearly everything that there is to know. However, that's cheesy. When you create a level 1 character in my group we all agree not to be "something special" above and beyond everyone else. No one is a noble with access to special funds. No one is the long lost son of so and so, etc.
I think it's going to be different in the specific case of a Wizard/Monk. In order to be a wizard at all, you need to have studied at some school of magic. In order to be a monk at all, you need to have been trained in a monastery. Both of these institutions will have extensive libraries. (If you did it all through self-study, you'll have needed even more extensive libraries). So our Wizard/Monk has probably read through a library or two before starting out on adventure -- wizards are studious types. He's not going to be fresh off the farm. If there's an organization that teaches exactly what he's training to be, then it's likely that he will have read of it. If nothing else, there will probably be mentions of some Enlightened Fist heroes in the history books.

Rigeld2
2007-02-06, 03:57 PM
Some of that depends on the game world... perhaps you play a much more advanced world.
The standard D&D world, none of that is really true. High magic renders most of what we think of as happening in a low technology society irrelevant. Slow communication? Wrong - Message, Sending, no language barrier, Teleportation Circle (between major areas) and other magics.

Literacy and Education are basically irrelevant with respect to this idea - that a gomer on a farm couldve heard of and researched a remote cult.

Travel being dangerous? Not nearly as much as people make it out to be. Sure, it takes some time, but its not dangerous. The time is what stops people from traveling.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 04:06 PM
A lot of the prestige classes in D&D have such specific feats/skills/organizations that it becomes very hard to roleplay them in without seeming a little contrived. Often members of a prestige class are all members of a specific organization with which they all trained from the beginning. This really limits the backstories of the characters involved. The only people who become enlightened fists, are the ones who trained from birth with the order.

Shazzbaa
2007-02-06, 04:24 PM
I think the discussion with Tormsskull is turning into a matter of personal preference. Torm's way of playing actually sounds really cool to me. Is it unreasonable for him to expect these things of his players? No, because his players are cool with playing that way. I know I would enjoy it. But would it be unreasonable to expect everyone to play that way...? I would say, yes.

A lot of players don't expect the DM to help them into a prestige class. And besides, many of the existing ones really do require planning, by requiring x ranks in something or some mess of feats. And in addition to all that, sometimes the prestige class is the thing you really want to be. I wanna play a fleshwarper someday; there's no base class quite like it, and there's really no way to do that without planning for it.

I hold that it would be presumptuous for the DM to automatically expect every player to not ponder prestige classes, and I also think it would be presumptuous for the player to assume every prestige class is necessarily going to exist in a form he can take advantage of.
Thus, the players and DM should communicate. If they are a regular group, then it is quite likely that an understanding already exists. If you're not a regular group, honestly, it seems to me that the player should contact the DM and say "I'd like to do this, can I?" and the DM may reply, "Okay, sure, no need to ask me," or he may reply "Cool, I'll make sure to include that PrC in the campaign so you have a chance to take it," or he may simply say, "I'd rather you didn't pick PrC's at this point, I'm not using the traditional PrCs." I think any method of handling prestige classes/multiclassing is fine, as long as the players and the DM are on the same page.

Jayabalard
2007-02-06, 04:39 PM
/shrug ... that is why I suggested that you play in a more advanced world than I do. I've never been particularly interested in a high magic world where wizards are the "working man" like that.

as for "the Standard D&D world" ... I don't think I've ever met anyone who played in strictly the standard world with no changes and no house rules ... I'm sure there may be some who do... I just never met them.

I'm not trying to imply that a particular way is the right way and that others are wrong; I'm just trying to be clear where I'm coming from so that we aren't making incorrect assumptions (which make an ass out of you and mumptions :smallbiggrin: ).

back to books:

A monastery doesn't imply to me that it would a particularly extensive library; since monks tend to look inward rather than outward (that is part of what makes them monks after all), what library they do have wouldn't be very informative about the outside world.

Similarly, a wizard's study is focused on subjects that advance the study of magic, so their libraries are still fairly narrow.

Books whether from a monastery's, noble's, or a wizard's library are written by hand; that means that they have to make decisions on what books do get copied (and recopied as they deteriorate over time), which further limits the books that are available.

Indexing is done by hand as well, so just finding the right book is no small task.

So it seems likely that Johnny the 1st level wizard isn't going to have had an opportunity to read about some obscure wizardly martial artist order.

Rigeld2
2007-02-06, 04:57 PM
The only people who become enlightened fists, are the ones who trained from birth with the order.
Wha?

Theyre even common enough that "Enlightened Fists are most common in metropolitan settings, where magical training is available..." Which means that any wizard should have at least heard of them. I dont see how its metagaming at all.

Yes, certian prestige classes can be way out there and hard to believe anyone ever hearing about. But some of them are right out in front (like Enlightened Fist).


So it seems likely that Johnny the 1st level wizard isn't going to have had an opportunity to read about some obscure wizardly martial artist order.
Read CArc. They arent obscure.


I hold that it would be presumptuous for the DM to automatically expect every player to not ponder prestige classes, and I also think it would be presumptuous for the player to assume every prestige class is necessarily going to exist in a form he can take advantage of.
I absolutely agree with this.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-06, 05:05 PM
Indexing is done by hand as well, so just finding the right book is no small task.

I'm afraid Dewey Decimal, Master Libramancer, may have something different to say about that. See, he invented this spell called "Dewey's Perplexing Sorting System." Sor/Wiz 3. Conjuration. Sorts a library by an inexplicable numbering system.

Then he created "Dewey's Indexing Service." Sor/Wiz 3. Conjuration. The spell creates index cards for all the books in the library.

And lastly he created "Dewey's Absent-Minded Book Locator." Sor/Wiz 0. Divination. Locates books containing relevant information within 30'. Material component of a piece of paper with the requested information written on it.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 05:27 PM
Wha?
Theyre even common enough that "Enlightened Fists are most common in metropolitan settings, where magical training is available..." Which means that any wizard should have at least heard of them. I dont see how its metagaming at all.

I suppose that's what I get for not looking it up before I discuss it.:smallfrown:

Anyway, I was trying to come up with a good example for this and have found the Keeper of the Cereulean Sign from Lords of Madness:The Book of Aberrations to be a much better example of an obscure organization.

Zincorium
2007-02-06, 05:36 PM
I suppose that's what I get for not looking it up before I discuss it.:smallfrown:

Anyway, I was trying to come up with a good example for this and have found the Keeper of the Cereulean Sign from Lords of Madness:The Book of Aberrations to be a much better example of an obscure organization.

Well, it's also an obscure prestige class, and most characters who would want to take it would also want to be part of that group regardless of class if they were fighting aberrations.

Basic, 'this is a natural extension of my existing training' PRCs like Enlightened fist or Frenzied berserker should be given a lot more slack in terms of roleplaying requirements than things which explicitly state that they are obscure or require membership in a group (which a few people seem to be assuming all prestige classes do).

Sir_Banjo
2007-02-06, 05:55 PM
I like min-maxing, it makes characters unique. For fighter-types, it is essential unless you like turning up to games at high levels and contributing little. The party is, for all intents and purposes, one unit and so everybody in it has a role of some sort to fill. Min-maxing helps to define the characters role within the party just as much as their choice of weapons and feats. It's evolutionary though, over-specialize and you'll breed in weakness.

As an aside, the most power-gamed character I ever saw was built using 28 point buy with all stats 14. He had no real specialty, but was able to outshine everyone (we had a party of paladins, fighters and rogues) and no real weakness. He also rolled well for hp, meaning that his weasely gnome archer had more stamina than the hard-as-nails, bitter old dwarf. Coincidentally, not having a wizard makes for a lot of fun; you have to get creative). To make this things worse, he gave 14 to every character he ever made. In short, for this and other reasons I haven't mentioned, I'm glad I'm not gaming with him anymore.