What does the term min-max mean?

[Talakeal]

The term min-max is used a lot in regards to characters, but I noticed that people use the same term to mean (at least) two very different things.

I have heard it mean maximizing a characters strengths while at the same time minimizing their weaknesses, aka being all around powerful.

I have also heard it used to mean maximizing your strengths at the expense of all else, so you have maximum power in some areas and minimum power in others.

Which definition do you use?

[Vknight]

Well it means both.

One of my players calls it Twinking. And every time I don't Dm he calls my character a Twinkout no matter what, even playing a 3.5monk he calls it a twinkout.

[Firechanter]

Maybe we should found a self-help group. I don't know what I am doing wrong, my co-players also perceive me as a Twink even when I play stuff like a Ranger in D&D or a Rigger without Drones in Shadowrun 3.

[Frozen_Feet]

Both are valid readings, coming from "minimal losses with maximal gain". The first is based on the reading "minimal weaknesses, maximum strenghts", and could also be called maximin (maximizing minimal output). The second is based one "minimizing useless traits, maximizing useful ones", which could also be called specialization.

In general, both are forms of optimizing. Both just optimize for different goals or tasks. The first one optimizes general performance. The second one optimizes for specific task, and neglects spending resources on abilities in favor of spending as much towards that specific task.

[Vknight]

Oh I know I min max but I need to or we would die when I play.

Here are the three famous cases.

Spoiler

Show

Seeker Elf. The other 2memebers are a Heal Focused Cleric and a Grappling Fighter. Now said cleric followed the Fighter around keeping him healthy but letting enemies the Fighter did not mark gang up on him. My seekers ability to spread damage out probably is the only reason we didn't die.
Now the icing was my characters double crit against the boss in the first round with my daily and encounter. His minions haad no time to react as there master fell.

Barbarian Bugbear with Executionar Ax. I crit on a death save and come back from near death, I crit on my first attack of that encounter and roll max damage for my crit with my DAILY! My character saves the other characters by actually hitting and gaining flanking.

A monk that crit with his entire flurry of blows attack.

And there is the problem its not that there overpowered I'm just really good at rolling crits.
I will admit they were powerful build but not to the levels they precieved them as.

[Lemunde]

Heaven forbid you create a character that you expect to survive the campaign.

[Tyndmyr]

Note that what constitutes too much is...highly variable. I was once accused of being a powergamer for pondering a level of fighter to go with a straight barb cause I wanted a feat. I've also played an incantatrix/iot7v abusing persist that resulted in fist bumping from the party. Different groups.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Min-Maxing is the process of Minimizing weaknesses while Maximizing strengths. Min-Maxing can be carried out to a variety of degrees.

Spoiler

Show

Pretty much everyone accepts some amount of Min-Maxing as reasonable. If you're playing a Fighter, you should have a high STR and a good AC. Few people think it reasonable to play a melee Fighter with no STR and crappy AC for any reason.

Most people seem to draw the line at "Min-Maxing at the expense of RP" although that is a very blurry line. Some people take that to mean coming up with a backstory and then picking whatever mechanics make sense with that backstory; others only refrain from "obvious" fluff violations. Of course, there are many people who don't believe that any amount of Min-Maxing can harm RP and are therefore happy to Min-Max as much as they desire.

The second barrier to full Min-Maxing is the Cheese Wall. "Cheese" is a broad term that covers mechanics choices that individuals find distasteful. There range from clearly overpowered mechanics to vaguely worded rules; everyone as a different kind of Cheese Wall which restricts the sort of mechanics that a Player will not use on their character.

Now the fun question: why do you ask?

[dsmiles]

Min-Maxing is the process of Minimizing weaknesses while Maximizing strengths. Min-Maxing can be carried out to a variety of degrees.

Exactly. I tend to define this (in broad terms) as having four degrees:

Min-maxing, Optimizing, Twinking, and Munchkining.

Disclaimer: These definitions are solely the opinion of this poster, and are in no way representative of the role-playing community as a whole.

Min-maxing is what happens when bad optmizers (or new optmizers) try to optimize without obviously breaking the "Cheese Wall" (as OH so eloquently put it ). This is acceptable.

Optimizing is what happens when good optimizers do the same thing. They can come much closer to the Cheese Wall without breaking it. This is also acceptable.

Twinking is what happens when bad optimizers (or new optimizers) and/or munchkins try to optimize, and break the Cheese Wall a little. Not intentionally, or, if it is intentional, it's only noticeable if you know the rules very well. This is unacceptable, and can usually be remedied by pointing out the cheese.

Munchkining is what happens when the good optimizers (or munchkins) go off the deep end of optimization and almost cheat and/or cheat. This is unacceptable, and should be dealt with before the game starts, or it may ruin everyone's fun.

Now, keep in mind that different groups have different areas where they place their Cheese Wall. This is completely acceptable, but each person should try to stick to groups that have their Cheese Wall within their individual comfort zone. For instance: I'm not a spectacular optimizer. (I can do it, but I'm not great at it.) However, I prefer not to have to optimize, as I don't have time to search through all the books for the most effective options (I have work and a family, so I refuse to spend more time on the game than I do with my family). So, I stick to low- to medium-optimization, casual groups.

[ClockShock]

The term min-max is used a lot in regards to characters, but I noticed that people use the same term to mean (at least) two very different things.

I have heard it mean maximizing a characters strengths while at the same time minimizing their weaknesses, aka being all around powerful.

I have also heard it used to mean maximizing your strengths at the expense of all else, so you have maximum power in some areas and minimum power in others.

Which definition do you use?

I'm actually more familar with the second: that you take the absolute minimum in everything in order to squeeze the maximum out of one other.
To this extreme it rarely works out well - either the one thing is so universally powerful when maximised that you cannot fail (diplomancy works here, i belive) or any small degree of variation will kill you (this is more common in DnD - as it's a game with many different sets of situations)
Neither are particularly entertaining for anyone.

The more general form (taking more useful things over less useful things, so you maximise beneficial expenditure and minimise useless) is actaully just reasonable sense and doesn't need a special term.

[Lord Raziere]

meh, my personal definition is that min-maxing is taking the strengths to the absolute maximum and the weaknesses to the absolute minimum, and that anything above that is going overpowered while everything under it that isn't blatantly underpowered is reasonable and ain't min-maxing at all.

I'm more of a roleplayer than mechanics guy anyways, to me mechanics are nothing but bare bones, completely unimportant and inanimate without the flesh, blood and brain of roleplaying. sure they provide structure and are important, but without everything else....y'know what I'm saying.

[Firechanter]

Related to this but not to be confused it the "Minimax principle" (note the extra "i"), which aims for "maximum gain from minimal effort". Also known as the 80-20 rule -- you can get 80% performance with 20% effort, but the final 20% performance require 80% effort.

D&D example for minimax:
You could try to optimize Two-Weapon Fighting, by taking classes, feats and PrCs that complement it well and negate the penalties as much as possible.
OR you could just skip it and take a Two-Handed Weapon with Power Attack. Costs just a single feat and is at least as powerful.

[Tengu_temp]

Here are my definitions of some of the terms thrown around here:

Min-maxing - creating a character who's as good as possible at one or a few fields, at the cost of everything else. Usually leads to an extremely unbalanced character who's awesome at combat and completely useless at everything else. A negative term.

Powergaming - intentionally making a strong character without using exploits and cheese. It's a very broad term and can encompass both staying within the relative strength border of the group and crossing it, so it's neutral. "Good optimizer" is a positive term, it means you're not going to intentionally overshadow the rest of the party.

Optimizing - like powergaming, but willing to use exploits and cheese and often considers them fair game. Has a hint of worshipping RAW, and is often more negative than powergaming.

Twinking - intentionally using exploits and cheese to build the strongest character possible, with no regards for the rest of the party. Purely negative.

Munchkining - has nothing to do with building a character, and is instead a style of play. A munchkin wants to gather as much XP, treasure and magic items as possible, and he will whine when other players have more or even as much as he. Bad team player. Purely negative.

[Savannah]

Powergaming - intentionally making a strong character without using exploits and cheese. It's a very broad term and can encompass both staying within the relative strength border of the group and crossing it, so it's neutral. "Good optimizer" is a positive term, it means you're not going to intentionally overshadow the rest of the party.

Optimizing - like powergaming, but willing to use exploits and cheese and often considers them fair game. Has a hint of worshipping RAW, and is often more negative than powergaming.

Fascinating. I see these two as synonyms, with something similar to your "powergamer" definition. If anything, I see "optimizer" as the more positive of the two labels.

[bloodtide]

Maximizing your strengths at the expense of all else, so you have maximum power in some areas and minimum power in others.

This my definition. Min-maxing is very negative to me. It equals someone who does not want to role-play, but just wants to roll-play and 'win'.

All combat min/maxed characters are classic. They put everything in combat and ignore everything else. Then, when not in combat, they sit around and are bored and useless. This is the person who puts +10 ranks into spot and listen as soon as they can(to see and hear the monsters and kill more), but does not even put a single rank in anything else.

Or spellcasters that take all blasting spells, and can do a ton of damage...but they can do nothing else.

[Tengu_temp]

Fascinating. I see these two as synonyms, with something similar to your "powergamer" definition. If anything, I see "optimizer" as the more positive of the two labels.

For me, the term "optimizer" brings to mind someone who cares about cold, hard numbers first and foremost, usually with little regard for anything else. Which makes it a more negative term, because it means that he's more likely to use cheese and exploits and less likely to take the power level of everyone else in the group under consideration.

[ericgrau]

Bad min-maxing is taking weaknesses with minimal impact in exchange for maximum benefit. Like minmax in the Goblins comic exchanged his ability to pronounce certain words to get a +1 to attack rolls or something.

It comes in the form of meaningless flaws in exchange for more feats, dump stats, dumping a stat and then getting an ability that substitutes in another stat, negating the attack bonus penalty from power attack for drawback free damage limited only by BABxN (a high number), dumping charisma and then trading useless turn attempts for divine metamagic, prestige classes with minimal pre-reqs and huge benifits with nothing major lost compared to normal class levels, etc. It is cheese and it does ruin games because what is lost is most certainly less than what is gained, often with an unlimited scaling benefit, and then balance is thrown off. Then the DM can't challenge one player without easily killing another and encounters are ruined. Thus it only works for balance when everyone in the group does an equal amount, and even then that means your group has to draw the line somewhere whether formally or informally.

If you mean putting low numbers in things your character is supposed to be bad at and high numbers in things you're supposed to be good at then that's perfectly fine and should be expected from anyone trying to play a challenging and exciting game if they want to stay alive. In fact, not doing so would put you behind the group and create the same power disparity problem as above. But I wouldn't call that min-maxing at all, merely something that kinda sorta sounds like it in name only.

[Saintheart]

Related to this but not to be confused it the "Minimax principle" (note the extra "i"), which aims for "maximum gain from minimal effort". Also known as the 80-20 rule -- you can get 80% performance with 20% effort, but the final 20% performance require 80% effort.

As opposed to the Mirimax Principle, which, given the sort of crap movies they usually make, amounts to "Minimum Gain from Maximum Effort". Also known as the 20-80 rule -- you can get 20 people into the theatre by making a movie that looks like it was written by 80 morons on various nonprescription narcotics.