RPG Gaming: the Great Min-Maxer Debate

Started by Hydra009, May 04, 2023, 02:28:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hydra009



I've been getting more into RPGs lately and  the question that always comes up at these sorts of tables is if it okay to min-max, hereby defined as intentionally designing a character with the most possible beneficial traits and the least possible detrimental traits.

On one hand, RPGs are games (hence the G) and in games, the goal is to win.  You want to slay that dragon, get that gold, and *ahem* receive a platonic kiss on the cheek from the damsel in distress.  D&D and a lot of other games are power fantasies - a fictional, idealized life of heroism and adventure and of course, victory.  And in order to win as a character, the player must crack open the books and design a character most likely to triumph.  So what if he's a vampiric faerie half-elf who multiclassed into half a dozen classes, went chaotic neutral to mug the questgiver, crammed a bag of holding into another bag of holding, went lich and made his phylactery the color blue?  GET GUD, scrub.

On the other hand, RPGs are primary about roleplay (hence the RP) and the goal is to tell a story.  We create characters in order to tell a story with other people, so it's important that characters are both memorable and consistent.  So what if my halfling scribe can't wield a longbow during a dragon encounter when it would be most advantageous?  He can cook corned beef and hash that'll knock your socks off and haggle for an almost 8% discount at any inns we happen to stop by here in the Burning Wastes.  A flat 5% off food in The Desolation as well.  He might not be amazing in combat, but D&D isn't all about combat - there's plenty of travel and diplomacy and intrigue to go around.  Powergamers might be powerful, but they'll never know the simple joys of embodying a character and just doing what they would do.

Which is right?  Which do you gravitate towards?  How much min-maxing is too much, if any?

Blackleaf

I'm in a gray area between. You want a character to be competent at what they do, or else they'll just die. But trying to get every advantage possible to break the game isn't ideal either. You want to have some challenge. If you have a tank with a freakishly high armor class, what is the DM supposed to do? If they throw a super powerful lich at the party, they'll get over that AC, but then you might steamroll over the entire party.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Shiranu

#2
I despise min-maxing with a passion and think it's absolutely killing video games - particularly those that use to rely on social contact to decide what worked best for the group rather than going to a random website that does all the work for you.

If you figure it out yourself? Fair play, nothing against that - but that's not what most min-maxing is.

Might as well just ask someone else to play the game for you at that point. Disgusting trend.

Edit - Unless you are just role-playing a really well-prepared, well-trained figure.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Hydra009

#3
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2023, 02:52:35 PMI'm in a gray area between. You want a character to be competent at what they do, or else they'll just die. But trying to get every advantage possible to break the game isn't ideal either. You want to have some challenge. If you have a tank with a freakishly high armor class, what is the DM supposed to do? If they throw a super powerful lich at the party, they'll get over that AC, but then you might steamroll over the entire party.
My thoughts as well.  I want the character to be competent enough so that adventuring makes sense for them, but I don't want them to be some ub3r l33t powerhouse with no real weaknesses.  In fact, I absolutely want them to have one major weakness because it's fantastic for roleplay (like a mad scientist who will absolutely risk it all for knowledge and has to be talked back from the brink like Indiana Jones hanging from a cliff while reaching for the Holy Grail) and it forces my character to rely on the team to ameliorate that weakness.

And like you say, if your character is overly powerful, encounters are too easy and so naturally, the GM is going to up the difficulty and send even more powerful monsters your way, which is a HUGE problem for anyone not min-maxing, cause they're just going to die.

In fact, the whole motive behind min-maxing appears to be to make the game easier, which would work fine in a single-player video game, but not in a team game run by another person.  The unintended consequence is actually an increase in difficulty, not a lessening of it.  Anyone truly wanting an easier game can do that in a 5-min chat with the DM, not by pouring over rulebooks for exploits.

Hydra009

#4
Quote from: Shiranu on May 04, 2023, 03:17:56 PMI despise min-maxing with a passion and think it's absolutely killing video games - particularly those that use to rely on social contact to decide what worked best for the group rather than going to a random website that does all the work for you.
Are you referring to using websites to look up the "best" abilities or entire builds?

I admit to skimming sites like that just to narrow down the dizzyingly large number of potential picks down to a smaller (but still large) number of options that playtest decently well and then just picking the ones that make the most sense for the character.

A lot of abilities are extremely situational or have gone through some weird nerf so it's important to me to not completely waste those precious feat points.  I actually really wanted a polearm for my character since that's a culturally-important weapon for their race (also I personally really dig polearms and maces), but apparently that's overpowered to the point of being looked down upon so now I don't know what to do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've been watching a guy on youtube who intensely powergames (whatever floats your boat) to the point of doing weird stuff like picking a stealthy familiar who can use a touch spell and then having his wizard use his familiar to sneak up on the big bad and teleport him into the elemental plane of fire.  Imagine Harry Potter using Dobby to send Voldemort straight to hell (Dobby has been given a proc!).  A funny joke idea?  Yes.  Something that makes sense at a D&D table?  NO.  Hell no.

He also had this weird rant about how it makes sense for PCs to use broken builds because the adventuring world is cutthroat and any competent wizard would use stun abilities due to their obvious utility.  But at the same time, monsters shouldn't ever use stun abilities because that takes away player agency and makes for a bad time for the player.  Even simple strategies like focus fire should be fair game for the PCs but never used by the NPCs because PC deaths are obviously far more detrimental to the adventuring party than NPC deaths are to the Big Bad.  And again, because this makes for a bad experience for the one being targeted.  (Methinks he's very fond of playing wizards and thus would be the likely target, and his assessment is heavily influenced by this fact)

Gawdzilla Sama

I did the original DND, text characters only. I kept punching the "new character" button until I got a really strong character, 6-8 10s only. This was in 1989.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Hydra009

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 06, 2023, 06:39:07 PMI did the original DND, text characters only. I kept punching the "new character" button until I got a really strong character, 6-8 10s only. This was in 1989.
I have no idea what 6-8 10s is referring to.  Hit dice?  Attributes?

Mike Cl

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 10, 2023, 12:25:17 PMI have no idea what 6-8 10s is referring to.  Hit dice?  Attributes?
Dr. Pepper?????
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?