I assume each participant in this thread is familiar with the concept of mimmaxing: is the process of building a character in such a way the it is the "best" at something. This best can be combat or non-combat skills. The issue arises when such a character is so "good" that the game's design fails to create a challenge for this character in its area of expertise.
If you're a cleric and no other class in your party can heal, did you minmax? If you're the only character that has expertise did you minmax? What about a character with 30 AC. Is there no other way to challenge that character?
I mention all those rhetorical questions because definitions aren't the same between different people. What's minmaxing to one person might not be to another. I have quite the strong suspicion that minmaxing is being used as a scapegoat for a number of other problems.
The problem is when you chose feats/class abilities/etc/ race/etc in such a combination that you have a 30 AC while everyone else has a 14-15 AC. Essentially for a monster to occasionally hit the 30 AC player without a crit they would need a +15 - +20. That means everyone else would always get hit.
Sure the dm could alwyas have a +15 monster who only attacks the AC 30 player.... Or always has a spellcaster monster to attack the player. But that takes combat to a more unrealistic scenerio.
Min. /Max is not really achieved from within a single class as those have been balanced. The issue usually comes up when multiclassing and selecting certain feats.
The problem is when you chose feats/class abilities/etc/ race/etc in such a combination that you have a 30 AC while everyone else has a 14-15 AC. Essentially for a monster to occasionally hit the 30 AC player without a crit they would need a +15 - +20. That means everyone else would always get hit.
Sure the dm could alwyas have a +15 monster who only attacks the AC 30 player.... Or always has a spellcaster monster to attack the player. But that takes combat to a more unrealistic scenerio.
Min. /Max is not really achieved from within a single class as those have been balanced. The issue usually comes up when multiclassing and selecting certain feats.
There are so many different ways to run combats that you can't really call that a design problem. The player with 30 AC has made conscious choices to get that number at the cost of many other options. That 30 AC, if unused, becomes a detriment to that character rather than a boon because of what they could've gotten instead. If the 30 AC character is running roughshod over every encounter, that's more of a DM problem than a systemic one. Even with AL rules I can best the AC of a Tarrasque, but that wouldn't make me more deadly than a Tarrasque.
And why would single classes be "balanced" but not multiclasses? If multiclasses were so imbalanced then why would it even be an option in the first place? Multiclassing is a variant rule just like Point Buy, Feats, Alignment, Playing on a Grid with Miniatures, Magic Items.
i believe i started with saying that if someone min/max at my table i will murder him until he cries and people said i was cruel... well wasnt that what you are saying? if a character has 30 ac well throw magic at his face...
The ideal response to someone being a dick is not to be an even bigger dick. Even more so when someone isn't being a dick. Just some helpful life advice.
No wonder "Rocks fall everyone dies" is the best kind of GM. Everyone sure loves dying for arbitrary reasons, but I'm sure there's some story reason you'll try to justify it with.
im gonna design my campaign before the players even roll their characters, and if someone is casting flesh to stone and you fail your save because you decided that min/max your cha to beat people with a stick and not get hit in return that is on you
i believe i started with saying that if someone min/max at my table i will murder him until he cries and people said i was cruel
If you specifically target someone with the intention of ruining their experience, then yes, you are being cruel. If your encounters are designed for any character in mind, then there shouldn't be any problem with who is part of the party. There won't be any need to target a minmaxer.
Much of the point that I've been backing in this thread is that minmaxing is not what ruins the experience for a table. Its the people individually at the table that ruin the experience. Like filcat said, the point of the game is to have fun, and there are plenty of ways for the optimizer and non-optimizer to have fun together.
Ok my first line - play the game how you and your players like it....
I don't like it and am very clear at my table when I run but luckily for me my players are more into the story and will make decisions that will disadvantage them if it holds with their character.
It is a game and there are various styles of play (and interpretation of the rules but that's another argument... :) )
if a spell proves effective against a certain character why wouldnt an NPC exploit that?
you cant have your cake and eat it too, that is not how the world works
first you say a min/max cha have weaknesses and now i cant exploit them? make up your mind!
I think the issue here is one of the words you used earlier meaning something different to you than they do to at least a few of the rest of us in the thread.
You said something along the lines of "if someone min/max at my table i will murder him until he cries". Myself, and it seems at least Ghotistyx (whose name I happen to love, by the way), read that sentence as being an entirely different thing from your later statement of "im gonna design my campaign before the players even roll their characters, and if someone is casting flesh to stone and you fail your save because you decided that min/max your cha to beat people with a stick and not get hit in return that is on you"
The former statement implied some level of tailor-picking opponents specifically because they will constantly exploit whatever weakness the min/maxed character happens to have ended up possessing, while the later statement implies that a min/maxing player isn't being treated any differently than the non-min/maxing players, they are just experiencing a rougher time because they happen to have not guessed the right thing to min/max in order to provide their character the best chances against the campaign you've designed and aren't making alterations to for the explicit purpose of singling-out one character for constant and intentional exploitation of the character's weak-points to lethal degree.
well im just saying if my players are gonan min/max then so am i? otherwise how is it a challenge? doesnt matter how i worded the end result will be him/her crying
you just seem to have an issue with me not liking min/max and you have tried every trick to try and justify it to me... which is never ever gonna work... go on with your min/max way in what ever game will have you...
well im just saying if my players are gonan min/max then so am i? otherwise how is it a challenge? doesnt matter how i worded the end result will be him/her crying
you just seem to have an issue with me not liking min/max and you have tried every trick to try and justify it to me... which is never ever gonna work... go on with your min/max way in what ever game will have you...
To the question of "otherwise how is it a challenge?" I will point out that through this entire thread I've been specifically advocating for the idea that the DM consider that someone who is min/maxing is specifically looking to reduce, not increase, the challenge they face. Which means the DM taking the "if you min/max, then so am I" approach is going to result in a lack of fun, the "arms race" between the character and DM, and possibly even the campaign itself falling apart - not because of the min/maxed character, mind you, but because of the DM's response to that character.
And I also presented an alternative way for the DM to respond to a min/maxed character - and it's a thing which I have done, and have witnessed the effects of, which are very relevant to the second statement you've made:
I don't have any issue with you not liking min/max. I don't like it either, which is why I figured out how to actually get players to not do it - rather than continue to let myself engage in the "I'll show them what they get for min/maxing!" approach that I used to do, which sounds a lot like the approach you still take.
To phrase it as simply and clearly as I can, here's the way you get players to stop min/maxing, step by step:
1) Run your campaign as if their character weren't min/maxed at all, no matter how many challenges their character build makes easier than you hoped they would be. End of steps. It's a one-step process.
If you do that, the min/maxer will see their over-investment in a specific area as having been wasted - they will see they could have done awesomely in that area with less resources dedicated to it, and their future characters will involve smaller investment in any given area as a result. Effectively, they will see a new optimal character building strategy, and it will be to build a character that is awesome for exactly how you would prefer the campaign to be - not "something even tougher because I made the toughest character I could and still couldn't manage to survive the campaign."
Think of it, if you will, like taking a toy from a dog. You can grab it while they want to play tug-of-war and pull until it comes free or your arm gives out... but you can also just create the circumstance in which they'll drop it, so why not do that if your goal is to get the toy from the dog?
im glad you found a way to show these players to folly of their ways
using their weaknesses against them will pretty much have the same result but faster when their character is a drooling carrot on the floor, and it gives them a chance to make a new character
I think you make an error to assume its the Dm who is at fault. I'll agree that the min/maxer doesn't want a challenge, but most likely everyone else at the table does. If the min/max player is running all over everything that is likely going to take the fun away from other players. It's not the DM who is giving the majority of the table what they want that is at fault. The min/maxer and his desire to be better always is at fault.
using their weaknesses against them will pretty much have the same result but faster when their character is a drooling carrot on the floor, and it gives them a chance to make a new character
Perhaps your experience differs, but mine has repeatedly been that what you describe results in the player's new character being min/maxed just as much, if not more, than the one left a "drooling carrot on the floor."
I think you make an error to assume its the Dm who is at fault. I'll agree that the min/maxer doesn't want a challenge, but most likely everyone else at the table does. If the min/max player is running all over everything that is likely going to take the fun away from other players. It's not the DM who is giving the majority of the table what they want that is at fault. The min/maxer and his desire to be better always is at fault.
It takes two to tango, as they say - the DM and the player are not isolated events, they are inherently two parts of the equation. The reason I assign fault to the DM is because the player has made their character and the DM has two options what to do with that - one leads to the situation that the game is spoiled for somebody, and the other doesn't.
If the min/maxer doesn't want a challenge, but the rest of the table does, all that is needed of the DM to satisfy everyone is to present challenges for the everyone else potency of characters. In doing that, those players that want a challenge will feel challenged because the min/maxed character cannot possibly do everything for the party, and the player that doesn't want a challenge will see that they don't have one in the area they are min/maxed for, but do have one in areas they aren't.
You imply this hypothetical situation where someone's fun is spoiled because someone else's character performs well. I don't think that actually happens (at least not without a separate "jerk player" element like bragging about how much cooler their own character is, or some manifestation of failing to treat the game as a cooperative experience rather than a competitive one) because no fighter is going to be upset that their friend the rogue doesn't seem to fail at picking locks or finding traps, no wizard is going to be upset that their fighter friend seems nearly invulnerable, and no one is being reasonable if they are upset that their character with a lot of cool utility, healing, and buffing effects can't also match the damage output of someone else's character that doesn't do anything but damage. Plus, it often does matter much at all that one character has X+Y value for some trait when everyone else only has X, because anything X or greater is effectively identical (i.e. a goblin has 7 hp, so any hit that deals at least 7 damage is effectively the same, whether it came from a roll of 1d8+3 or a roll of 2d6+5, or some other number).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
im not sure what we are talking about anymore
fact is that a min/max character can break and derail a campaign
no more need to justify this shenanigens
And why would single classes be "balanced" but not multiclasses? If multiclasses were so imbalanced then why would it even be an option in the first place? Multiclassing is a variant rule just like Point Buy, Feats, Alignment, Playing on a Grid with Miniatures, Magic Items.
i believe i started with saying that if someone min/max at my table i will murder him until he cries and people said i was cruel... well wasnt that what you are saying? if a character has 30 ac well throw magic at his face...
which means we have come full circle
The ideal response to someone being a dick is not to be an even bigger dick. Even more so when someone isn't being a dick. Just some helpful life advice.
now you argue that someone min/max isnt being a dick but i say he is being a dick
and if someone tries to break my game im gonna break them for the greater good :)
Well, let's remind ourselves that the primary goal of any game is to have fun together.
Now, optimizer or non-optimizer I am sure that people can find a way to play together in any case, respecting each other.
im just reminding them than a 1 dimensional character will do poorly in a 3 dimensional space
No wonder "Rocks fall everyone dies" is the best kind of GM. Everyone sure loves dying for arbitrary reasons, but I'm sure there's some story reason you'll try to justify it with.
why do you always jump to extremes?
im gonna design my campaign before the players even roll their characters, and if someone is casting flesh to stone and you fail your save because you decided that min/max your cha to beat people with a stick and not get hit in return that is on you
Much of the point that I've been backing in this thread is that minmaxing is not what ruins the experience for a table. Its the people individually at the table that ruin the experience. Like filcat said, the point of the game is to have fun, and there are plenty of ways for the optimizer and non-optimizer to have fun together.
again you jump to conclusions
if a spell proves effective against a certain character why wouldnt an NPC exploit that?
you cant have your cake and eat it too, that is not how the world works
first you say a min/max cha have weaknesses and now i cant exploit them? make up your mind!
Ok my first line - play the game how you and your players like it....
I don't like it and am very clear at my table when I run but luckily for me my players are more into the story and will make decisions that will disadvantage them if it holds with their character.
It is a game and there are various styles of play (and interpretation of the rules but that's another argument... :) )
Have fun!!! (Even when killing your players!)
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
well im just saying if my players are gonan min/max then so am i? otherwise how is it a challenge? doesnt matter how i worded the end result will be him/her crying
you just seem to have an issue with me not liking min/max and you have tried every trick to try and justify it to me... which is never ever gonna work... go on with your min/max way in what ever game will have you...
End of steps. It's a one-step process.
im glad you found a way to show these players to folly of their ways
using their weaknesses against them will pretty much have the same result but faster when their character is a drooling carrot on the floor, and it gives them a chance to make a new character
I think you make an error to assume its the Dm who is at fault. I'll agree that the min/maxer doesn't want a challenge, but most likely everyone else at the table does. If the min/max player is running all over everything that is likely going to take the fun away from other players. It's not the DM who is giving the majority of the table what they want that is at fault. The min/maxer and his desire to be better always is at fault.