From the Big Purple:

Quote(Question is at the bottom.)

I'll be starting a new campaign soon; 4e, though edition isn't really relevant to my problem. My problem is this: most players in my group min/max within what I call the 'expected min/max zone.' They assign their highest ability as their attack stat, they use the equipment that makes sense for their class/build, etc. But two of our players play under the 'expected zone,' which I think is a problem because combat tends to drag out in my experience, even with 'normal' PCs at the wheel.

So I want to encourage these two players to min/max more:

The Friend: Out of the group, this one is the only player I call a true friend. She's a great role player, but I wish she had just a bit more respect for min/maxing. A few weeks ago I told her that I would offer everyone in my next campaign the option to switch around their racial stat boosts, because I think they only encourage the same old, same old race/class combos. Her reply was "I wouldn't do that, 'cause I'm a role player." (I can already hear the screams of "Stormwind!") Since this conversations, I've decided to rationalize stat switches as 'individualistic talent' and 'subraces.'

The Biologist: This guy is a simulationist like me, but unlike me he actually expects D&D to be realistic. While my Friend simply can't be bothered to min/max, this guy actively gimps his characters. He plays melee characters with 12 Str, he plays fighters without armor; all his choices seem to depend on how his character would "realistically" grow, and most of those choices seem to go against the most basic optimization standards. He realizes that he's gimping his characters for combat, and that we play a healthy number of combat encounters, he just doesn't seem to care. And I don't think he gimps his characters because he wants to play putzes, that's just the way it works out.

Which is strange because both of these players agree with me that 4e combat takes too long. Even with me shaving HP off of monsters, an encounter with four players and four monsters can take an hour. I'd think that with combat taking so long, they'd at least pick up Expertise (in non-TS campaigns, where feat taxes aren't house ruled). So anyway:

How do I gently but effectively encourage a simulationist and a "role player" to min/max their D&D characters just a bit more? How do I concisely and convincingly explain that role playing is not antithetical to min/maxing, and that playing a heroic realistic character is more fun than playing a putz realistic character?

I thought that was an interesting read. Not because of the particular question, but of the logic shown here. The problem: I have a group of mix/maxers, but for two guys who aren't min/maxing. Solution: I need to get these guys to mix/max more.

Interesting, isn't it?

I catch a bit of flack in our group because I refuse to 'optimize' my characters... I also tend to avoid spending my 'fate' chips and bounty points unless I feel it's warranted by what's happening/happened in the game.
That's gotten a few of my characters killed off (I'm the only player that ever loses a PC), and I'm fine with it ... but one of the other players always feels the need to 'remind' me how I'm making the 'wrong' decision in not using the rules to my character's full advantage... 'because we're heros!'
It probably doesn't help that a lot of my favorite movies end with the main protagonists dead or dying.
Based on what I've seen min-maxing seems to be the norm in most groups.

I read through the thread and realized I game in a completely different world than most of the people responding do. I discourage min-maxing in every gamesystem I run -- and have since I started playing RPGs in 1975.

I find it funny.
My guys actually take great joy lately in playing the most broekn characters possible and making it fly.  I have really had some uber-roleplaying miserable hell characters lately...

QuoteThis guy is a simulationist like me, but unlike me he actually expects D&D to be realistic.

Funny. The rest of it is kind of sad, though.

Quote from: RandallS;373886I read through the thread and realized I game in a completely different world than most of the people responding do. I discourage min-maxing in every gamesystem I run -- and have since I started playing RPGs in 1975.

I'm not a big min-max fan, either. I think it stems from the fact that only1 of my players is what I'd call a true min-maxer, which means he basically wants to be like 200 times more awesome than the rest of our standard, competent party.  It really steps on people's toes.

The guy in our group who gives me grief over my sucky characters is also the guy who, in both games we play, has the characters who are possessed by powerful entities that give him 'special powers'.
I wonder if it means anything that he's also the only player who hangs out with the GM socially outside of game nights...

Quote from: Simlasa;373891The guy in our group who gives me grief over my sucky characters is also the guy who, in both games we play, has the characters who are possessed by powerful entities that give him 'special powers'.
I wonder if it means anything that he's also the only player who hangs out with the GM socially outside of game nights...

There are few things worse than the Favored Player, be it the GM's buddy or girlfriend...

I like optimizing - But all of my characters are role-played. Otherwise, it isn't really worth it.

I don't min-max, and I generally dislike it (I'm more of an "interesting situation" guy than I am a "let's win everything" guy), but it's understandable given how important stats and abilities are in WotC editions.

The odd thing is I thought 4e was supposed to be more resistant to the problems of "unoptimized" characters falling far behind others in the party.

I don't really get how gimping your character is somehow better roleplay. Whatever. A part of the fun of 4e is the character optimization--picking powers that work together, finding cool combos, getting that just right allocation of ability scores. I just don't see it as something that competes with the 'role-playing'; it exists alongside the RP and can feed into it. But it is a sizable portion of the game. If you don't enjoy that then maybe 4e isn't the game for you b/c yr missing a big chunk of the fun.

Quote from: two_fishes;373906I don't really get how gimping your character is somehow better roleplay. Whatever. A part of the fun of 4e is the character optimization--picking powers that work together, finding cool combos, getting that just right allocation of ability scores. I just don't see it as something that competes with the 'role-playing'; it exists alongside the RP and can feed into it. But it is a sizable portion of the game. If you don't enjoy that then maybe 4e isn't the game for you b/c yr missing a big chunk of the fun.

Just make sure you use a funny voice on that RP server.  kkthanx.

Gimping's not necessary.  I think there's a difference between playing a competent character and an optimized/min-maxed one.  In one case, you choose the most obvious good choices, in the other, you go all-out in finding the best combination.

4e design limits the upper thresholds and gets rid of the most useless choices, anyway, so the difference between a well thought-out character and a completely twinked one aren't as marked as in 3e.

Two fishes said:

QuoteI don't really get how gimping your character is somehow better roleplay.

Speaking generally, there's min-maxing within your concept which is not really a problem unless someone's immensely better than everyone else, and there's throwing out your character idea and play something better.

Race is a thorny issue for instance, since someone might find a particularly race interesting but the stats sucky. Skills are another issue - why is the baker trained in Acrobatics again?

Quote4e design limits the upper thresholds and gets rid of the most useless choices, anyway, so the difference between a well thought-out character and a completely twinked one aren't as marked as in 3e.

Yes, however, the tighter math in 4e means that monsters are much more precisely calculated, so that a +1 to hit becomes much more significant. Your 3rd level fighter with 12 Strength in 3.5 can expect to fight 1st level orcs at least occasionally, and if he gets really lucky he might find a gelatinous cube with AC 3. Or some kobolds to grapple. The gelatinous cube gets a preset 18 AC in 4e, because its a CR 3 monster.
In fact, a +1 bonus is important enough in the to-hit progression is narrow enough that the designers built in 'consolation' feats for weapons with the lower +2 proficiency bonuses (i.e. scimitar, warhammer) so characters can deal damage even on a miss.

For me, the problem with min / maxing is that it produces goofy characters that don't fit in.

I actually like min / maxing in Pathfinder or 3.5 when it leads to the best possible halfling thief, elven ranger, human sorcerer, and dwarven cleric. It is when it leads to a half race / template / with three classes that it pisses me off.

The sub optimized character is better for rp, usually, because you don't have to dig for a history that explains his weirdness, nor does the GM have to jump through hoops to involve him in the game world normally. It sucks, sometimes, to constantly have NPCs amazed by a character's weirdness or obviously overlooking it. It gets old.