Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578303In an unbalanced system (like 3.5) once one person maximizes, everyone else has to start doing it to keep up, and finally the GM has to spend extra effort trying to construct things that can keep up with the PCs.
Hence min/maxing is by its nature either antisocial or pointless. The only really meaningful increase in power is an unbalanced increase in power - a gain in ability as compared to other PCs - other improvements just lead to an escalation in NPCs to match.

Actually, I've seen more of minmaxing used to close the gap than start a race. It's common to allow or expect minmaxing of martial characters while discouraging it in casters, for example. At least IME.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578312Precisely. Minmax is a stepping stone on the way to general numbers bloat. Instead of rolling a d20 and adding bonus of +1 or 2 to hit an AC of 15 (or thereabout) and rolling 1d6 for damage vs a creature with 20 hit points you end up with rolling a d20 +22 or 23 to hit an AC of 36 and rolling 2d8+15 damage vs a creature with 100 hit points.

Its all the same. If the world matches to keep pace with every gain then there is NO actual improvement taking place.

Additionally, if the monsters don't have hp bloat, combat at higher levels can move a lot faster with minmaxed characters.

Minmaxing can actually be used to improve the game pretty significantly on either side of the screen.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578312Precisely. Minmax is a stepping stone on the way to general numbers bloat. Instead of rolling a d20 and adding bonus of +1 or 2 to hit an AC of 15 (or thereabout) and rolling 1d6 for damage vs a creature with 20 hit points you end up with rolling a d20 +22 or 23 to hit an AC of 36 and rolling 2d8+15 damage vs a creature with 100 hit points.

Its all the same. If the world matches to keep pace with every gain then there is NO actual improvement taking place.

What? Is this a statement against minmaxxing or Level Treadmill? Based on the numbers you're actually talking about how its bad for a game to have a level treadmill where everything just gets bigger numbers. You realize that it's mostly the martial types that depend on getting bigger numbers while often times casters get the actual abilities that aren't just numbers (read illusions, divination, conjuration, etc) right? If you don't like playing the numbers game than the best solution is to have the game give you abilities that don't just pump up your numbers.

Quote from: MGuy;578348What? Is this a statement against minmaxxing or Level Treadmill? Based on the numbers you're actually talking about how its bad for a game to have a level treadmill where everything just gets bigger numbers. You realize that it's mostly the martial types that depend on getting bigger numbers while often times casters get the actual abilities that aren't just numbers (read illusions, divination, conjuration, etc) right? If you don't like playing the numbers game than the best solution is to have the game give you abilities that don't just pump up your numbers.

It all feeds in together. Having a lot of modifiers to minmax means that doing so inflates the numbers. Inflated numbers lead to the arms race and the level treadmill you are referring to.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578303I think if we say that anyone trying to get the best out of their character concept is a min/maxer - the term becomes so broad that it loses all meaning.
 
I would regard someone as a "min/maxer" if they prioritize high stats over building to try to maintain some sort of character concept - if they started by thinking "hey Feat X/Class Y has just great bonuses, so I'm going to play one of those".
 
Do you hate snow elves? Are you going to play one anyway and create some contrived backstory about how your character trekked from the Arctic to my current campaign just so you can avoid the standard -2 Con penalty for elves and have a -2 to Charisma instead? Then you're probably a min/maxer.

I mostly agree here.  Making an efficient character isn't inherently min-maxing.  In my two examples (my superhero PC Volt and my Burning Wheel character Judyn), both were cases where I started with the mechanics of how I wanted to optimize, and then later came up with a matching background.  I don't think that either of these had any worse character concepts than non-minmaxed PCs, though.  

I would note that this same sort of back-fitting generally happens with random-roll PCs.  i.e. You have a set of stats (and possibly other stuff), and you have to come up with details that flesh those out.  I find that having to stretch often makes me come up with interesting backstory that I wouldn't have come up with otherwise.  

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578303In an unbalanced system (like 3.5) once one person maximizes, everyone else has to start doing it to keep up, and finally the GM has to spend extra effort trying to construct things that can keep up with the PCs.

Hence min/maxing is by its nature either antisocial or pointless. The only really meaningful increase in power is an unbalanced increase in power - a gain in ability as compared to other PCs - other improvements just lead to an escalation in NPCs to match.

I don't buy that having to make tougher opponents is an undue burden on the GM.  Depending on the system, higher power levels can be more GM bookkeeping.  However, it's not an undue burden for a GM to run a level 9 adventure - whether it is for inefficiently-made level 9 characters or level 5 min-maxed characters.  

I also disagree that this is antisocial.  You're assuming that the social norm in not min-maxing, and that because someone makes a different character outside the norm, that therefore they're antisocial.  In a group of min-maxing players, though, the stubborn holdout who refuses to min-max is the "antisocial" one.  Making minmaxed characters can be very much social - just like any challenging gaming activity from poker to Pandemic.  People can give advice if someone needs help, or trade quips in friendly competition, compare strategies, and so forth.

Quote from: jhkim;577708Obviously there is a difference between single-class progression and multiclass progression.  However, I don't think that single-class progression is necessarily any more sensible -- and it definitely doesn't respond to the nuances of what is happening in the campaign any more.  Someone who plans a single-class progression is just as locked-in as someone who plans a multiclass progression.  

I find that the collection of capabilities in most multiclass progressions wouldn't be noteworthy in a skill-based game like Savage Worlds or GURPS.  The order they get them in is sometimes odd, but that's forced by the level and class system.  

For example, in my first game of D&D3.0, my GM gave me grief because my Sorcerer took one level of Fighter for his level-up.  He basically said that it didn't make sense for my Sorcerer to suddenly get a ton of weapon+armor proficiencies - and implied that I was munchkin for doing so.  Now, I did do so because of the benefit it gave me.  However, the idea of a sorcerer who can also fight is a perfectly reasonable fantasy trope, and I thought I role-played it fine.  The class-and-level system didn't let me smoothly get a mix of the different abilities.

The gm should have suported you, especially if you roleplayed the characters interest in martial skills.

Quote from: beejazz;578325Actually, I've seen more of minmaxing used to close the gap than start a race. It's common to allow or expect minmaxing of martial characters while discouraging it in casters, for example. At least IME.

Lucky you That would be about the most positive use you can get out of rules mastery, IMHO - as long as its used to try and patch a trap option or make a character work. I wouldn't have any issue with someone say trying to use multiple sourcebooks to make their character concept work, but I wouldn't actually call that "min/maxing", either.

QuoteAdditionally, if the monsters don't have hp bloat, combat at higher levels can move a lot faster with minmaxed characters.

Minmaxing can actually be used to improve the game pretty significantly on either side of the screen.

Certainly some bigger 3.5 monsters have silly numbers of HPs, but I think its as or more likely that the GM will be having to advance monsters or increase their HPs to keep them competitive

Quote from: jhkim;578365I mostly agree here.  Making an efficient character isn't inherently min-maxing.  In my two examples (my superhero PC Volt and my Burning Wheel character Judyn), both were cases where I started with the mechanics of how I wanted to optimize, and then later came up with a matching background.  I don't think that either of these had any worse character concepts than non-minmaxed PCs, though.  

Well, I've had this too, where a feat or something has actually sparked an idea - usually its still not super-mega-awesome, though. I've had probably the most fun playing 3.5 using lots of sourcebooks to build a character with interesting mechanics that isn't overpowered, when playing with people who aren't trying to abuse the system or who have no idea.

I suspect say HERO being purely effects-based isn't too bad, since there's less effort required to justify any fluff involved - the same power might be thrown daggers or energy blasts or whatever.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578449Lucky you That would be about the most positive use you can get out of rules mastery, IMHO - as long as its used to try and patch a trap option or make a character work. I wouldn't have any issue with someone say trying to use multiple sourcebooks to make their character concept work, but I wouldn't actually call that "min/maxing", either.

As they say at giantitp real optimizers play Samurai's

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578449Lucky you That would be about the most positive use you can get out of rules mastery, IMHO - as long as its used to try and patch a trap option or make a character work. I wouldn't have any issue with someone say trying to use multiple sourcebooks to make their character concept work, but I wouldn't actually call that "min/maxing", either.

The min/max moniker gets thrown at people who go splat heavy to support a concept by people who think splat heavy is always looking for power. The warlock and warmage used to get banned at tables for this reason, even though they're less powerful than sorcs, wizards, druids, etc. So whatever distinctions we reasonable people make on the internet, DMs can't always discern motive within the subset of players who like character building.

QuoteCertainly some bigger 3.5 monsters have silly numbers of HPs, but I think its as or more likely that the GM will be having to advance monsters or increase their HPs to keep them competitive

When it comes to minmaxing on both sides of the screen, I've seen damage inflate (because damage piling is stupid easy) but not hp (because very few things improve hp on the player side and increasing HD ups CR). Again, works well for speeding up mid and high level games.

I run low level games and I still give lots of NPCs a rogue dip and use monsters with early incapacitation tactics. Speeds things up, encourages the party to flee every now and again, etc. I'm basically writing my game to run the way these tactics play without these hidden "patches."

Not all number-crunchers are "jerks".  But anyone who cares more about manipulating numbers than creating a character based on setting and role-playing considerations (ie. he picks a feat because it'll give him a +2 rather than because it makes any fucking sense) is someone who won't end up working well in any of my games.  Note that it'd be fine if: a) he isn't a jerk and b) he chooses a feat that will give him a +2 AND it makes fucking sense.

RPGPundit