Why is Min/Maxing viewed as bad?

[Goblyn]

Alright, before I begin the tirade, I'd like to clarify what I am understanding min/maxing to be:

minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another. 'Area' in this case means either combat, socializing, spellcasting; things like that.

Why the hate for it? Is it not good to be good at one thing and bad at another? To be good at everything is to be powergaming(right?) and to be bad at everything is to be a bard(fecetiousness here. replace 'bard' with 'useless')

IMXP, one attempting to make one's character be adept at too many things leads to said character being mediocre and thus unsuccessful at those same things.

OK, so tell me if this is post sensical enough, or it seems I am off-base or missing something;

Why is it seen as bad?

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

I honestly have no idea. As a DM I don't care how my players build their characters - if they want to min/max, or if they find some broken combination, that's fine by me - I just have to find ways to deal with it (and of course, it just flags up stuff that I can use myself, heh heh heh). As long as everyone's having fun, it's all good.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There are different levels of powergaming from light optimisation to the most overt min/maxing.
Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts. There is also the reverse of these as the flipside of the same gold coin (possibly gamers who look down upon those who prefer rules-lite game systems).

Because it is a dynamic that can greatly affect gameplay, it can quickly become an issue. Put a powergamer in with a a group of roleplayers and what is going on outside of the game starts to become more of a focus than what is going on inside the game.

My own way of thinking is to not look down upon anyone in this hobby of ours. Respect different playstyles but at the same time, take into account such things when forming a group or a particular campaign. An experienced DM will know who will mix well and who will not.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Hopefully this topic won't self-implode too quickly. Considering how personal this topic is to some people though, I'm sure somebody will take something the wrong way at some stage.

 

[Drowbane]

Alright, before I begin the tirade, I'd like to clarify what I am understanding min/maxing to be:

minimizing one's capabilities in one area in order to be able to maximize one's abilities in another. 'Area' in this case means either combat, socializing, spellcasting; things like that.

Why the hate for it? Is it not good to be good at one thing and bad at another? To be good at everything is to be powergaming(right?) and to be bad at everything is to be a bard(fecetiousness here. replace 'bard' with 'useless')

IMXP, one attempting to make one's character be adept at too many things leads to said character being mediocre and thus unsuccessful at those same things.

OK, so tell me if this is post sensical enough, or it seems I am off-base or missing something;

Why is it seen as bad?

Naw, powergamers are consumate min/maxers who tend to focus on combat... or whichever area they perceive to be most important to the campaign... so normally combat.

I've never understood the hate against min/maxing. Every DM I've had who has winced at one of my min/maxed PCs has also tended to min/max themselves when they get to play (Its not my fault I do it better ).

 

[Goblyn]

Some roleplayers look down upon "rollplayers" because they see it as only focusing upon one part of the game to the exclusion of other parts.

This is it right here. There's so many parts of the game that to not focus on one or two makes characters quite unlikely to succeed; again, IMXP

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Hopefully this topic won't self-implode too quickly. Considering how personal this topic is to some people though, I'm sure somebody will take something the wrong way at some stage.

I agree. Thank you for the quick reply.

 

[Jupp]

I dont see min-maxing is a bad thing all over the place. If you think about it then min-maxing is a natural thing. Look at professional sprinters, football players, computer specialists, etc, etc. They do min-maxing as well. Look at roman gladiators or English longbow men. They all aimed for the best gear that money could buy and were training specifically for what they were doing in their "jobs".

I do not care too much about min-maxing since it is a natural thing. If you specialise in what you are doing it could save your butt in the next fight.

But, isnt there always a but, what I find a bit irritating is when players start to min-max outside of the role they are playing. I somehow do not understand the people that take 1 level of class X just to get this and that feat/skill/whatever. Or if they choose class/race combinations just because a certain combination gives them more points.

I know it's a fine line I am drawing here and some of it might sound contradictionary, but here I go If the min-maxing stays withing the role you are playing and there is not too much meta thinking behind it, then I am totally okay with it. Otherwise I find it somehow strange. But everyone his own. If the group has fun while playing with their chars I do not really care.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Why is it seen as bad?

Because you are playing the "system" and not the "game" you are trying to take advantage of the rules crunch (and loop holes) instead of being concerned with your character, setting, etc,


not roleplaying

system playing


Bad munchkin, bad

 

[Jupp]

Because you are playing the "system" and not the "game" you are trying to take advantage of the rules crunch (and loop holes) instead of being concerned with your character, setting, etc,


not roleplaying

system playing


Bad munchkin, bad

The question is why it is seen as bad. It is just another way to play the game.

 

[librarius_arcana]

The question is why it is seen as bad. It is just another way to play the game.

Because it's trying to exploit the system at the cost of character/setting/story etc

the rules should be a supportive vehical to playing a role (hence roleplay),
instead of trying to number crunch numbers for system effect, that have nothing to do with
character/setting/story etc,

Muchkins only care about trying to take advantage system, and not character/setting/story etc


are you looking for more of a roleplaying game?

or a board game?

if board game then being a munchkin doesn't really matter

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The question is why it is seen as bad. It is just another way to play the game.

Because we roleplayer should be enlighted people that are more concerned about motivation of people and interaction with each other than about numbers?

I think the answer to the original question:
Min/Maxing is bad because some people prefer a different play style and think their's is the superior one.

It is probably just like others view "angst-roleplaying" as bad.