1eyedking What's wrong with min-maxing?

[Late Bloomer]

You guys roleplay more than I do. Except you are roleplaying that you don't look up guides to have someone else tell you what the best and only build is for your class(es). To the FEW of you who actually come up with your own builds with the idea of becoming a god among men . The rest of you are cucks.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

It's more fun if you don't have to min max.

 

[luj1]

It's more fun if you don't have to min max.

Tell me in which game you HAVE to min-max? Thats fake news. You people just need to git gud and stop crying

 

[sser]

Min-maxing is baked into the gameplay loop of most action RPGs I've played. The general theme is any build can survive the first tier of difficulty, but if you're lackadaisical with your resource allotments you won't be surviving for long in the post-game. Some roguelikes lean into min-maxing as well, but again that's more baked into the gameplay loop.

No RPG jumps off the page as needing min-maxing as a first-go of it. Though there are definitely still RPGs where you can build a character the wrong way and just get stonewalled. I was softlocked out of Alpha Protocol when I took a stealth/fisticuffs build and ran into a boss that deleted that skillset entirely, for example.

 

[Raghar]

I was softlocked out of Alpha Protocol when I took a stealth/fisticuffs build and ran into a boss that deleted that skillset entirely, for example.

Do you mean Brayko? I remember I CQC that white haired man.

You can poison Brayko's cocaine, and then just CQC his goons while hiding from spraying from two SMG behind pillars. I think he was kinda doable when he wasn't doped by cocaine.

 

[Tyranicon]

I'm playing a Wizard and dump STR, how is that most rewarding? You are constantly encumbered and can't hit anyone in melee

What system are you playing where a wizard needs to carry stuff and be in melee? That's what the martials are there for.

 

[King Crispy]

Personally I've never heard of the term "min-maxing" described as meaning "minimizing weaknesses, maximizing strengths". I mean if that's the actual definition, then I have absolutely no problem with it in any scenario. But I'm not so sure that's actually what it means. I've always thought it means literally choosing the minimum numerical value for a given stat to be a "dump" stat thus allowing more points to be assigned to a/the non-dump stat, "maximizing" them/it.

Am I wrong?

Edit: The difference in the definitions is a subtle one, and subjective. Maybe there are degrees of min-maxing.

 

[Stavrophore]

Min maxing as understood by a vast discrepancy in power expected at the similar char level is not a problem in well thought rpg system. A well thought system had multiple counter for each attribute or spell, and multiple encounters that test you across different abilities. It's okay to fail or do bad, until you get better. A system where there are obvious loopholes and character can breeze through game with a cookie cutter build is just a bad system. There are no jack of all trades characters, and if your system allows it, then your encounter/game design is simply wrong. A variation of aptitude between player chars is to be expected with enough game knowledge and encounter knowledges, since these are usually limited/or withing a certain range in a randomized system, but breezing through game reeks of a game designer that forget or did not know how to put a varied encounters.

 

[King Crispy]

There are no jack of all trades characters, and if your system allows it, then your encounter/game design is simply wrong.

Yes, this kind of thinking resulted in PoE and the milquetoast nature of it not aspiring to be terribly difficult for anyone.

Far be it for me to ever espouse an RPG designer to demand some level of min-maxing, due to my inherent distaste for it (based on what I think its definition is), but its opposite -- designing an RPG to be equally viable for any character build, no matter how bizarre -- is an even worse proposition.

 

[Sloul]

In every aspect of my life I try to do the best I can, it's just funnier this way. The best sex, the best food, the best results at work etc.
A game is first and foremost a layer of mechanics glued together, one of the best fun you can have is to get the hang of it.
Understanding the mechanics of a game and trying to achieve the best results in said game IS one of the main reason I am having fun in a game.

On contrary, I believe, non min/maxers are blind to a whole lot of things happening in a game, and due to that their vision of a game is possibly biased.
They are like Peter Molyneux in power, speaking out of their asses about mechanics which in the first place they didn't fully understand.
And ofc, because of that, devs have to make their games piss easy, because ppl build mongrel characters.

And sometimes you get games such as, say Knights of the Chalice 2, Grimoire, possibly Archaelund... where there is simply no place for brain dead builds. And I don't see how it kills the fun or the ''rp'', on the contrary, it reminds everybody that games are about mechanics, first and foremost.

 

[Lyric Suite]

The roleplaying question is partially the fault of the games. If people feel they can dump intelligence to zero on their warrior it's because there's no consequences in the game for doing so. Many times, when people say they prefer not to "min/max" because it ruins the roleplaying, what they mean is that it ruins their LARPing.

Which, don't get me wrong i think LARPing is prefectly fine and i do it myself all the time, but seriously, if all that stands between a stat is your LARPing that's a failure of the game on some level. The developers should have written consequences for those "min/max" choices. A warrior with an intelligence of 3 shoudn't even be able to talk to anyone in the game.

 

[Beans00]

On my first playthrough I just take stats that sound good, either perks/abilities(if the game has them) that look good.
Sometimes if I replay a game I'll use a different style character for a different experience. Whether that character is stronger or weaker it depends on the game.

When I was 11-12 I played a fallout 2 character with slim frame and chem reliant. 4 str, 10 agility. I spent all my money on jet and other drugs and sold my companions including my wife into slavery to pay for my addiction. Was that character cringe larping? Probably. Was it shit? Obviously. That being said I was playing a shit ton of vice city at the time and watching carlitos way and scarface so I wanted to play as a junkie since it seemed funny.


I never look up build guides because that would be boring. The only exceptions is I did look up perk requirements when playing Underrail. Not guides or builds just skimmed the perks to see what was good. I'm glad I did because 10 con thick skull was BEAST MODE.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

What system are you playing where a wizard needs to carry stuff and be in melee? That's what the martials are there for.

 

[Skinwalker]

Also, what does it mean when you put 1eyedking as a tag for your thread?

This wasn't a rhetorical question.

 

[luj1]

Min-maxing is baked into the gameplay loop of most action RPGs I've played.

Yes and in which game do you "have to" min-max like he said? Sounds like a hipster cry for help

 

[luj1]

Maybe there are degrees of min-maxing.

There are degrees of powergaming, min-maxing is about dumping useless stats

It's just a playstyle and it's not forced on you. No game is designed to be "unbeatable unless you min-max"

 

[Artyoan]

When I think of 'min/max' I typically assume the player knows the underlying mechanics so thoroughly as to be playing the best possible builds (or looked it up) which involves making choices that go for power over flavor. Choices that often run against immersion into the character and/or setting. A mechanical way to approach a game as if it is a puzzle to be dominated but little more than that. "What makes me more effective at the game" versus "What makes my wizard feel more like a wizard".

It isn't bad, necessarily. But every game has a cycle for me. At first I have no knowledge of the game but the initial impression leaves me deeply immersed. As time goes on my efficiency increases, I become better at the game, immersion peaks. Then immersion wanes but efficiency continues onward, as is typical of prolonged play of any game. Eventually, I may find myself playing a game purely for efficiency's sake, as the world setting and character no longer matter to me. That is when I know the game has run its course.

If I'm min/maxing, it is probably not worth continued play.

 

[Glop_dweller]

Indiana Jones or Data from Star Trek

Indiana Jones is in star trek?

Certainly not, but of course that's tangential of the point, which is that Indy has human weaknesses, where as Data is the near epitome of having maxed stats; possessing superhuman strength, endurance, durability, perception, speed, and intelligence.

Spoiler

 

[Damned Registrations]

A warrior with an intelligence of 3 shoudn't even be able to talk to anyone in the game.

A warrior with not just an intelligence, but also a charisma and wisdom of 3 is pretty much the stereotypical minmax character. The type of player who creates only such a character doesn't care that his character is supposed to be a drooling moron, but only cares about his combat potential, and will likely get angry if the DM tries to punish him by say, telling him his character was too stupid to tell the convincing lie he wants to tell the guards, or solve the riddle puzzle that is part of the adventure. Making such a character is also a sign of lacking creativity. Such players are obviously obnoxious, and thus the bad reputation. A party of adventurers should resemble something like the cast of Princess Bride, not 6 copies of arnold scharwzenegger.

The fact that you can make a diablo character with 5 intelligence and suffer no consequences of any sort is a whole other thing. Obviously you shouldn't spend points on int if it has no effect on the game, and your intelligence stat in a diablo clone doesn't mean jack shit, just like your strength of 1200 men won't let you break down a door. But in a tabletop game, the effect of stats isn't limited to what's explicitly written in the mechanics. If your character is retarded, he should be forced to behave like a retard. If your character is a genius, it's reasonable for the DM to handwave something like the player forgetting to buy food in town as "Oh yeah, Geniuspants would never do that, we'll just pretend you bought food 2 days ago." It's no different than someone picking a paladin and then trying to play like a barbarian.

 

[roguefrog]

It's not a problem in most RPGs, as in they don't require min-maxing at all. There's plenty of room to make non-optimal choices. As with all things, there's a spectrum with this, and focusing / specialization should be the default expectation over generalist. Min-maxing is only important for optimization, not character viability.

With that said, UnderRail feel like good example of a RPG where if you don't plan your character "right" AKA do some "research", you could end up with an underperforming build. And all bad builds go to die in Depot A.

FromSoft games have what is often called soft caps for many stats and you do want to know what they are. Like points into endurance over 40 only gives more equipment load, so unless you want more equipment load, the points here would be "wasted." Even then the stats matter less than your weapon upgrades in these games.

 

[RoksCQ]

The problem doesn't lie in the concept of min-maxing but in the essence of what it means for the game you're playing. Min-maxxing is focusing on the most rewarding behaviors / pathways and the scarcer they are the slimmer the actually chances for RPG roleplaying in the sense that if min maxxing involves combat then necessarily the alternatives for diplomacy, charm spells, social spells in general and alternative rewards / approaches are going to not be desirable.

So when people say "min-maxing", they really mean "combatfaggotry"?

Should have just said that, no objections here.

So when people say....

No. Planescape Torment for example, your min-max (powergame) would be much more aimed at focusing on your stats that lend themselves to conversation, quest completion etc. I'm saying min-max will have directionality based on what the game rewards. If the game can reward multiple min-max types through different pathways, this is a measure of a better game from choices alone.

 

[Baron Tahn]

Haven't read whole thread so just answering OPs question - there's nothing wrong with it.

If u go back to the TT DnD DM handbooks (for example) it will tell you that you will get lots of different types of players. One of these is a Min maxer ( who crunches the numbers and rules to make the most OP super builds they can) and one of them is the role player ( who wants to go full actor/improviser with it and doesn't care at all about the stats).

The DM is encouraged to lean the min maxer towards rp, and the rper towards not wasting everyone's time in a two hour debate (with voices) with the local Duke.

In crpgs it's up to you. Sometimes different games lean harder in to one or the other which is why we talk about 'storyfags' or 'combatfags' etc. You will find as a min maxer you might enjoy something like Owlcats games better than you do Larians, for example.

 

[smaug]

it’s fair game in CRPGs TTP’s need not apply

 

[Average Manatee]

In some systems, min-maxing can lead to a character which looks powerful on paper at the end-game, but makes playing through the rest of the game less enjoyable.

Let's look at Pathfinder as an example

In that system it's relatively easy to get a high value for your primary attribute and have enough points left over to build a balanced character. The only time you really have to mix-max is if you're playing a character that requires multiple high attributes, like a monk, some kind of gish, or a multi-dip aberration (which is what most min/maxer's go for).

Even then, it is generally unadvisable to dump intelligence or wisdom as you need them respectively for skill points and Will saves (which need to be kept at a good level because failing one can be really annoying). The first one can't easily be solved (unless you take levels in a class that give a lot of skill points per level up, which you might not want to do) and only way to get around the latter is to either focus on or take a dip in a class that replaces Wisdom as the attribute you use for Will saves (such as Paladin). Dumping Strength below average nerfs carry weight (being encumbered is generally a bad idea, can only be delt with by casting spells/finding items/not carrying as much loot) while low Dexterity harms initiative and AC (requires feat investment, Monk dip, or magic item/spell buffing to fix).

By taking levels in classes that cover your weaknesses, you're developing your character's primary skills more slowly and reducing the rate at which your main classes abilities become available. Having a Fighter with a couple of levels of Paladin won't hurt you much, but if you're dipping Paladin and Monk levels to give your Sorcerer an AC and Saving Throw boost you're delaying your spell progression, spell penetration, and caster level so overall your character will overall be less useful than if they'd just stayed a pure Sorcerer.

My favourite Pathfinder examples are when some dickhead sees that you can use dexterity* for its usual duties as well as to hit and damage, etc. so mega dumps strength and then can't figure out why their shitty guy can barely move and has no AC. Then gets totally ass blasted when realizing that even carrying weapons makes them encumbered.

* not necessarily dexterity, but it's the most common example.

Both of these don't really exist in pathfinder in practice. You get substantial stat boosts from equipment and buffs so that the difference of 2 or 4 STR/DEX/CON/WIS isn't that substantial when everyone already has 16-20 and a bunch of +s to whatever it effects. Skill points don't matter much because the number of characters you have will pretty much always be able to cover all skills, the only question is whether they merely cover it or super-cover it (like a bard adding their bard level ontop of their skills or a sorcerer with absurd CHA stacked onto CHA skills).

 

[Stoned Ape]

Both of these don't really exist in pathfinder in practice. You get substantial stat boosts from equipment and buffs so that the difference of 2 or 4 STR/DEX/CON/WIS isn't that substantial when everyone already has 16-20 and a bunch of +s to whatever it effects. Skill points don't matter much because the number of characters you have will pretty much always be able to cover all skills, the only question is whether they merely cover it or super-cover it (like a bard adding their bard level ontop of their skills or a sorcerer with absurd CHA stacked onto CHA skills).

You'll get those attribute boosting items eventually if you're building for late game, sure. However through most of act I- Act III in KM the best items you'll find will offer +4 to an attribute at most, and the majority will be +2 items only. These are the most difficult parts of the game where a failed save can easily lead to a party wipe and you don't want to build obvious weaknesses into your character. This was kind of the point of my post, really. Building for late game can make the hardest parts of the game more of a struggle than they need to be.

Additionally, if you want the best XP rewards for your character you need to play with 'Skill Check User only gains XP' and have a bunch of stuff (persuasion, trickery and perception at the very least) all at a good level to give your protagonist character a head up during the initial stages of the game when they need it most.