Mini-maxing

[Thierry Michel]

So, non min-maxing players have "sub-optimal" characters by definition ?
If they do and it is not intentional , then I can see it is a problem, from a gameplay viewpoint.

From another viewpoint  (sim/narrativist ?), are the min-maxed characters able to function all by themselves, or can they function only in symbiosis with a group (ultra-dumb fighter coupled with weakling magic-user, say)? If the latter, it strains a bit credibility.

[Nick the Nevermet]

I certainly agree with the notion that a well designed system will encourage characters to be created in a certain way (the TROS example is a good one).

However, I think the social contract here is centrally located in the subject of min-maxing.  For simplicity's sake, let's assume we're dealing with a 'well-designed game.'  We can define that any way we want right now, as long as the definition includes the mechanics of the game making it clear what is important and not important for characters and encouraging them towards those ends in actions, strategy, chargen, etc.  This eliminates a lot of things a social contract would have to fix.

Even in this situation, there is a reason for the social contract to deal with min-maxing:  The issue of min-maxing is important to the degree a system allows players to have unequal skill of influencing play through mechanics and the group does not want that to be a focus of play.

If I know how to manipulate (min-max) a system better than someone else, then that means my character will be more effective somehow.  Maybe a better combatant, maybe a better spell-caster, maybe better at gaining experience.  The point is a player's skill at exploring the mechanics allows his character be superior somehow.  

It is a legitimate decision in a gaming group to reject or limit the exploration of mechanics as a site of competition.  Likewise, it is legitimate for players to happily accept this as a site of competition among them.  The problem is how does this get explicitly stated, up front, in the social contract.  It usually doesn't, which means you have different definitions of what is acceptable, and it also means it is a handy accusation to throw at somebody you don't like (what Jack saw happen).

[John Kim]

So, non min-maxing players have "sub-optimal" characters by definition?   If they do and it is not intentional , then I can see it is a problem, from a gameplay viewpoint.

From another viewpoint  (sim/narrativist ?), are the min-maxed characters able to function all by themselves, or can they function only in symbiosis with a group (ultra-dumb fighter coupled with weakling magic-user, say)? If the latter, it strains a bit credibility.

Well, the intent is frequently the issue.  Many games often intentionally make certain character features cheap to encourage players to buy them.  For example, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer makes it cheaper to buy a Slayer than to make a character who is equally tough without being a Slayer.  Mostly negative mini-maxing is seen as taking advantage of what is perceived as unintended consequences of the system.  

As for character function, I'm not sure what the strain on credibility is.  For example, my current PC in a Lord of the Ring RPG campaign is a mini-maxed weakling magic-user.  She is a young Beorning woman, who is mastering magic of beasts.  She has the minimum strength under the point buy system, although that is only slightly below average.  But she also has no weapon skills, for example.  In an adventuring context, she certainly depends on others.  

She is thoroughly mini-maxed, though.  I noted that racial picks in the system you can choose either +1 in a skill, or 1 edge.  But edges are usually outright superior.  So I just always picked edges -- she has a total of 14.  These include the "Resolute" edge four times, which gives her a massive Stamina bonus.  As a result, she always automatically succeeds on her spells.  I avoided direct combat spells, but she does have mastery of shapes which lets her assume any animal shape.

[contracycle]

So, non min-maxing players have "sub-optimal" characters by definition ?
If they do and it is not intentional , then I can see it is a problem, from a gameplay viewpoint.

No, not exactly.  But surely, if you give a gamist player a system to design the vehicle by which they get to explore, then they build a good vehicle to do so.  I think this is Ben's point - where is the dividing line between 'intelligent exploitaiton of resources' and 'minimaxing'?

If there is a dividing line, then that should be discussed.  I don't think anyone has recommended other than combined character design.  As Fletcher pointed out, it only matters when it does cross an unspoken boundary; if everyone had agreed to it then it cant be a minmaxing. surely.

[Thierry Michel]

She has the minimum strength under the point buy system, although that is only slightly below average.

But in the worst cases,  one gets characters *extremely* weak, dumb, or repulsive, and one wonders how they managed to survive with such a severe handicap.

[Thierry Michel]

But surely, if you give a gamist player a system to design the vehicle by which they get to explore, then they build a good vehicle to do so.

I see problems with min-maxing when some options dominate the other.

Say, for instance, in a stat+skill system, it is better to buy a high stat and low skill than the opposite, so the player who optimizes gets the same chance if succeeding at a lower cost. In that case, why not assume that all players would do the min-maxing and offer them the best template from the start ?

For me the problem lies not with the player, but with the system, obviously.

[Hunter Logan]

My take on min-maxing is different. As I see it, min-maxing is a good and positive thing. It allows players to make characters that fill their niche in the game really well. It should also ideally make characters interdependent. As a player, it really doesn't bother me if someone else has a character that does huge damage in close combat and can generally splatter the bad guys, as long as I can do something equally cool in my own niche.

Min-maxing becomes a problem when the system provides loopholes that allow a single player to create a character that performs really well both inside and outside the character's niche. I guess that's the so-called munchkin character. Otherwise, min-maxing could be a problem when a few players are trying to fill the same niche. Two or three players can have characters that fill the same niche (sometimes it's necessary), but it really only works when the players have different strategies for filling the niche. Of course, some strategies will work better than others, but in some games (specifically D&D 3E, since that seems to be the target game for much of this discussion,) that really is part of the challenge, isn't it?

I agree that min-maxing should be discussed as a social contract issue, along with players' goals for play, the thrust for the game, and everything else.

I want to point out that so-called weakling characters can do alright in the game if there is some sort of equalizer. This is like the Batman vs. Superman issue. The Batman is an ordinary man with some toys. He is a weakling among superheroes. Yet, he performs outside his apparent envelope by using his brains and his skills and arranging the situation so that he can overcome his opponent. I think his player has a large pool of expendable resources to make it all work out. Meanwhile, Superman is Superman. He has powers out the wazoo, and he simply perseveres. Yet, it seems that when those two meet, the Batman usually comes out on top. Of course, that's comics not gaming - but it could, even should work that way in a well-designed game.

Such a thing requires the inclusion of meta-powers, integrated Director power made available as another aspect of character competence. I think use of meta-powers is the function of the annoying kid in most anime. The kid doesn't have skills, doesn't have power, doesn't have much of anything. Why would someone play such a character?

I would play such a character and it would be fun if I also had access to some Director power or a large pool of resources to influence events. Then, I could play the kid, but I could also manipulate other aspects of the game. It becomes a rational exchange that defines my character's niche. The players with really competent characters have their competence. I have this rather bizarre meta-power. It's min-maxing for a different goal, but it requires support either in the game rules or in the social contract.

I dislike stat + skill systems. I subscribe to Ron's "One or the other, not both" philosophy.

[Akos Szederjei]

I don't know. I really don't know the rules all that well, since it is a home brewed, but to a certain extent it's like the ref penalizing a football team because they keeping doing 2-point conversions or a baskeball player for shooting 3-point shots.

Min-maxing is something of a self-solving problem. Our group creates characters with flaws and strengths, therefore they have strenght (high skills, whetever), but that is rather irrelevant. Naturally, if a min-maxer enters our group he won't be happy, since he has a VERY limited character concept and can not handle the situations what the rest of the group can. Usually, they drift away.

Akos