Mini-maxing

[Jack Spencer Jr]

For those following the threads in Actual Play (1) (2), suffice to say that Brian is out of that group, and I personally think it's for the better. One thing that bothers me is a reason often sited is Min-maxing. I'm pretty sure mini-maxing had been discussed at one point of another, although I haven't done a search yet, but I was curious on what the current membership's thoughts were on the topic of mini-maxing. Thread splits when and if necessary.

Looking at the situation here, although once addressed I would rather pull the camera back a bit and address a wider aplication instead of just this group and this game, first of all, shouting mini-maxing seems more to mje to be an excuse for why they kicked Brian out vs. a ganuine concern. That is, perhaps it was a concern, but they would be forgiving of someone else doing the same, but since it was the guy they had other problems with, it was a thorn in their sides.

The problem I have is that the mini-maxing is very much a part of this game. Building your character will give it the necessary advantages to survive a physical conflict aka combat situation. Part of it seems to be a form of protagonism, but it's a weird version of it as in "My guy uses the bow" or "My guy uses daggers" and so on.

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.

If it's not supposed to be part of the game, why is it there?

I suspect I'll get all kinds of answers to this.

[Ben Lehman]

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.

If it's not supposed to be part of the game, why is it there?

BL>  Yup.
Minimaxing is the way that players gain power in RPGs.  Ignore it at your peril.

The really important thing is that there are multiple ways to minimax.  For instance, a favorite is often to make a character that plays directly into the themes that the GM wants to have in his game.  I do this one a lot.  (Oh, so you want this game to be about struggle with evil... I'll be a Paladin please...)

I think that a complete list of minimax categories is, rather like a complete list of exploration candidates, impossible, but I can think of the following:

Raw System minimax -- "If I'm racially an Ogre, and I take the Hyperstrong Characteristic, and I quintuple specialize in Chauvasauris, then I can do over 500 damage per hit, with two attacks / round."

Setting Minimax -- "I'm going to be a Horselord, because they rule over most of the world.  That way, I'll be able to claim authority in civil disputes -- no more struggles with the town guards!"

Thematic Minimax -- "Oh, you want to have a game about solving crimes in a grim cityscape?  I'll play an obsessed bounty hunter whose parents were killed in an unsolved ritual murder."

Premise Minimax -- "This game addresses themes of power and loss?  I'll be a young prince who has recently inherited the throne after his father's murder."

Out of Game Social Minimax (this happens a lot in LARPs) -- "Maybe I'm dating the GM, but I'm sure that won't get in the way of the game..."


The degree to which these disrupt play entirely depends on how much you expect them, and how much everyone does them.

yrs--
--Ben

[Andrew Martin]

If it's not supposed to be part of the game, why is it there?

Tradition.
And the designer didn't know better.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Jack,

I don't see anything inherently wrong with min/maxing. The trouble starts when the system rewards you for one kind of min/maxing but the participants expect player behavior to ignore that fact in favor of some other focus during character creation.

Let's take D&D 3E, it rewards min/maxing for effectiveness in combat and survival in general because that's what the reward system is based around. So, when you have a player min/maxing to give his character as much effectiveness as he can squeeze in (nothing wrong with this, IMO) and the rest of the group wants the game to be about something other than killing baddies and taking their stuff they suddenly get miffed at the guy making use of the tools given him for the purpose of maximizing his rewards.

Personally, I think every game should include a chapter on how to build a character that will be most effective given the mechanics of the game. That chapter would go a long way I think to getting all the participants on the same page as to "what this game is about".

-Chris

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Interesting post, Ben. I suggest that any one of these forms of mini-maxing is functional so long as everyone is doing the same form of mini-maxing. It's when everybody is doing, say, thematic mini-maxing and one player is raw system mini-maxing, then there's a problem.

I will further that these may be also on dials and if everyone has setting set to 5 and one has it turned up to 10, then dysfunction is also possible.

[pete_darby]

MinMaxing is the ultimate object lesson in System Does Matter... If, as in GURPS, high levels of Dx & Iq are more cost effective than St & Ht, then PC's will tend to be clever, nimble weaklings. If, again in GURPS, spells are controlled by Iq and powered by St, magicians tend to be genius brutes, against all genre convention.

If the game has been well designed, the minmaxer is the designers friend, because they are creating characters which the game is designed to reward the creation of.

If the game is badly designed, the minmaxer is all of your nightmares come true at once. Witness GURPS spellcasters... when your average mage is stronger than your average fighter, who in return is more dextrous than the mage, something's screwed. Usually the atmosphere.

Over on RPGnet, Hyphz has complained that Nobilis is set up so the person best at role-play has a tactical advantage... me, I see that as a feature. It's coolness creep, to steal another phrase, but it's also minmaxing.

edit: Which is all to say that system and thematic minmaxing should be the same thing, and an ideal system will ensure that.

[Andrew Martin]

edit: Which is all to say that system and thematic minmaxing should be the same thing, and an ideal system will ensure that.

Which is why it's a really good idea to get a min-maxer to play one's game system and to see if the min-maxed character fits the game. If it does, the game system is working.

[John Kim]

The problem I have is that the mini-maxing is very much a part of this game. Building your character will give it the necessary advantages to survive a physical conflict aka combat situation. Part of it seems to be a form of protagonism, but it's a weird version of it as in "My guy uses the bow" or "My guy uses daggers" and so on.
...
If it's not supposed to be part of the game, why is it there?  

Well, I am somewhat in agreement -- but I can explain a rationale.  Basically, putting in guards against loopholes and edge conditions can turn a relatively straightforward set of rules into a morass of legal-like jargon.  The common problem is edge conditions.  i.e. You make a PC who puts all of his points into sword skill, say.  Or a PC who puts all of his points into followers.  If the system works fine for more normal characters, is it worth it to add majorly to the complexity just to deal with these outlying possibilities?  Personally, I was disappointed in Hero System 5th edition compared to 4th, because I felt it was trying to rule on all those edge conditions, and more than doubled the size of the rulebook.  

On the other hand, things like buying on the breakpoints and other small cost-saving measures should be assumed -- and hopefully shouldn't make too much of a difference.  Indeed, the system should instruct players on how to create efficient characters this way.  

Regarding Ben's categories: I've tended to divide power-gamers into "rules lawyers" and "whiners".  This is based on my observation that they tend to specialize.  i.e. There are some players who will go in for both thematic and social mini-maxing, but they are a largely exclusive set from the rules & numbers mini-maxers.  Other people's experience may, of course, differ.

[Ben Lehman]

Interesting post, Ben. I suggest that any one of these forms of mini-maxing is functional so long as everyone is doing the same form of mini-maxing. It's when everybody is doing, say, thematic mini-maxing and one player is raw system mini-maxing, then there's a problem.

BL>  I think that even that is not required.
e.g.  In one of the groups I play in, there are three people who are FAR better system minimaxers than I could ever hope to be, and I'm pretty good out at.  They are absolute experts are wringing every last drop of system effectiveness out of a character -- For example, they plan every D&D3E character through all 20 levels (even the skills points and such).  They can tell you how to get DC35 saving throws on your spells and how to have over 600 HP by 20th.
 They are also good role-players, and a blast to play with.
 I, on the other hand, have a knack for coming up with characters that GMs like.  I get handed all sorts of strange plot, weird events, and the like (this is also my ability to roll with whatever the GM wants.)  Again, everyone is sort of aware of this (Ben is playing destiny boy, again!?) and it works out in the wash.
 Another player is not a good plot-whore or system minimaxer, but is married to the GM...

 The main point is that, in the end, we all have about the same character effectiveness.  Which is really what bothers people about minimaxers, I think -- the effectiveness disparity.

 I think that minimaxing is ineveitable, but the well-designed system makes it such that the best possible minimax is doing what the game wants.  Riddle of Steel is a great example of this (the best ways to minimax are to be thematically appropriate to the situation and have some combat savvy.)

yrs--
--Ben

[Marco]

I think all--well, no, a lot of it, though--is about social dynamics and communication.

In an example in a group run by a GM I respect player A was running a dude with a great amount of power (what one might call a min-maxxed munchkin character) in a fairly aggressive manner (i.e. imposing the character's powers on the game world in a fashion that was often at odds with the written rules ... and sometimes acting to interfere with other PC's actions).

Player B was unhappy about it. He felt the guy was, amongst other things 'interfering in the story,' and was running a power-house that would destabalize things that he'd enjoy (villains being able to escape).

The GM really liked player B's contribution to the gaming--his interest in character development, his reactions to NPC's, and his appreciation of the GM's style and creation of situation.

The GM put a stop to interfering with other player's actions ("if it's causing trouble at the table, lay off!") and told player B "figure out what you'd have to do to be okay with Player A. If that means playing apart or something, let me know and I'll see what I can do to help accomodate."

The situation has never been a problem again. The group is adhering as closely to the rules as they are able to interpert them.

Despite the presence of a min-maxer (my take, I've never heard the player speak for himself), a close following of the rules, and players who are, for the most part (IMO) not very gamist, there's no penalization--and no problems.

That doesn't make me think the game (which is very min-max-able) is the cause of player B's problems or Player A's mode of play (when it comes to interfering with other players). Those are their own.

Maybe the problem isn't game designers who don't know any better.

-Marco

[C. Edwards]

Hey Marco,

I agree. It sounds like the problem in that instance was that Player A was trying to bend the rules to his advantage. I think that falls outside the realm of min/maxing, which is using the rules to maximum effect. I'm sure interfering with the other character's actions was more than a minor point of friction also.

-Chris

[Marco]

Hey Marco,

I agree. It sounds like the problem in that instance was that Player A was trying to bend the rules to his advantage. I think that falls outside the realm of min/maxing, which is using the rules to maximum effect. I'm sure interfering with the other character's actions was more than a minor point of friction also.

-Chris

Hi Chris,
Perhaps--but consider this--any time someone interfers with me in a way I don't like that's a people problem. Secondly, the GM (a 'story oriented' one for lack of a better term) found no problem with the game rules as they were interperted to read: the game, despite being a min-max-able system was, in fact, all the GM needed to keep things enjoyable for everyone (or if it wasn't then they needed to go their own way--the complex plot elements weren't being "ruined" in any way, outcomes were judged satisfying by all involved save for the inter-personal stuff, etc.).

The attempt to "bend" the rules was simply a statment of intent--which was then resolved by the rules--not an attempt to miss-represent them. Player A did concede on several occassions that the GM's read was reasonable and play continued in a functional manner.

I should note that I consider these guys dead-on-baseline role-players. They're not theory heads or drama kings or anything like that. The player in question was *certainly* using the rules to maximum effect. The fact that GM's interpertation (Refree's call) was based on the reading of them was what allowed play to "work."

-Marco

[C. Edwards]

Hey Marco,

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that in the instance of play you described that the disfunction had nothing to do with Player A's min/maxing. It was all due to personality conflict issues and that using a different system, one that rewarded more 'story' oriented min/maxing, wouldn't have solved those issues.

I think that while changing systems wouldn't solve the issue fully all by itself that it would at least remove one bone of contention and make the GM's job a good deal easier. Particularly since the participants seem to be looking for more 'story' oriented play than the actual mechanics of the game they're using is built to facilitate.

But I don't know these guys and I'm not a game genie, so who knows. :)

-Chris

[Marco]

Hey Marco,

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that in the instance of play you described that the disfunction had nothing to do with Player A's min/maxing. It was all due to personality conflict issues and that using a different system, one that rewarded more 'story' oriented min/maxing, wouldn't have solved those issues.

I think that while changing systems wouldn't solve the issue fully all by itself that it would at least remove one bone of contention and make the GM's job a good deal easier. Particularly since the participants seem to be looking for more 'story' oriented play than the actual mechanics of the game they're using is built to facilitate.

But I don't know these guys and I'm not a game genie, so who knows. :)

-Chris

I'm not the game genie either so I dunno for sure :)

Changing the system could always help--sure. Will it *predictably* help? I'm not convinced (see the guy who fears death in a deathless system).

The issue's relevance was this: everyone at the table wanted to play Mutants and Masterminds. For most people at the table the *min-maxing* itself wasn't the problem--it was for this one dude (and my sympathies tend to lie with that dude, honestly). That doesn't indicate to me that the designers didn't know what they were doing--or were just making a game by the numbers and didn't think about what they were putting in. They probably had a pretty good idea of what they wanted and the exercise of using the game rules seems to bear that out.

The GM, who under their social contract, is the mediator for such discussions, made it clear that although he was running a game that greatly appealed to the "story" guy, the min-maxer was *not* a problem. The rules would be interperted fairly, as written--the guy was playing within the rules--and the "story" would still be good.

Note: the "story" guy's issue actually revolved, I *think*--and I was not there, so this is an interpertation--around a wish that the GM would run a more strongly illusionist game to "neturalize" the min-maxer. The GM said, flatly, that was the wrong way to look at it. No one gets neutralized, the situations are still nice and complex and juicy. The min-maxer brings a bit more power to bear than most of the other PC's, yes,--but that wasn't a stated group concern.

In other words: it wasn't a system issue. It wasn't a "story" issue. It was a perception issue. There was no penalizing of the min-maxer for his character *design* despite the fact that this was a text-book case of a min-maxer conflict.

My suspicion is that a system that took those issues off the table would either:
a) simply change the signature of the conflict --or--
b) not meet the groups requirements for play.

Most notably: everyone was very enthauistiac about the system (the GM's a little cool on it but finds the gaming very good) and saw the player conflict as what needed to be fixed rather than the rules.

I agree with them.

-Marco

[Comte]

I would like to put forth that the desighners for the game knew all about the min maxing and it is something that is built into the system.  I am taking this from a 3ed D20 slant.  In responce to the new eddition monte cook stated:

During the design of 3.0, one of the things that we realized was a huge strength of D&D is a concept we called "mastery." Mastery, in this context, is the idea that an avid fan of the game is going to really delve into the rules to understand how they work. We actually designed 3.0 with mastery in mind

http://www.montecook.com/review.html

So lets look at this for a moment.  The game was made so that the players would learn everything there is to learn about the game, including charecter generation.  So...it would make sense that the game was desighned so that you would take your knowlage and build a charecter who would use it most effeciently.  Can that quote be interpreted in other ways?  Sure but that way also works.

Another thing I would like to draw your collective atensions to is this:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7188

The cool and clever thread.  The cool and clever thread asks the question, why are there rules when the only thing that matters is making the players feel cool and clever.  Well, min maxing offers the antithesis of that question.  What if it is the rules that allow the players to feel cool and clever?

Okay so I think I have established that min maxing isn't some sort of fluke based on poor game desighn.  I also think I gave a fairly good reason as to why it is part of the game desighn.  Now we need to figgure out where it goes wrong.  FOr that we use examples:

Example 1:  The entire play group min maxes, they stomp through encounters that would ordinarly bother lesser charecters of the same level.  They glide through encounters that are slightly above thier level, and trouble only starts to happen when you really start to pile it on.

Example 2: no one min maxes.  Everyone's charecter is slightly underpowered but they are full of rich background ideas and good intensions.  They have extream difficulty handling encounters at thier charecter level and would probley just die if you gave them anything more difficult.

Example 3: You have one player who min maxes, and three players who just don't.  So we have one player who is only chalanged by encounters thayt are usualy reserved for charecters who are a couple of levels higher, and a buntch of players who can bearly handle encounters that happen at their level.  Here is where the potential for disfunction is at its greatest.  The issues that can come up here is the danger of the other players feeling left out or unessiary.  The capacity of feeling cool and talantented for the other players is greatly diminished when one player is nothing more than a close combat god.  If you switched the game's foucus away from combat then that one player might start to feel useless.  

I don't see min maxing itself as a bad thing, and I also see it as a valuable desighn tool.  However, when only a couple of players out of the group min max then trouble starts to occure.  It is a VERY rare situation where I have a mix of min maxed charecters and problems don't happen.