The way I see Min-Maxing is:

"That it allows a player to go beyond the game designer's intention when building a character that has (by nature) as an unintended result of unbalancing game play.  Specifically taking the form of a player choosing very beneficial abilities for the character but keeping the character from taking negative qualities; or the negative qualities are insignificant or rarely used to actually be negative.  Therefore, its a way to make a character more powerful without having drawbacks."

So therefore I see it as a generally negative attribute or the same as power gaming.

I think others on the board use it in a way that means "specializing".  But since I see it coming up in discussions I'd get others ideas on the topic.

Locke wrote:
The way I see Min-Maxing is:

"That it allows a player to go beyond the game designer's intention when building a character that has (by nature) as an unintended result of unbalancing game play.  Specifically taking the form of a player choosing very beneficial abilities for the character but keeping the character from taking negative qualities; or the negative qualities are insignificant or rarely used to actually be negative.  Therefore, its a way to make a character more powerful without having drawbacks."

So therefore I see it as a generally negative attribute or the same as power gaming.

I think others on the board use it in a way that means "specializing".  But since I see it coming up in discussions I'd get others ideas on the topic.

Power gaming has taken on a negative connotation as of late due to Facebook Click-to-Advance games and MMORPGs bringing "RPGs" to the forefront of mainstream media (well at least into the wider public eye). I see lots of complaints about "power leveling" and min/maxing when dealing with these games.

Min/maxing is, in actuality, the practice of utilizing the game's rules to the player's best advantage. It does not preclude negative traits to the character, but those negative traits are usually not a key aspect of the game.

This type of character "build" (which is not to be confused with min/maxing!) usually ends up in a very one-sided character. They are built in order to gain levels and power quickly. You can refer to these characters as glass cannons, usually.

While this type of game-play probably was not the intention of the designers (sometimes it is) it does not mean it's a bad thing at all.

If you view it as bad and its happening with your game, take the time to understand what's going on and "correct" the problem if you find it to be one. You'll probably have to figure out a way to make the game fun for everyone and not everyone likes RPing.

shouldn't those people visit indie-games.com?

Min-maxing is exploitation.
If Exploitation is a good thing I need a new dictionary.

Reguarding fun.
That is the main thing.
I support that idea.

I would only add that if roleplaying is not your thing. Then perhaps RPG's is not your thing.

I am not saying that you need to dress in character and speak as Barlow the halfling Rogue
It just seems the most basic form of roleplaying is to "build" your character from inside your characters head.
Thats hard to explain and get the point across. and can (and probably will) be misconstrued
Perhaps an example is in order.
Barlow lost his last fight ... a one on one with his now former guild leader Alban - a human warrior with a head for organized crime.
Barlow had trusted in his stealth but Alban's trap was airtight. Barlow never saw the trap coming. Barlow came to missing the middle and right fingers on his main hand (his left)
However he gained enough experience in the last game to gain a level  - Its level 5 and in my game level five is an awarded level
(meaning you gain an extra point to add to one of your ability values)
Mix-maxing players know that barlow will gain a damage bonus  if they puts his point on strength.
however a role player (the type that realize what type of game theyre plaing -an rpg)
would consider that the whole of the last level was gained (in xp) specifically by dealing with people
Pulling the last job for Alban the now exguild leader as a conman
which Barlow failed at (charisma of 7) and ended up getting into an argument with Alban about
how he asked not to be a conman due to his being unsuited for the task
which lead to a fight. ....

Perhaps you may now see my point.
Its not like he couldnt use the point on charisma.
and all that time interacting with people would have clearly taught him something. :)
I should say for the sake of arguing that agility is use far more than any other skill
and no bonus would be gained by his adding a point there.

I rest my longwinded case. 

Well its funny b/c since i've been playing for a while (15+years) and power gaming/ min-maxing has always meant being cheesy in the groups that I have played with. 

I personally don't have a problem with min-maxing in my game (in sig).  If you think you can break it let me know, because I have worked hard to ensure that ALL characters are balanced fairly close.  One reason I do this is the statistical return on gaining skill wanes (as the skill increases) due to rolling technique.  Thus it encourages player to diversify for more opportunity, yet allowing those who want to continue a bonus at a reduced benefit.

Also as a GM i place the party into many uncomfortable social situations where the group must use many non-combat situations to overcome their predicament.  Thus creating a culture of multi-specialized characters.

Also my main contention with min-maxing is balance.  ALL options should have equal weight.  Therefore any choice should be just as good as any other choice.  FOR ME rewarding for creating a system where players can gain exceptional bonus without it leading to penalties does not make for a balanced one.

And I feel that min-maxing creates a culture of min-maxing within a group.

Locke wrote:
The way I see Min-Maxing is:

"That it allows a player to go beyond the game designer's intention when building a character that has (by nature) as an unintended result of unbalancing game play.

Hi there,

I'm hopping in to help revise this thread topic, because as written, it can't be continued here.

You can go one of two ways with it: (1) Turn it into a viable First Thoughts thread by talking about a game idea you'd like to develop, and how something about it deals with the problem as you see it. (2) Turn it into an Actual Play thread by talking about a game experience in which this problem arose or was avoided in some specific way. If you do the latter, I'll move the thread to that forum.

Locke, this is not a slap-down of you. Many years running this site has shown me what works and what crashes, and my goal is to help your topic work. Either method I described above will generate the feedback I think you're looking for about the issue, as well as avoid a certain characteristic brand of unproductive noise.

No one else may post until Locke has replied.

Best, Ron

Ron thanks for the heads up.

I don't think I understand.  Are you saying that as this thread exists there is no place on the The Forge for it?; that the discussion must changed to be placed in either of the 2 categories that you have specified?

Otherwise I'd just request that you or another mod could move this thread to the proper forum if I made poor judgment by placing it in First Thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion.  I guess I can't comprehend a subject about game design that didn't have a place in a game design site.

My experience with Min/Maxing is this.

Min/Maxing in and of itself is not a problem.  What is a problem is when one or two players continuously overshadow the other players.  Often this is done through min/maxing, especially in combat heavy games, but that is not the only way.

I was in one d20 Star Wars game where the two min/max players refused to take a job from a Hut for the price that was offered, then after negotiations broke down went back by themselves and accepted it so they only had to split it two ways instead of six.  They were able to duo the encounter, which also meant they were the only ones playing for over an hour, got all the exp and cash while four other players sat around watching.  I quite that game at the end of that session.

I was in another game where the hard core role player took up more of the GM's time then the rest of the group combined session after session.  It did not take long for that game to break up either.

In the end what it comes down to, what it always comes down to, is that some players are going to want all (or at least as much as possible) of the attention/glory for themselves.  A good DM learns how to deal with them, or in extreme cases learns when to ask them to leave.

Well, can't you consider the over-achieving RPers to be min/maxers?

Perhaps a gamer who partakes in min/maxing is that someone who is in constant need of attention or wishes to be the only one who can shine. So he is the one who finds a way to soak up as much XP as possible with the given rules. Thus, while min/maxing is a part of the game, it really doesn't become a problem until it no longer becomes fun for everyone else.

Basically, all RPGs have the ability to become min/max-ed, and so it's not just a sign of poor game design.

For example, suppose we consider some bonuses for a given stat:
1-5 gives +0
6-10 gives +1.

Clearly a person with all 6's is vastly superior to one with all 5's. Now, you could "fix" this by going to smaller steps but that may alter the similicity or dice types used. Okay, suppose that we're rolling d20 dice so that a +1 becomes +5%. We could put partial bonuses in between and divide up the numbers a little.

We might get this:
1 gives +0%
2-3 gives +1%
4-5 gives +2%
6-7 gives +3%
8-9 gives +4%
10 gives +5%

Same basic problem, only slightly minimized. 6's are still better than 5's, but 5's aren't any better than 4's. We added a layer of complexity but still left in the chance of min/max.

The obvious way to avoid this would be to allow each number to actually have a different effect on the game than each other number. Now our complexity has become that much greater. Some would call this improvement, others a disadvantage.

One of my favorite RPGs is Amber Diceless, which technically can't be min/maxed since each player gets to build a character from scratch using the same number of build points as every other character. Of course, the assumption here is that the Game Master will allow for abilities and powers to have strengths comparable to the points spent, and with a diceless system you also get somewhat loose structure and the GM has a lot of say in how the balance goes.

Bottom line is that the only way to really avoid min/max situations is to eliminate numbers entirely from the game or build up a system to the point where each number has its own exact contribution to the rules. Or, educate your players and try to cultivate an environment where min/max isn't looked upon favorably.

Just my two cents.

Locke wrote: Sorry for the confusion.  I guess I can't comprehend a subject about game design that didn't have a place in a game design site.

Also, guys: it's likely better if you don't continue the discussion before a decision about the thread's final destination is reached. The point of Ron's post was to find out what this thread is trying to achieve, not to arbitrarily stop the discussion for a moment. So let's wait for Locke's call as to the thread's nature before continuing, right?

Ultimately it's very simple: this particular subforum is intended for the initial steps of game design, while the actual play subforum is intended for general rpg discussion, including theory topics like minmaxing. It just so happens that Ron's decided to require any such discussions to be rooted in actual play experience. He has this theory that discussion will be improved if we know which game we're talking about, what sort of situation the phenomenon under discussion comes up in and so on; it doesn't have to be long and detailed, but it needs to be a real practical touchpoint. Think of it like any other forum rule: you can't abuse Jews, you can't swear, you can't talk about game theory without actual play experiences to frame the discussion.

Locke: I'm pretty sure that you didn't really intend this as a game design topic, as your opening seems like you're just generally musing about minmaxing. Thus this thread really fits better in Actual Play, which is for that sort of musing. Just tell us in practice of a play situation that you'd characterize as "min-maxing" to begin with, and everything's cool. After all, surely you've encountered this phenomenon in practice, too? Are you talking of how some guys always load their GURPS characters up with the maximum number of disadvantages? I've encountered that, certainly.

Eero wrote:

Locke: I'm pretty sure that you didn't really intend this as a game design topic, as your opening seems like you're just generally musing about minmaxing. Thus this thread really fits better in Actual Play,

This thread is now closed.

The fault does not lie with Locke. It lies with the people who continued the discussion once it was clear that the thread was being moderated. Raven and Eero, I appreciate you trying to clarify things for Locke, but he asked me the right question and you should wait for me to answer it like everyone else.

There will be no more posting to this thread. Locke, for clarity's sake, I will answer your question: Yes, as written, your initial thread topic is not eligible for the Forge. You are welcome to begin a new thread either here in First Thoughts, regarding a specific possible game design, or in Actual Play, using some specific context to communicate what you mean by minmaxing.

Best, Ron