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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
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?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: If it's not supposed to be part of the game, why is it there?

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

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.

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.

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

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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 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

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

C. Edwards wrote: 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

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

C. Edwards wrote: 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 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

It's my general opinion that min-maxing in a well-designed system is a natural and healthy thing to do. In a poorly-designed system, you can run into a lot of problems. Some are just plain design errors, others stem from incoherence. In a homebrew, I'm betting that part of the problem lies in poor design.

Problems with min/maxing in good systems seem to fall into two categories:
1) G/S conflicts
This is a case where Simulationist goals get subverted by Gamist elements in character design. The conflict goal may have Drifted into a coherent design or be present in a hybrid Sim/Gam system. I probably don't need to say any more, since others have done this justice. The Gamist players drive the story through sheer force while the Sim folks scream about "roll-playing". Generally, I suggest that people find a game with either a more coherent character creation mechanic though it can sometimes be solved at the social contract level. This seems to be the biggest problem with min/maxing in D&D. At this point, it's essentially a Gamist design, but many continue to strive for Sim play out of it.
2) Player/GM conflicts
If one player wants to blow stuff up while everyone else wants a cloack and dagger spy mystery, the group already has problems. However, it'll sometimes show up when the first player builds a combat monster who can blow up anything and is worthless at anything else. In GURPS, he'll usually take "disadvantages" that require his character to fight at the drop of a hat and reinvest the points in combat abilities. Either way, the GM is now forced to either add some more combat in, or ignore the odd player and design for the majority... in which case the combat monster stomps all over every clandestine meeting with his +2 minigun of ignorance. Either way, he's forced the group to cater to his tastes with a character that needs and creates combat situations. People often blame this problem on min/maxing or on the system, when the reality is a conflict of interests at the social level.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: If it's not supposed to be part of the game, why is it there?

Comte wrote: What if it is the rules that allow the players to feel cool and clever?

Maybe it is useful to distinguish between the effects of Minmaxing on the relation with a) other players, and b) the GM.

In the first case, the major problem seems to be the potential deprotagonization of the other players. They feel less 'cool and clever' that the minmaxed character.

In the second case, but also maybe as a whole, minmaxing causes a breakdown in consensus as to what is _possible_ in game. That's to say, minmaxing causes disagreements about what the players can and should be doing. The Vincent Baker suggest (with the 'lumpley principle') that the rules are simply a means of achieving consensus about the game world, but in the case of the minmaxer the gameworld he or she sees described is very different from that seen by the rest of the group. This can be as much use of the system as minmaxing in character generation.

Personally, I find that often there is a large disparity between what many systems imply about the gameworld and what the GM and Players think they imply. It often takes someone who has paid a great deal of attention to the rules to rub their faces in the fact.

The fact that both of these influences are often in action simultaneously complicates things. In trying to understand what is going on, pulling them apart can be very useful.

To my mind it is entirely credible for a system to say: here's the rules, we know they can be min-maxed to make stupid characters, we designed it that way because we don't think it's up to us to place arbitary limits on what you can create, or play silly arms races with the power games. No. Instead we leave it up to the intelligence of the players and the GM to create characters that make sense.

I think we're devolving a bit into finger pointing a bit. It's the stupid designers for not knowing what the heck they're doing in designing a game. It's the stupid players who make characters that don't make sense.

I'm not the sort who thinks that no one is to blame, can't we all be brother, yaddah, yaddah. I'm thinking everybody is to blame, at least when it doesn't work.

Mr Jack wrote: To my mind it is entirely credible for a system to say: here's the rules, we know they can be min-maxed to make stupid characters, we designed it that way because we don't think it's up to us to place arbitary limits on what you can create, or play silly arms races with the power games. No. Instead we leave it up to the intelligence of the players and the GM to create characters that make sense.

Mr Jack wrote: To my mind it is entirely credible for a system to say: here's the rules, we know they can be min-maxed to make stupid characters, we designed it that way because we don't think it's up to us to place arbitary limits on what you can create, or play silly arms races with the power games. No. Instead we leave it up to the intelligence of the players and the GM to create characters that make sense.

I think there's at least some confusion on my part as to what min-maxing means.

If it means a warrior specializes in one (or maybe 2) weapon skills--I don't think that's what people are talking about.

If it means exploting breakpoints religiously, well, maybe that's getting closer (what's the extra point for an INT of 14 *really* worth in Hero?).

If it means building characters designed to exploit the rules in such a way as to create logical contradictions (the GURPS character who sold DX to buy a higher weapon skill) then I think we're dead on.

Min-Maxing is not only a reasonable one in zero-sum games like the Stock Market or Black Jack it's the only one anyone'd expect you to use. No one takes a hit on a 19 to give the dealer a sporting chance.

But what does it really mean in RPG's--what's the gradient.

I think Ben's example is perfectly logical. I think some character concepts I've seen (champions characters who sold BOD to buy up defenses with 1 of the ponts and STN with the other pt) are in the more extreme category.

And while I'm not 100% convinced that a game system shouldn't at least consider edge conditions, I definitely fall in the camp of the GM and Players having a say as to who they game with--which really takes care of all the nonsense right there.

-Marco

Marco, min/maxing is simply the technique of maximizing character effectiveness using the available (limited) resources. It gets its name because most systems reward characters who specialize in certain aspects while lowering their abilities in other aspects (the dumb fighter, the weak wizard, etc) - raising one ability to its maximum by reducing another to its minimum.

Thus, all of your examples are min/maxing at work.

Marco wrote: I think there's at least some confusion on my part as to what min-maxing means.

If it means a warrior specializes in one (or maybe 2) weapon skills--I don't think that's what people are talking about.

If it means exploting breakpoints religiously, well, maybe that's getting closer (what's the extra point for an INT of 14 *really* worth in Hero?).

If it means building characters designed to exploit the rules in such a way as to create logical contradictions (the GURPS character who sold DX to buy a higher weapon skill) then I think we're dead on.

And while I'm not 100% convinced that a game system shouldn't at least consider edge conditions

After thought, I have decided I don't agree with Mr Jack.

Instead we leave it up to the intelligence of the players and the GM to create characters that make sense.

Hmm, I think I should clarify my position a bit. You probably still won't agree with it, but hey. To my mind things suchs as the GURPs Dx problem are broken, the system rewards the wrong strategies. That IS a problem. Similarly I consider currency and breakpoint issues to be a problem.

However, suppose I have a skill-based system (I tend not to use stat+skill, just having skills) and I give the players 40 pts to spend on skills. I expect the players to create characters that are well rounded and make sense regarding their backgrounds. I certainly don't expect to see a character with: Sword 30, Health 10. But at the same time I'm not going to create a complex set of rules saying exactly what is and isn't allowed. I firmly believe creating characters should be an intelligent debate between the player and the GM, not just on stats/classes/whatever but also on background and personality.

I will respectfully attempt to give some of my thoughts on min/maxing with the help of this community.

A few examples, definitions, anecdotes of min/maxing have just been given above which have illuminated to myself that this one of those nebulous things that all of us are intimate with while role-playing until actually pressed to give a textual definition. One might even say that all these explanations are at once both correct and incorrect. Indeed, I cannot be more succinct than the next person so I can only offer to dialog in the realm of what my favorite philosophical term calls “intellectual honesty”—if you can see that I am making a point within your own thought process then go with it; otherwise I am sorry.

I dare say this “min/maxing” business goes part and parcel with this gamist approach to role-playing. And if this is so then min/maxing can only be bad when there is general incoherence in the group or when the system fails somewhere in its design for gamism.

Now, I’m afraid that the above paragraph is all I can say about the GNS matter. I must spend a lot more time on Ron Edwards’ essays and the GNS specific forums to better wrap my grey matter around the whole point because with all of my lurking I cannot have but the most basic intuitive grasp of the matter. If I do have a point though, and I have not posited a heinous thread drift then I would much appreciate someone else to continue on with the point.

To add something else to the discussion though, I would like to offer up an intuitive example from my own experiences.

There seems to be a problem in games where people can play significantly different types of characters or archetypes. The problem arises when one player identifies with a particular archetype while the proverbial min/maxer takes another archetype and through a fault in the rules, or sure numerical genius proves that his character can do much more than the proper archetype.

The example I will give is from back in my AD&D 2nd edition days, not so long ago. I have a passion for thief type characters so I selected one of those. It then came as a great surprise to me then when the wizard turned out to be a better thief than me, walking around invisible and casting “knock” compared to my hide in shadows and lock picking skills respectively. This obviously plays to a bigger issue with the game, but one ought not to succeed better in one path over another when one is more strongly supported by its archetype.

I genuinely think that the problem with this part of min/maxing and gamism is that if a class based system is to satisfy pure gamist goals then there should not be archetypes associated with those classes.
As a general implication of this anecdote I offer that the one of the perceived problems with min/maxers is that they seem to toss away flavor in favor of effectiveness. This will frankly grate on at least someone’s nerves.

If I were to “tweak” my character in a play group comprised solely of gamists then no one should have a problem, right? However, if that tweaking were to turn my character into something that looked just plain ridiculous then I might have a quarrel and even be called a min/maxer. And since “system does matter” then this ought to be blamed on the game system. Correct me if I am wrong.

I would certainly not endeavor to say that all min/maxing is a problem with system, but I will pose these two closing points:

1. At least some aspects of min/maxing are a problem with system—with gamist systems in particular. Furthermore, no game designer should dismiss the possible repercussions of min/maxing in their system with out some careful examination.

2. Min/maxing is a term and a topic that is a major part of role-playing. It should not be looked at as a singular thing, but rather a fuzzy category or some other anomaly of our undiscovered cognitive processes at large. At any rate, it certainly deserves some good examination and I am happy to see it being discussed here!

Mr Jack wrote: Hmm, I think I should clarify my position a bit. You probably still won't agree with it, but hey. To my mind things suchs as the GURPs Dx problem are broken, the system rewards the wrong strategies. That IS a problem. Similarly I consider currency and breakpoint issues to be a problem.

However, suppose I have a skill-based system (I tend not to use stat+skill, just having skills) and I give the players 40 pts to spend on skills. I expect the players to create characters that are well rounded and make sense regarding their backgrounds. I certainly don't expect to see a character with: Sword 30, Health 10. But at the same time I'm not going to create a complex set of rules saying exactly what is and isn't allowed.

I firmly believe creating characters should be an intelligent debate between the player and the GM, not just on stats/classes/whatever but also on background and personality.

I'm sorry to say, Ben, I'm struggling to understand your point of view. You seem to be viewing this all in a way very different from my experiences of roleplaying in general and GMing in particular.

There's no passive-aggressive anger at folks for transgressing hidden boundaries here. There's intelligent discussion. As I see it there are two primary models of character creation. Build first-concept later and concept first-build later. I nearly always use concept first - build later. The player comes up with a character concept. Then the player and I discuss and develop the rules-side choices that best represent the character they have described. There's no maximising effectiveness to be found, only best representing the character concept.

If a player wants to play a rock-hard fighter. Cool. We'll make a rock hard fighter, but we will also think about and model the aspects of the character that aren't rock-hard fighter. Maybe they were a farmer once, maybe the grew up by the seaside, maybe they know a little about animal care and handling. Probably they know some equipment care. And so on, and so forth. Obviously this means there has to be enough points to make a rock-hard fighter and still have some spare for flavour.

I disagree that I should have a fixed skill cap. In my experience skill caps simply mean that everyone builds characters who have skills up to the cap. This isn't what I want. It also removes the possibility of having the good turnip-grower, the very good turnip-grower and the exceptional turnip-grower. I also don't want to allocate points to different areas. I don't want to decide up-front that 40% (say) of their points must be spent on flavour. What if the character concept calls for more? Or less? Better, I feel, to solve this through discussion and debate based on the individual character concept.

To address your D&D example; I'm not saying that this is the only viable method only that it is a perfectly coherant and valid method. D&D is a system with a lot currency and breakpoint issues; its also a system that tends towards big emphasis on solving problems with stats and spells. My games simply don't work like that.

I'm not sure what you mean by Player Credibility; could you expand on that, please?

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.

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).

Thierry Michel wrote: 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.

Thierry Michel wrote: 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.

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

contracycle wrote: 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.

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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
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.