Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Feb 21, 2006 5:58:05	Allow me to begin my argument by laying down a few definitions regarding the premises from which I am working: 1) When I refer to “typical/average/normal” D&D game, I mean one in a roughly Greyhawk-like setting, making use of sanctioned Wizards material, and not using any houserules that fundamentally alter the mechanics of the game. The expectation is 4-6 player characters, playing a continuity-style campaign that includes a variety of adventure and encounter types. That is to say, the typical campaign as envisioned in the DMG that falls somewhere between “deep immersion roleplaying” and “kick-in-the-door”. 2) When I refer to min/maxing and optimization, I mean making a conscious decision to choose an ability/feat/skill/class because of mathematical advantage. I mean to indicate those characters who are built with optimization in mind, not simply being a decent representative of their class. A fighter who chooses combat feats is not necessarily an optimizer by my standards, but one who chooses their feats and abilities to maximize their ability to deal damage with one specific weapon or technique likely would be. Hopefully in reading it will become clear where I intend the line to be drawn between intelligent character choices and optimization. 3) I am working from the basic assumption, which has been shown on these boards repeatedly, that as the power-level of a game increases, combats become shorter on average, and the chances of an inadvertent TPK increase on average. Links to pertinent math would be appreciated. The discussion on these boards regarding min/maxing, or optimization, generally splits into two camps. One camp is the pro-optimization side, for whom optimization is a legitimate and appropriate approach to the game. They are sometimes called “gamists”. The other camp is a self-professed “pro-roleplaying” side that tends to categorize all optimizers as extremists and/or bad roleplayers. I hope to take a more measured stance that looks at some of the downsides of optimization with the assumption that roleplaying will factor into the game regardless. I do not seek to validate or invalidate the play style of any given group, but rather to give pause to those who believe that an accelerated amassing of power is necessary to fun. Let us first consider one of the fundamental premises of optimization: the ‘build’. This concept involves two aspects; one is the decision of what role your player will serve in the party. The other aspect is a plan of progression that charts your character’s intended growth over the course of several, or even all, their levels. In the course of realizing these two aspects, an optimizer finds ways to maximize their advantages, while minimizing their weaknesses. Extreme optimizers may exaggerate certain weaknesses in order to press an advantage even further, but I contend that such a character would not function in a normal game, so I will not address that style of optimization here. The first problem I find with this approach to character creation is a lack of flexibility. While not a problem for everyone, I contend that knowing a full progression for your character in terms of specific advancements and class choices necessarily promotes metagame thinking, not only on the part of the player, but on the part of the DM as well. The player runs the risk of growing attached to a character who does not yet exist, and as such may turn down or fail to fully realize alternate potential directions for growth that might help their character to fit more cohesively into the DM’s world. The player will be receptive to cues that mark their own advancement, while potentially neglecting or not fully committing to adventure hooks that are tailored to other characters. Conversely, in the interests of helping their players along their chosen paths, the DM is forced to give up some amount of creative license in the design and progression of their campaign, as the players now not only dictate the course of action of the PCs, but also require more strongly that their individual wishes be catered to. This leads to the DM creating adventures designed with the end in mind, rather than the journey, so to speak. Though this downside may manifest to greater or lesser extent depending on the specifics of the group involved, I would suggest that optimization, from this perspective, leads to a “reverse railroading” effect, where no matter what happens in the campaign world, or how the PCs are affected, they continue to march unrelentingly towards a defined, final “goal” – in this case, the final level of their optimized build. Though optimization in general is combat-oriented, the next point I would like to address is specific to the combat aspects of the game. Namely, this is the desire, or even expectation, that a given character will be able to obtain specific items and powers as the character progresses. This manifests both as an approach to item and spell choice that maximizes stacking of bonuses, and also the combining of feats in such a way as to maximize an aspect of combat, be it damage, tripping, etc. While one can hardly complain about a fighter type choosing feats that work well together, or using a strategy that is more effective than another, a curious problem begins to emerge as PCs become more effective. Because the rules assume a normal game, in which characters are of appropriate, but not maximized, ability for their level, combat tends to grow shorter as PCs optimize more. Their damage output and chance to deal damage increases, and often their AC does as well. The result is that the DM is forced to choose monsters that are farther and farther from the normal power curve for PCs at a given level. While there may be something to be said for the satisfaction of knowing your players just took down a foe several CR above the group’s ECL, the risk of an accidental TPK also increases. This is because min/maxing, by its very nature chooses specialization over generalization. Thus, as specific aspects of group power (damage, AC, etc) increase faster than their mechanical baseline counterparts (saves, BAB, HP, etc), it becomes harder for an encounter to be balanced. This is because monsters at a given CR are meant to be able to deal reasonably well with 4 characters, and thus are weak against one role, while being a spoiler for another role. As character power increases, their weaknesses become more apparent. There have been some interesting mathematical exercises done showing the effects of this in more concrete form, and links to them would be appreciated. Thus, I suggest that optimization actually detracts from long-term play experience. It inevitably leads to higher-power, more dangerous adventures. While this may be entertaining, and is a valid way to approach the game, it also fosters more metagame thinking, and brings players out of the overall experience. Indeed, despite the desire to gain more power and see their characters grow to their fullest potential, an optimizer will necessarily maintain a degree of detachment from their character, as a coping mechanism. A little bit of experience with D&D quickly teaches any player that PKs and TPKs are possible, but in an otherwise normal game, an increased likelihood of PKs necessarily results in the player being mentally prepared to lose the character prematurely, if not actually expecting to do so. Thirdly, one of the offshoots of optimization that is often equally derided on these boards, is the tendency to create ever more classes and weapons to suit very specific concepts. While there are arguments to be made about the ability or lack thereof of the core rules to deal with a wide variety of concepts, I will not address that here. Rather, I would like to focus again on the underlying mentality that often accompanies optimizers and even ‘lesser gamists’. I suspect that much of the ill-will and willingness to tear down suggestions for new material, specifically weapons and classes, is the fact that there is already so much material in existence, and very rarely does a new suggestion fall in the middle of the power spectrum. Born out of the ‘power is a goal’ mentality, the majority of suggested new weapons and classes contribute to ‘power creep’, the phenomenon in which even ‘balanced’ introductions lead to an overall increase in the power-level of the game. I believe this phenomenon is born out of a general gamist approach, and more specifically is a corollary of optimization. By optimizing beyond the normal expectations of the game, a player necessarily nudges the median power level of the game higher. In response, a truly ‘balanced’ introduction will have to be in line with the new median power level. This, in turn, leads to the introduction of classes and weapons (feats and spells too) that are often transparently attempts to gain more power than would normally be afforded by the existing rules. This is not necessarily the fault of the creator, but can be seen as a logical response to an overall increase in the power level of the average player. Unbalanced suggestions seem reasonable simply as a means to “keep up”. Consider, though, that increased power levels tend to lead to higher likelihood of accidental PK and TPK, and the self-perpetuating metagame mentality borne out of optimization, and I believe there is a fair case to be made against optimizing due to its deleterious effects on the game. Finally, I would like to address what I believe to be an underlying cause for frustration directed towards optimizers, and attempt to offer some advice regarding it. Based on reading through these boards, as well as my own personal experiences over the course of many years of play, I have found that most people who take badly to optimization do so because of an experience involving an optimizer amidst a group who did not do so. This is not necessarily due to the fact that the optimizer’s character was ‘better’, as in most games, the ‘betterness’ will not be felt until mid to high levels. Indeed, the problems tend to arise more out of the metagame mentality born from the aspects I discussed above. The optimizer expects a certain amount of catering on the part of the DM, and generally expects to be recognized, or even rewarded for their efforts. Unfortunately, even the most gracious optimizer tends to be incompatible with a group that avoids overt optimization. This is because of the difference in goals pointed out above. For the optimizer, the increase of power and successful progression along a planned route is a goal in and of itself. For those other players for whom progression is part of the story, and not the other way round, this mentality is distracting at best, and more likely is demoralizing or aggravating. What I suggest as a solution may sound harsh at first, but I mean it constructively. I believe optimizers should accept that their approach to play is an aberration relative to the expectations of a normal game, and indeed relative to the overall design of the game. This is not to say that their style of play is wrong or is without merit, but rather than an optimizer who finds herself in a group of non-optimizers should display the same degree of sensitivity that they expect to receive. If someone used to heavy roleplay with less emphasis on numbers was to play at an optimizing table, they would be reasonably expected to not hold back the pace of the game with virtual shopping trips and the like, and would do well to build a more combat-oriented character. Similarly, optimizers should be willing to put aside their ‘goals’ when playing with non-optimizers. They can still create a build that is combat-heavy, or that makes clever use of feats, but they should not be surprised or offended if they find some of their choices being vetoed, or some of their powers proving less useful than they would have hoped. Indeed, both styles of play are valid, and as such, it is up to individual players to show grace and flexibility when faced with an alternate playstyle. In closing, I would reiterate that I am not trying to decry optimization and those that make use of that approach as bad gamers, or to say that their approach is wrong. Rather, I hope to have made a case about the damaging effects that optimization can have on the game as a whole, in the hope that those players who see ‘power’ as a goal, or as a means to ‘win’, might reconsider their assessment, and be more able to understand why there are so many players who dislike or even detest min/maxing. For those groups for whom optimization is not an issue, then I do not suggest they change, but I do hope to have been able to point out in a reasoned way the underlying incompatibilities between optimization and a typical D&D game, and maybe in doing so can encourage more players to tone-back the power level of their games in the interests of preserving the overall system.
#2 anguirus23 Feb 22, 2006 22:19:16	Am I the only one who has never had or even *seen* a problem with roleplaying a complex build? For instance, I'm in Eberron and I've got a changeling wizard/recaster. He's going to go into geometer and, if I make it, go into epic with loremaster. Now, I created the 20-level build for this character with the goal of optimization in mind. Frankly, he's wicked cool. But when I started playing the character--at level 1--I had no problem seperating the character's goals from my goals. He's interested in pushing the boundaries of traditional magic. At fifth level, he realized he could use his own morphic nature to warp the traditional "rules" of magic (i.e. took a recaster level). In utter glee, he made a great show of flinging his spell component pouch into the air and blasting it with a Silent/Still Fireball. He's due to start geometer in a few levels, and he's starting to discover that there is a special magic in symbols that might allow him to "break the rules" in another way. He also learned Ancient Xen'drik and is petitioning for a faculty post at his old alma mater, Morgrave University. Plus, he only *just* revealed that he's a changeling to the rest of the party, so I've had endless fun with that...robbing a rich woman blind, setting up a fake charity for the party's VoP monk to dump money into...he's constantly pushing the boundaries of Chaotic Good. He's great fun to play. We're all more or less min/maxed, and we just find it fun to play this way. We still get our asses kicked all the time, so maybe we're not that good at it, but I like having a powerful character. I've never seen someone ruin it for the rest of the group, honestly.
#3 radicaltaoist Feb 23, 2006 17:38:38	I don't think you've actually got an argument vs. min/maxing there so much as an argument vs. playstyle insensitivity. In other words, you're criticizing people who are not willing to realize that D&D is a social game and that finding the right playstyle requires compromise with the other players. Say, for example, what if optimization was common enough to be the 'normal' default style, and 'soft' gaming where roleplaying was not considered a distraction was considered 'aberrant'? (I know, it's more of a spectrum rather than two extreme camps; work with me here for a moment.) The problem still arises only when you've got gaming groups where members are unwilling to accommodate the playstyle of others. You can't say it's the fault of any particular playstyle - see my sig for the Jell_Moo principle. I'm currently playing in two games on these very forums (Real Adventures: the Maure Castle game and the What Tangled Webs They Weave game, to be precise) where everyone's min-maxing quite a bit, and yet no part of the game is really suffering because of it, not in roleplay nor in story, nor due to metagaming (metagaming is for weak optimizers who don't know how to make a character that's powerful in every situation anyway :D j/k). Why? Because we're all on the same page, that's why. To conclude, your issues are not with optimizers per se. Your issues are with morons who don't realize that you have to allow others to enjoy the game too. Either they should learn to compromise, or they should a) write stories by themselves if they're 'roleplay' focused; b) play NWN by themselves if they're 'optimization' focused. Nicely written and reasoned article; but the basic idea is a little off. You need to know who exactly you're criticizing, and as [thread=592166]this thread[/thread] may indicate, it's not necessarily optimizers.
#4 vaelan Feb 23, 2006 21:46:25	Your entire argument revolves around one claim: that optimization promotes metagame thinking. Your claim has two parts: adherence to a build and the increased chance of character death promote metagame thinking. Adherence to a build does not require metagame thinking. Many people have a strong image of what they wish to be and do not allow anything to stop them from actualizing that image. The choice to adhere to a build can be the result of a character's personality. As such, your claim that adhering to a build is metagame thinking only applies to those who do not wish to roleplay. Those who wish to roleplay will have valid, in-character reasons for adhering to a build. Not only is the choice to adhere to a build based on the character's personality, but I would argue that the personality necessary to make such a decision would be quite prevalent among adventurers. A strong sense of self is an important aspect of ambition, and if adventurers are not ambitious beings, then I don't know who is. You also make a point about characters not pursuing options that would make them fit into the world much better. The fact is, the character has already made a choice not to fit into the world by becoming an adventurer. There are a variety of reasons that one would not fit into the world around them. The most prevalent one I can think of is that, while you wish to be a part of something larger than yourself, your ideals are not shared by others and thus you must create your own place in the world. This, too, is a part of ambition, and adventurers are ambitious beings. Every decision you have claimed that adhering to a build will cause players to make could also be a result of their character's personality. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the player wishes to roleplay. If the player wishes to roleplay, then metagame thinking will not be an issue. As for your claim that builds promote metagame thinking in the DM, it is flawed on the most basic level. Metagame thinking is defined as basing a character's actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game. The DM is not playing a character, and thus cannot engage in metagame thinking. You also claim that the DM is forced to give up some amount of creative license in the design and progression of their campaign to cater to the player's wishes. DMs should always do this, as they should always strive to run a game that the players enjoy. The second part of your claim is that optimization creates a greater chance of death when the DM takes steps to challenge the optimizer. This is not true if everybody optimizes, and since I have shown that optimization does not necessarily damage roleplaying, there isn't any terribly compelling reason not to optimize. You go on to claim that problems between optimizers and those who do not optimize arise from the metagame mentality that optimization fosters. Since every occurrence of the metagame mentality you claim that optimization fosters is actually the result of a player not caring to roleplay, I would say that your claim is erroneous and violates your stated desire to take a more moderate stance than those who think that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive.
#5 need_a_life Feb 27, 2006 13:51:26	I think you're forgetting a third camp; those who accept optimization as well as roleplaying. I am currently in a high-powered campaign, starting at epic level. Now, it is unreasonable to expect that no player kills will happen; it is suggested in the core books that a character or two might die every encounter (probably Dungeon Masters Guides description of low-, medium- and high-level), so for the people in this campaign who actually likes to hang on to a character rather than treating it as a series of numbers it is important to stay alive! You mentioned that a fighter who specialized in damage output in a single weapon was optimizing, how can that surprise you? A fighter has bonus feats and (s)he is greatly rewarded by specializing in a single weapon rather than being a generalized amateur. In real life I know a lot of people who concentrate on being the best they can instead of being a jack-of-all-trades. Would you say that a wizard was optimized because they don't use armor or swords (usually), but rather rely on getting the most out of their spells? Your argument basically says that using your class abilities to their fullest is broken. You're, of course, allowed that opinion but when your rogue construct-killer cries himself to sleep because he can't sneak attack, don't complain to anyone--you're simply making the game 'balanced.'
#6 zombiegleemax Feb 28, 2006 14:17:51	3) I am working from the basic assumption, which has been shown on these boards repeatedly, that as the power-level of a game increases, combats become shorter on average, and the chances of an inadvertent TPK increase on average. Links to pertinent math would be appreciated. This assumption is inaccurate. It does seem apparent that there is a trend on these boards that as the power-level of the game increases combat seems to become shorter and that there does seem to be an increased risk of TPK. For the record, these situations that arise on these boards are problems asking for a fix. Thus, they are not typical/normal, nor are they indicative of a general trend in the gaming community at large. While point three does not specify that it is to be defined in the context of 'normal', the overtone of the other points, and the overall article, suggests that your assumptions apply to the average game that is 'normal' - that is, what most D&D players are playing. It should be noted that the concern raised in point three has been addressed on these boards. Typically, the problem your raise almost always arises from inexperienced DMs allowing an overgrowth of PCs (larger/better than they should be for their level) and only using single monsters in a context where CR is equal to average party level. The DM feels this should be a challenging encounter when in fact if CR is equal to average party level the monsters should only hope to be able to take away 1/4 of party resources at best. Finally, instead of telling us to go find links to support your evidence, you should do the research before hand and provide the links.
#7 gavinfoxx Feb 28, 2006 16:50:57	What do you think of Optimizers who emphasize survivability (many druid builds), or gear-independence (again, druid builds, many other builds do this as well), or the ability to create items as needed (artificer, anyone? What about item familiar or ancestral relic?), or optimize characters to have high social skills (half elf bard with the racial substitution levels, for example)? One can optimize with any goal in mind--group synergy, high level power, capability at any given level, benefit to the group, etc. Optimization is often about creating a character that can do one or more of the roles in an adventuring group well. For example, being both a primary divine caster and a tank, or being a skills character and a secondary arcane caster, or being a skills character and a secondary melee combat character. Is it bad to optimize in a relatively-non optimized game by taking a look at what roles are lacking in a game, and then making a character that is really effective at doing those roles?
#8 zombiegleemax Mar 10, 2006 3:23:43	Though optimization in general is combat-oriented, the next point I would like to address is specific to the combat aspects of the game. Namely, this is the desire, or even expectation, that a given character will be able to obtain specific items and powers as the character progresses. This manifests both as an approach to item and spell choice that maximizes stacking of bonuses, and also the combining of feats in such a way as to maximize an aspect of combat, be it damage, tripping, etc. While one can hardly complain about a fighter type choosing feats that work well together, or using a strategy that is more effective than another, a curious problem begins to emerge as PCs become more effective. Because the rules assume a normal game, in which characters are of appropriate, but not maximized, ability for their level, combat tends to grow shorter as PCs optimize more. Their damage output and chance to deal damage increases, and often their AC does as well. The result is that the DM is forced to choose monsters that are farther and farther from the normal power curve for PCs at a given level. While there may be something to be said for the satisfaction of knowing your players just took down a foe several CR above the group’s ECL, the risk of an accidental TPK also increases. This is because min/maxing, by its very nature chooses specialization over generalization. Thus, as specific aspects of group power (damage, AC, etc) increase faster than their mechanical baseline counterparts (saves, BAB, HP, etc), it becomes harder for an encounter to be balanced. This is because monsters at a given CR are meant to be able to deal reasonably well with 4 characters, and thus are weak against one role, while being a spoiler for another role. As character power increases, their weaknesses become more apparent. There have been some interesting mathematical exercises done showing the effects of this in more concrete form, and links to them would be appreciated. What you are talking about here (in this paragraph) is something that happens in D&D mechanics anyway; overt specialization just brings it about faster (on a level to level comparison). For a simple example, a level 1 Fighter has a BAB of +1, and a Wizard a BAB of +0. So the difference in hit chance are only 5%. At level 20, the Fighter has a BAB of +20 and the Wizard +10... The hit chance difference is 50%. Add to this all the other factors (mostly relying on player choice), and the difference is actually a lot bigger at all levels. The same thing applies to all stats. So, at lower levels, the Fighter and the Wizard have a somewhat equal chance of succeeding in a conflict that relies on BAB, whereas at high levels the Fighter has a much better chance. This, as I understand, is the basis for the "TPKs are more likely at higher levels" -argument. Also, any choice in character generation always leads to some degree specialization, because it means choosing something over the other. The opposite would be having (game mechanically) extremely similar characters. The rules of D&D bring this problem about fast. A system that isn't focused on character advancement, or one that uses more bell-curves, can at least partially avoid this problem. As I see it, this is not a problem with min/maxing at all. It's a problem with the rules; overt specialization just takes it to the extreme. (Well, whether it's a problem at all is up to opinion I guess...)
#9 stembolt Mar 19, 2006 3:58:14	First and foremost if you are going to talk about Min/Maxing you really should know something about it. Let’s go though this thing then: When I refer to min/maxing and optimization, I mean making a conscious decision to choose an ability/feat/skill/class because of mathematical advantage. While possibly an interesting discussion, this definition is wrong. And since it is wrong you are not really talking about min/maxing you are talking about “the way Romanus does not like people to make characters.” I am working from the basic assumption, which has been shown on these boards repeatedly, that as the power-level of a game increases, combats become shorter on average, and the chances of an inadvertent TPK increase on average. Links to pertinent math would be appreciated. TPK is most common levels 1-3. It then levels out to return again around 10 and disappears at 15 or so (all numbers are approximations). Low HP and limited options cause low level characters to chance TPK. The return to TPK is when opponent start wielding a wide range of save or die effects but the group is not able to deal with all of them yet. The discussion on these boards regarding min/maxing, or optimization, generally splits into two camps. One camp is the pro-optimization side, for whom optimization is a legitimate and appropriate approach to the game. They are sometimes called “gamists”. The other camp is a self-professed “pro-roleplaying” side that tends to categorize all optimizers as extremists and/or bad roleplayers. I am literally one of the top experts on min/maxing and I have never heard the term “gamists” used. Furthermore the opposite of pro-optimization is con-optimization. Let us first consider one of the fundamental premises of optimization: the ‘build’. This concept involves two aspects; one is the decision of what role your player will serve in the party. The other aspect is a plan of progression that charts your character’s intended growth over the course of several, or even all, their levels. A build is the term used to describe the progress map of a characters development. It is not a “premise.” This is really more of an English usage problem. The first problem I find with this approach to character creation is a lack of flexibility. That’s like saying a map or a table of contents lacks flexibility. A build is a tool, nothing more. I won’t comment on the rest of the paragraph. Though optimization in general is combat-oriented, the next point I would like to address is specific to the combat aspects of the game. Namely, this is the desire, or even expectation, that a given character will be able to obtain specific items and powers as the character progresses. Does it? First off in the standard rules or RAW (Rules As Written) characters are in fact able to purchase magic items. So, in other words, they can obtain specific items. Barring that, Optimization is always constrained by the rules at hand. If it is low magic then that is one of the factors involved in the creation of the character. The result is that the DM is forced to choose monsters that are farther and farther from the normal power curve for PCs at a given level. Actually the biggest upset is high ability scores. Also in practice this is a very small effect on the game and easily dealt with. It is harder to adjust for number of PCs than for slightly better PCs. Also remember that generally game designers min/max their characters in the first place (and in this case when I say generally I mean unfailingly). This is because min/maxing, by its very nature chooses specialization over generalization. Interesting. This is actually true. Characters specialize because to be good at a few things is better than being poor at everything. Of course every fighter with weapon focus or specialist wizard is a specialist, so this is a bit disingenuous. It inevitably leads to higher-power, more dangerous adventures. While this may be entertaining, and is a valid way to approach the game, it also fosters more metagame thinking, and brings players out of the overall experience. Indeed, despite the desire to gain more power and see their characters grow to their fullest potential, an optimizer will necessarily maintain a degree of detachment from their character, as a coping mechanism. Really? Cite your sources. I have never seen this. In fact, just like the fact that min/maxes are superior roleplayers they are usually more attached to their characters than others as well. Thirdly, one of the offshoots of optimization that is often equally derided on these boards, is the tendency to create ever more classes and weapons to suit very specific concepts. While there are arguments to be made about the ability or lack thereof of the core rules to deal with a wide variety of concepts, I will not address that here. Rather, I would like to be afforded by the existing rules. This is not necessarily the fault of the creator, but can be seen as a logical response to an overall increase in the power level of the average player. Unbalanced suggestions seem reasonable simply as a means to “keep up”. Consider, though, that increased power levels tend to lead to higher likelihood of accidental PK and TPK, and the self-perpetuating metagame mentality borne out of optimization, and I believe there is a fair case to be made against optimizing due to its deleterious effects on the game. What? First off PK and TPK are the same thing. Next, people min/maxing in other games has no effect on your game. Just because other people are better at making characters, your group does not run into more dangerous encounters. Finally, I would like to address what I believe to be an underlying cause for frustration directed towards optimizers, and attempt to offer some advice regarding it. Based on reading through these boards, as well as my own personal experiences over the course of many years of play, I have found that most people who take badly to optimization do so because of an experience involving an optimizer amidst a group who did not do so. Generally one uses the word “Finally” on their final statement. Next if you are basing anything off of your reading or experience I would stop. You know nothing about min/maxing. Min/maxers are not trying to “win.” They also don’t posses any of the negative qualities you attribute to them. Actually it is even hard to talk about them given your level of understanding. My advice is to check out the optimization board.
#10 bluemage55 Mar 20, 2006 20:59:05	I must agree with the responses that the others have given. Romanus's reasoning is flawed on many levels, and establishes his premise on illogical and incorrectly applied "evidence". I think we can all agree on this: Dungeons and Dragons is a game. You play it to have fun. Things that detract from that fun are bad. The OP is trying to propose that min/maxing detracts from the fun of the game, which would make it bad. From my own experiences, min/maxing only reduces the fun in a game when there are major discrepancies in the level of min/maxing between different players and the DM. In a typical 4 PC game in addition to the DM, a single player wielding relatively highly min/maxed characters is bound to be at a significant advantage if the other players are not well-optimized. The DM must either make the encounters more difficult, perhaps by optimizing the monsters he uses which harms the players who don't optimize, or he sets the difficulty at the level the other 3 players are at in which the one optimized player becomes a killing machine. The exact extent of this problem, of course, depends on the level of discrepancy. An example of far greater evil would be one player using the World-Hurler while the others watch helplessly from their sorcerer/wizard multiclass characters (which sounded fun to play but aren't really that great an idea). However, if every player at the table, including the DM, all pick ideal character builds, barring the madness of multiple Pun-puns, the game will be quite balanced. Therefore my counter-premise is that min/maxing only becomes an issue when it is applied disproportionately or taken to the extent that is Pun-Pun and other such ridiculous beings.
#11 zombiegleemax Mar 22, 2006 8:37:01	While possibly an interesting discussion, this definition is wrong. And since it is wrong you are not really talking about min/maxing you are talking about “the way Romanus does not like people to make characters.” Really, as the self-proclaimed expert on min/maxing, you should provide us with your definition. It sounds like you were insulted by Romanus' definition of min/maxing, however, many of us would agree with Romanus’ definition that min/maxing is indeed a conscious decision to choose skills/feats/abilities/etc that nets an overall advantage to the character. Rather, more easily and in his words, the advantage is a mathematical one as this game does come down to numbers. The gains come from modifiers that try their best to remove as much of the random element as possible by affecting the die rolls in one way or another. Really? Cite your sources. I have never seen this. In fact, just like the fact that min/maxes are superior roleplayers they are usually more attached to their characters than others as well. And you should cite your sources as well. Not that there is an actual source that would be bold enough to throw up a blanket statement like this. You’re equating min/maxing of a character to being a superior roleplayer. Min/maxing, or one's ability to build a character, has relevance to one's ability to roleplay. If this is an exaggeration in response to Romanus' exaggeration that min/maxers separate themselves from their character then it has failed, more so than Romanus' statement - one cannot argue against hyperbole with hyperbole. What? First off PK and TPK are the same thing. This is wrong and this goes against your claim of expertise. PK is an acronym for Player Kill(er/ing) and TPK is an acronym for Total Party Kill. The first one only kills one player character, the later kills the entire party. They are not the same thing. This isn't to be rude. However, if you are making a bold claim to be literally the best expert on this topic expert you should really know what you're talking about.
#12 stembolt Mar 23, 2006 21:23:36	Really, as the self-proclaimed expert on min/maxing, you should provide us with your definition. So, you have never been to the CO board then I see. You go, I’ll wait here. I’ll even give you a hint, read the FAQ. And you should cite your sources as well. I don’t need to. I don’t have sources. I have the data, personal experience. But that is beside the point. Since this statement is completely untrue I was wondering how the author ever came up with it. Actually that’s a lie. I know they just made it up. I wanted them to admit it. PK is an acronym for Player Kill(er/ing) and TPK is an acronym for Total Party Kill. Since there is nothing wrong with player killing I assumed he meant “Party Kill.” PK is not generally used on the min/max board. So I was wrong. There I admit it. Now it is the original author’s, and your turn.