Define: Min/Max

[The Game Guy]

I see this term thrown around in threads on many different forums but I am curious what a good definition of Min/Max is so the term is clearer to me.

Please Define Min/Max for me.

[skeloric]

Min/Max is the character creation method by which one exploits flaws in the character creation process which then bring about a character that is in essence more powerful than character design should allow.
It involves maximizing character ability while minimizing some aspect of the character that will never
exploited as a weakness by the GM.

If I were to do everything I could to get an insanely high attribute/skill combo so that I routinely succeed in a situation that is a guaranteed failure for those who built a more "balanced" character -- I have just "min/maxed" my character.

While there are GMs who try to curtail this practice, we are all at least somewhat min/maxing when we decide that we want our character to be better at one thing than they are at any other.

Min/Maxing becomes a major nightmare in really complex character creation systems like D&D where the player may be aware of a exploitable part of the design process and willfully exploits it without the DMs knowledge that there is even a problem.

Magic the Gathering has a similar issue with "lethal combos" or "infinite loop" combos which is just min/maxing in another form

[imported_Magman]

I wasn't too familiar with the term, or more so didn't know that type of character creation had a name for it. Thanks Skeloric, good definition.

[The Game Guy]

I agree, thanks for the definition skeloric. If anyone wants to expand on the definition please feel free to do so.

[Kalzazz]

My definition is trying to max out strengths and minimize weaknesses, generally by making really low things they consider unimportant in order to make really high other things

It isnt the same as making a specialized character though I dont think, as the min/maxed character generally is designed toward having no real weaknesses, and the specialized character is generally done with full recognition of weaknesses and strengths

As a DM and player I prefer specialized characters over generalist ones, but, that is just personal preference

[Crusis]

Skeloric nailed it. This is another advantage of the D6 system, because as long as you don't have a dishonest player who helps himself to some stat modifications, everyone is on an even playing field as far as stats go. I suppose this is more true if you give the whole group the same number of character points and don't give 'bonuses' for various players.

We're playing 2nd ed AD&D right now, and I have one player who is both a good friend a horrible crybaby about min/maxing. If he isn't able to pick the ancient red dragon up by one finger and eat it whole, then he figures he's been screwed. So I regularly screw him over, of course. I'm hoping that someday he'll change his playstyle or at least realize why he's being hammered, but he hasn't in 12 years.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with a deck of many things, but he drew 7 cards from one once in our games, and once his male dwarf wound up losing 3 points of intelligence, gained a keep and a charisma of 18, changed alignment, lost 10K exp, lost all magic items, and assorted other crap. His min/max character was totally screwed, so his comment was "The DM screwed my character up.", even though he is the one who decided to draw the cards.

He's one of my best friends, but if he ever blames me for his own stupidity again, he'll not be playing in my games anymore. Min/Maxing is very destructive to a game as a whole, and a min/maxing player can be a source of great contention in the party. I think it is probably pretty clear how a player of that type would feel about distributing wealth and treasure.

Same guy as above: I gave another player a set of platemail that was pretty kickass. At the end of the night, the min/maxer made the comment "I don't even know why I bother to come." Fortunately everyone else is entertained by his antics, even though I'm not. They seem to enjoy his discomfort when things don't go his way.

That's not party cohesion, and if you have a min/maxer, you will rarely have party cohesion. If he was just some dude, I'd tell him not to bother coming next week, but he really is a great friend otherwise.

[Whill]

I didn't know there was a term for this and the first thing I thought of was character species attribute ranges (as in "1D/4D"). Silly me. :o

I agree that this doesn't seem to be as much of an issue with D6, but as a GM I address this player issue in multiple ways.

(1) Be selective with who you allow as a player, if at all possible. I know it's a touchy issue if the player is a good friend of yours, but if one player is ruining it for your game and the other players, you have to consider the greater good. You can at least drops hints that there is someone available to replace him, even if there really isn't. However I don't like this method, so I try not to need it and instead put more emphasis on the following method.

(2) In my game, PC generation is always a joint effort. For a one-shot adventure (which I haven't ran in years), I might just say a few words to the player, let them make their PC, and then I at least have the final approval. For campaign play, PC creation is a group effort. Yes, the other players are all involved at least in the begininng of the process, so we can make sure we have a fairly balanced skill set in the group as a whole. Who's going to play the pilot/captain of the ship, etc.

And then it breaks down each player co-creating his PC with myself, and I don't allow PCs to be so specialized that they have sever weaknesses in other areas. Even if the species allows for a min attribute under 2D, I tell all players it is best to not have any attrubute be under 2D. Also, I tell them it's best to minimize the number of attributes that have 2D, which in turn limits how many exceptional attributes they can have. And even if the species can have a STR of 6D, the player may not want to put all those dice into STR because they would only have 12D for the rest of their attributes. And only being able to put 2D into any skill during PC generation prevents too much "stacking" anyway.

(3) A good GM will not allow any character's abilities effect the game in the way that "min/maxers" would like to during game play anyway. In my campaigns, occasionally all characters will be in situations far removed their expertise and they will regret not having any dice to roll (of course failures can move the story forward as well so that's not always bad).

But usually, me warning the players of that during character generation (2) prevents it from ever becoming an issue in actual play (3).

I guess this mainly becomes an issue for GMs that are not more involved in the PC generation process, or don't feel they have the right to veto anything. I haven't had anyone not want to play because of my involvement in their character creation, but I guess it could happen to other GMs. I simply don't allow PC generation standards to determine how I run my own game, and it usually turns out ok. :cool:

[Kalzazz]

I generally try to match the goals of adventures to character strengths, and if a character isnt specialized enough to have one big glowing strength I nudge the player toward fixing that (though I dont require it)

I figure that specialization is the way to go, and that the people giving the PCs quests, being rational individuals, would prefer to give them quests they will be good at. Of course, badguys prefer to give them obstacles they arent good at, so problems sometimes arise. But when it comes to doling out quests, Rebel Command is interested in how well people can do X, and someone who does X really well is more desirable than someone who can do W, X, Y and Z okay

Or as the Great Gatsby quote put it 'The most limited of all specialists is a well rounded man'

[asmkm22]

I don't think min-maxing is really about exploiting flaws in a system to achieve the unachievable. I think that's simply exploiting rules.

To me min-maxing is nothing more than putting a higher priority on stats and abilities that either get used more often, or have a more direct connection with your characters survival.

Depending on the system, this can be done in a variety of ways. I'm pretty sure one of the first ways was using Charisma as a "dump stat" in Dungeons and Dragons. Charisma, being a passive social stat, was rarely used when tromping around a dark castle dungeon, and pretty much could never result in actual harm to your character on failed rolls. Other stats like Dexterity, Strength, and Constitution, had direct connections to your survival and combat effectiveness, as well as being more commonly used several times over.

As systems get more complex, min-maxing potential also increases. Sometimes a game system is so badly flawed that all characters have to min-max certain things just to stay alive. Exalted is a perfect example of this. Other systems are generally tight enough that min-maxing can certainly give an edge to a well-thought-out character, but rarely introduces obvious breaks in game mechanics. D&D 3E is an example of this unless you let players use 3rd party supplements (most rarely took balance into consideration and just made options and skills that looked cool).

In my 10 or so years as a GM for a variety of game systems, I'd have to say my concern for players min-maxing is fairly low. I always take an active interest in my players' character. It allows me to make sure rules are being followed, and that I understand exactly what that character is capable of. I don't want to put a plot device in my story that hinges on skills my groups don't have, among other things.

It's always been a simple matter for me to continue designing challenging encounters for a group, even when it consists of some hard-core min-maxers. In most cases, the strength gained from min-maxing your character generally comes at a steep cost elsewhere; exploit those weaknesses on occasion to remind the player that they aren't nearly as clever as they think.

Also, there will be times when you are glad to have a min-maxer when an encounter starts to go south, and only broken rules will keep the players alive :)

[Crusis]

As a game master, we get to break rules at will. It's the players who must avoid that. I've been known to basically add hit points to a monster encounter because the players were slicing down the baddies, and in the end the victory was just in time. Other times the characters will tear down tougher enemies with some speed and take joy in their skill. I believe, no matter what the RPG, that the GM can min/max on his end for the sake of the storyline. I just think it's bad with players. D6 doesn't have this issue as much, because I think it's perfectly normal for a player to wish to improve his best combat ability each game. Games with greater lethality require such tactics, I think. Make the firefights quick and you live.