Why do people minimax? Do you find enjoyment in it? Is it a

>>44538468
What's minimax?

>>44538468

I don't enjoy wasting time and effort on shit I don't need.

If you were interested in getting bigger biceps, triceps, shoulders, and pecs, would you go jogging and reading about history? If you needed to go to the store to make the most delicious sandwich ever, would you stop by the car dealership first?

Wasted stats are wasted potential. It's the same reason racers rip out the upholstery and seats in their cars to lower weight.

>>44538468

Why don't people min/max? Do they just not care? Are they just not trying?

Some people enter marathons for no reason or just to say they did it. That's kind of stupid compared to people who enter marathons to beat a personal record, to come in first, or to improve themselves.

>>44538468
>Why do people minimax?
Many reasons not all of them being intentional.

>Do you find enjoyment in it?
Yes and no. Yes because I get to marvel at my creations. No because I almost always have to throw them away because they are to powerful.

>Is it a compulsion?
Yes? No? Its more like I don't know I'm doing it until after its done. I cant turn it off. I just have the extraordinary ability to almost instantly judge the worth of an option. Give me any set of choices and I'll always be able to tell the best one. Even the ones that look "bad" and are "bad" until you introduce other ability's to them. Ive had other players call me a fucking retard that was going to get the party killed for choosing certain feats. 2 levels later and it was key in basically making the party invincible.

You ,might think this "ability" is a thing called common fucking sense but in my experience I'm the only one I've ever met with this "ability." I don't even understand how its a thing but it is. Even GM's cant do it or understand it. So their gut response is to just ban things then they get mad that I still break games. They don't understand that limiting choice does nothing.

>Do you ever even recognize when you're doing it?
As above most times I don't. Its so bad even when I set out with the intent of controlling it it happens. One game I tried to keep it in check and I ended up with a character that swung around a huge great hammer that counted as colossal for damage at level one. Everything just lined up and when I did the math it did something like 36d12+10.

>Above all, do you care if you do?
I do care because as above I'm the only one that can fucking do this shit. Everyone else farts around with characters that cant even do what their player set out for them to do.

I wish I could find a group of power gamers just so I didn't have to make a new character at the start of every session.

>>44538468
Some do it for the attention it brings, some do it to not get hurt any more.

>>44538468
Video game mentality.
Even when I'm enjoying the story and roleplaying elements in a video game I'll try to maximize my character.
This carries over to TTRPG, often without me realizing it.

>>44538468
It's the same buzz as deck-building. You come up with an idea, cobble together a way of doing it, give that a trial run, take it apart, put the thing back together with some new parts, trial it again, and keep building it until you think you've got it as good as it can be. Often that means going to an expert for advice and seeing how they're doing things - sometimes it even means using their method verbatim so that you understand what's so good about it - but it's an intellectual activity as worthy at least as worthy as solving dungeons by player skill or internalising the emotions of a fictional person.

In point-buy systems, I enjoy playing hyper-specialized characters, with glaring weaknesses, because I think it'd be fun.
In skill-tree systems, I enjoy becoming really good at [the thing], to be the [that thing] member of the party.
Is it intentional? Maybe. Am I being an attention-grabbing shit? I suppose it depends on who you talk to. Do I try and paper over every single weakness, so that I'm nigh-untouchable? not really. Being bad at something gives other party members a chance to shine, by taking out [the threat] and saving our asses

So none of you would ever, for example, play a character that was clearly in the wrong profession but trying their darndest, or play a character with a legitimate handicap or cripple with no forseeable upsides?

I'm sorry this is just fascinating to me. I actively avoid trying to minimax but I think I'm coming from a very different place than others in this media.

>>44538848

You can still min/max a doofus or cripple.

Your question is implying "why would you ever make intelligent point purchases and stat upgrades". The real question is why would you assume everyone would dick around and spend all their gold on Ineffective Dildo Bat of Failed Subjugation.

The same reason players love gold and shiny gear and especially MAGES IN GENERAL (coming from a martial only player) is because they love awesome high level shit. You don't play martials because you want to shoot mountain-exploding fireballs with your cock, I get it. Same reason I don't want to put points in INT above what I need to function, because I need STR.

I min/max so that when my dms world comes to fuck me up, even a sliver of me might survive.

Plus that way i can have a small effect on the story if i make it.

>>44538848
Those are fun, and they are only really avoided if you are an intentional minmaxer or avoiding allegations of marysuery or just not very creative. Or just don't find those things as entertaining.

>>44538468

I suggest that that Minmaxing is for the sake of minmaxing is ruinous. If one builds solely to maximize combat benefits at the exclusion to others will fall behind in other aspects of the game. In addition it may spark an arms race with the GM, as supposedly difficult encounters may fall too easily. forcing the GM to bring out Unfun bullshit to try to challenge you.

This isn't the same as Specialization and Theme Building which explores differing playstyles. Minmaxing will lock you in into taking certain routes and options as they are "the best." Whereas Branching out of the best choices might allow you to experience a playstyle you may find fun. There is also the satisfaction of the challenge of making "suboptimal" choices work for you.

All that said. I liken Minmaxing to a spice. You shouldn't eat it on its own, but mixed into something else can really bring out the flavor.

>>44538914

That's why tabletop definition of min/maxing is stupid. In video game, min/maxing that hard turns you into a glass cannon or a gimmicky one trick pony build.

The "min" in min/max doesn't mean ABSOLUTE LOWEST YOUR IRRELEVANT STATS WILL GO, it means "just enough to be needed, don't waste any spare points on it". So not 1 wisdom 1 int, but an average, uninvested amount.

Human nature.

Function determines form. It's backwards to have form determine function.

>Oh, I made some dumb garbage
>What can I do with it??

True, this has lead to some random breakthroughs in history, but not even remotely close to

>What do I want to accomplish?
>This is what I'll need to achieve it

>>44539000
But when you want to accomplish fun, what do you need to achieve it?

>>44539052

People pay a lot of money to professionals to figure that out...

I suppose I find as much if not more satisfaction or entertainment in tragedy than in triumph. I like plucky characters that can be relate-able to the common people within their settings more than individuals with the power to completely alter the course of seven different realities with a single fart.

Coincidentally, I have never even attempted to play a wizard in any setting.

>>44539052
If the person is unfilled in life? Generally a power fantasy.

>guys made fun of me and beat me up IRL, I don't want to feel that way again
>I want to be the one beating everyone else up
>I'm unsuccessful at picking up girls and am a big spaghetti
>I wanna have all the charisma and everyone loves me
>I'm a big fat clumsy piece of shit
>I wanna be the stealth nimble ninja man

etc

It can get pretty depressing as a DM when you get character sheets and look beyond the min/maxing power-gaming shit and see these kind of reflections in the person submitting them. If you recognize the traits and you actually give them their stupid escapist fantasy, you can literally see their eyes glisten with joy.

But you're also damning them into a cruel vicious cycle of escapism. I'm a DM, damn it, not a psychiatrist.

>>44538523
A real term in statistics, you are 'maximizing' your 'minimum' values. The opposite is maximin.

>>44538848
>So none of you would ever, for example, play a character that was clearly in the wrong profession but trying their darndest
I've played a Monk in D&D 3.5, and not by accident either. Minmax doesn't mean that you take the easiest and most straightforward route to power, it means that you try to squeeze everything you can out of what you've got.

>>44538914
>I suggest that that Minmaxing is for the sake of minmaxing is ruinous. If one builds solely to maximize combat benefits at the exclusion to others will fall behind in other aspects of the game.
But that's not minmaxing. Minmax is trying to cover (at least) your own role as well as you can.

File: dammit jim.jpg (43KB, 450x271px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 450x271px

>>44539115

>>44539115
he means that some people find it fun to role play other things than overpowered special snowflake characters, stop with your pseudo-intellectualism, you're not impressing anyone.

>>44538468
Because the system I play (3.P) requires it. There are so many traps and possibilities that you need to have at least a semi-optimized character to be competent in the game.

>>44539147
but a monk in 3.5 is not a character that is clearly in the wrong profession but trying their damndest.
a 3.5 monk is one of the potentially most minmaxable things around

>>44539174
Hahaha shit, nigga, I've never seen such an obvious case of "struck a nerve - the reply" in my life.

>>44539192
XD

File: Little Monsters.jpg (34KB, 560x304px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 560x304px

>>44539174
1) At no point did he ever suggest that some people DIDN'T like to play other things, but this is a Min/Maxing thread specifically, and OP was asking why he thought people did it.

2) Nothing remotely in his post was psuedo-intellectual or intentionally using 'fancy words' and obfuscation techniques. You sound mad.

>>44539174
>Why do people min/max
>literally thousands of answers
>one guy answers
>you don't like his answer
>HURR HURR NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE

Stop being a nigger.

Isn't OCD a valid reason?

>>44538523
seriously this

File: Minmax.png (93KB, 200x302px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 200x302px

>>44539247
>>44538523
Not what, who.

>>44539247
like in CataclysmDDA when you take extra drawbacks just so you can get free points to buy additional bonuses with.

>>44539220
the dude he replied to was obviously suggesting that to have fun is more important than minmaxing, and that faggot started writing a long ass comment about common knowledge psychology like his words are pure wisdom, like anyone gives a shit.

>>44539304
>Lactose intolerance 4lyfe

1) They come from a gaming and not roleplaying background. Like if you play Final Fantasy or other JRPGs, why would you waste your time equipping shitting gear or picking sub-optimal skills? It's moronic. The point of a game is to "win".

2) Probably >>44539115

3) Other players at the table all already being min/maxers, so you're literally introduced that this is what's expected in order to stay relevant in the party.

4) Compulsion/mathematical autism.

I like >>44539000 as well though. I feel that really reflects the difference between old and new D&D.

Like old D&D, roll 3d6 straight down, and now you have to look at your array and go "Shit, what's the best thing I can make from this?". Literally given a form and trying to determine a function for it. It was more of a game, and dying was losing.

New D&D, it's like "4d6 droplow, arrange in any order, point buy, or stat array" = you can build/plan exactly what you want to do, or what you need to do (depending on metagame knowledge).

Old method seems way less cancerous, but it's also totally unfair when someone rolls those 18s and shits all over the 9/10/11/8/12/9 guy.

>>44538468
1. Most accusations of "minmaxing" are just people who are bad at math being mad at people who are good at math

2. I minmax because my character should probably be competent at the job the party keeps him around to do.

>>44539304
They were being cheeky because OP wrote "minimax", not "minmax".

>>44539318
I don't think he was obviously suggesting anything. It was a fairly open question. Also, that shit is hardly "long ass". You seem unreasonably mad for someone giving their opinion on why someone would min/max.

>>44538593
What's not stupid about entering a competition just to beat oneself? How does entering a marathon improve oneself, seems stupid as fuck.

>>44538653
Man, you are either a character genius or a savant.

Could you give me an example of say... a minimaxed pathfinder barbarian at 1st level?

I've been trying to get ridiculous stuff like this just to see if I could but now I'm stuck on getting the above to work.

File: little baby.png (396KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 540x540px

>>44539318

>>44539384
>How does entering a marathon improve oneself
>how does aerobic exercise increase lung capacity and general fitness
>how does experience in doing things improve one's ability to perform those tasks
>how does practice make perfect

Are you retarded?

>>44539364
>minimax
honestly read it as minmax. didn't even notice.

>>44539394
He's retarded. 99% of the people I've talked to/gamed with like this achieve their "godly builds" by citing poorly worded rules or using third party splats and then creating a non-core non-RAW and non-RAI heap of garbage and get asshurt when the DM tells them to fuck off with their nonsense.

>>44539384

Are you really asking how running makes you better at running? And that trying to beat your own personal records is stupider than doing things for absolutely no reason at all?

"I'm entering this race to see if I've gotten any faster" is far less stupid than "uhhhh I dunno why I'm entering this race lolxd!"

My main problem is non-min/maxers are stupid ass shits like this dicklord. Yeah, I'm triggered. What's wrong with being annoyed at stupid people being so fucking stupid and asking stupid ass questions that they piss you off, they're that stupid?

>>44538468

I minmax my characters very rarely. Most of the time, I pick a class, and I make that class operate at the level of the rest of the party. I've never picked a class based on how good it is in relation to other classes; instead I pick whatever class fits the concept I want to play. I also make sure my stats reflect my character. For example, if I wanted to play an intelligent tactical fighter I would make sure his intelligence is at least decent even if it didn't do anything for me, because otherwise it wouldn't fit his characterization.

When I do minmax, it's because I'm fascinated by the concept of game theory. Figuring out the best move or choice is like a puzzle, and I find it very fun. I don't, however, find the actual act of playing those characters enjoyable. When I play an RPG I need to get invested in my character, and I find that quite a bit harder when there's no real risk they'll ever die.

>>44539364
I'm not mad, I just don't think he is in any position to put judgement on every human being that indulge in escapism and his replied reeked of self-righteous faggotry, I felt obliged to point that out.

>>44539456
Pretty sure he pointed that out himself by saying he's not a psychiatrist and he doesn't know whether or not he should give them the fantasy or not. That's basically thrust upon him at that point.

I like to do whatever I set out to do as effectively as I can.
If I was trying to play someone clearly in the wrong profession like
>>44538848
I would as a random example play a half-orc with negative charisma who just loves music and wants to be the best bard he can be even though he sounds like a cement mixer gargling cats.

But it would still say Fighter or Barbarian on my character sheet because I want to be able to contribute to the party when the chips are down.

Your post (>>44539456) is exactly one pixel longer than your post (>>44539489)

>>44539432
Core is the bread and butter anon. To be completely honest to stop most of the things I build you should ban core. Core is what makes them all work since it gives the ability's that link others together to make the bullshit happen. Then if you just ban splats core is all you need to break the game.

>>44539394
I've never made one but I was toying around with a ragecaster when I was DMing.

The trick is to go into it with an idea. Don't got with "I'm going to make a broken X class." Go in with "I'm going to make a spunky crity fucker."

Now that you have your lens just look at your options. It should be obvious what will get you to where you need to go. Then if you are like me or if you can learn look at EVERYTHING. Even things that look useless may in fact be amazing for this exact build.

If you want to focus on a specific class you are very limited in your options. Just look over the class and see what it does best. Then look at things that modify the class abilities or can expand them.

Yeah I see how rolling 3d6 and getting stuck with it is more of a game. For one thing it's more of a challenge to try and build off of possible shit stats.

I definitely think that point buy is shit, at least in terms of roleplay, but I personally allow 4d6 drop low and arrange in any order. You can still get shit stats, just a lower chance, and even if you do you can choose to put your best score where it counts at least.

Sure it's unfair for someone who rolls 18's to play with some guy who gets 9 in everything, but that can still happen even in 3d6 stats. It's also shit in the straight down method when you get a barbarian with an INT of 18 and a STR of 8 while the wizard gets the inverse.

>>44539663
shit mean to reply to
>>44539336

>>44539598
A master can make a masterpiece from even the dullest of materials. If you build a character right, it will break the game regardless of sourcebook, rule system, or GM.

>>44539724
All you really need is a bag of holding.

What is min-maxing to most people?
There really isn't much Min Maxing in 3.PF. There's lots of optuimizing, but there's not much you can outright gimp to gain that huge of an advantage.

Okay, I can dump Charisma and pump Int, Str, whatever. My character can still fucking speak, and it's not like I was going to have a reasonable chance of persuading someone through sheer charm anyway, because my class isn't geared towards X. So at the absolute worst, someone ends up with a couple extra skill points or in some class cases a much needed boost in health.

And what was really lost in that situation, a player doesn't engage in a mechanic the wouldn't have gotten much mileage out of anyway? That's the extent of Min Maxing in 3.PF. Someone has a 7 in charisma, big fucking deal, right? Everything else is Optimization and system mastery i.e knowing the game.

How does someone being good at their job detract from RP? It doesn't this is the Stormwind fallacy.

Also, what's wrong with someone taking good choices? Ideally, every choice in the rulebook is viable, I don't see why you would get mad at someone not spending limited resources on learning to tap dance in a game about killing demons.

>>44539663
>Sure it's unfair for someone who rolls 18's to play with some guy who gets 9 in everything, but that can still happen even in 3d6 stats. It's also shit in the straight down method when you get a barbarian with an INT of 18 and a STR of 8 while the wizard gets the inverse.

I think the intent is that you roll your stats, then look at them and say "hm what class can I make with this?"

File: Varrick_hiding.png (94KB, 444x250px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 444x250px

>>44538818
>>44538818
>I enjoy becoming really good at [the thing]

>>44538468
Because despite all the pseudo-intellectual wankery about collective storytelling and crafting a narrative, the game still features extensive rules for fights, which have a clear win condition: don't fucking die.

So I'm gonna use those rules to craft the most survivable character I can. Because it's what the rules are about.

>>44539858
>psuedo-intellectual

There's that phrase again.

I find it to be fun. Learning a system, figuring out it's ins and outs, deciding what I want my character to be then ultimately bringing together everything to make them the best version of that they can be. It's like putting together a puzzle with ten thousand different pieces, but only some of them go together, and I'm only looking for a specific image to put together.

A well put together character, perfect in it's ability placement and rules utilization is a work of art.

I think it's because I'm a forever DM and learning systems is what I do, mixing that with the fact that I never know the next time I'll actually play a pc majorly incentivizes making a character that clears house and is fun to play.
Here's a question going the other way: is it okay to make a campaign and tell your players that they should minmax in order to make the campaign more survivable? All of my campaigns tend to be dark souls-esque in their difficulty (everything is a puzzle fight, but can be brute forced) and though minmaxing isn't necessary to not die, it can prevent my players from having to re roll once or twice if they make dumb mistakes, or if they can't figure out the puzzle.

>>44539809
I guess.
I would think that people would prefer a higher degree of choice in terms of character though. I mean it's just kind of bullshit if you really want to play a fighter but roll shit STR and higher INT so now you have to play either a wizard or a really really bad fighter.

>>44539890
I call it like I see it.
It's borderline euphoric to feel superior because you're partaking in some sort of highbrow shared narrative that's all about character development and verisimilitude. Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. It's a game about knights and wizards fighting monsters and getting loot. Drop the rules entirely if you want to be some 'hurr durr our stories are art' faggot.

>>44539946
Why not play Gish, Warblade, or any other class that benefits from high int?

Why don't more systems have ways so that classes can benefit from several stats, but not NEED to keep them all ridiculously high/rewards you for specializing in certain features.

>>44539183
>a 3.5 monk is one of the potentially most minmaxable things around
You can't say something like that without backing it up anon

>>44540162
He's not wrong. Min Maxing isn't about effect it's about effort.

You need to Min Max a monk to come close to competent, but that doesn't mean a min maxed monk will be good compared to a min maxed barbarian,warblade, wizard etc.

>>44539394
High str, glaive-guisarme and power attack. Go str>con>dex for stats, and maybe take combat reflexes for the extra AoOs, since you'll want it for Come and Get Me later anyway.

>>44539598
The funny thing is games like 3.PF work way better if you ban core and only use splat/Third party shit.

Why do people want to be the best at what they do? Better question: why do you don't?

Are you a woman? A beta? Are you a virgin? Why is something that is so deeply ingrained into every male so difficult to understand for you?

File: 1451021235223.png (931KB, 854x800px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 854x800px

>Why would you give your character the greatest chance of success?

Gee I dunno.

>>44538468
>Why do people minimax?
I do it because I don't find incompetent characters fun to play in the slightest. Caveat: I also don't have fun if I am rendering everyone else a second stringer.
>Do you find enjoyment in it?
Yes and no. Oftentimes it's tedious homework or something that causes panic and frustration, other times it's fun because putting things together to make a unified whole is rewarding.
>Is it a compulsion?
No, I'm not compelled to. I want to.
>Do you ever even recognize when you're doing it?
Yes.
>Above all, do you care if you do?
Why wouldn't I? It's a care intensive process.

>>44540214
Additionally, not min-maxing is one of the most beta mindset I have ever seen.

>I don't want my monk to be better because I could overshadow other people and make them feel uneasy!

I don't have words.

>>44538468
>Why do people minimax?

Because we don't want to waste our time

>Do you find enjoyment in it?

Yes, I find not wasting my time to be more enjoyable than wasting my time. Its the most basic thing possible.

>Is it a compulsion?

In the sense that preferring to spend 2 hours reading a fiction book instead of a phone book is a compulsion.

>Do you ever even recognize when you're doing it?

Yes, I analyze what options are shit put there by an incompetent or careless developer and act accordingly.

>Above all, do you care if you do?

No, since the game is objectively better for everyone if I do and worse for everyone if I don't.

>inb4 you can't say its objectively better

Spending an extra hour in combat due to misses is as close to being objectively worse as you can get.

>>44539663
How the hell is point buy shit for roleplay? Some of the most RP heavy systems around are point buy.

Also optimising for your job is one thing, I think the issue people have is when people focus so narrowly on one thing at the expense of common sense or making a sensible character.

>>44538593

I will take, "What is Fun?" for $500 Alex!

Like, seriously, some people just want to play something vanilla and fuck around for kicks, rather than scour sourcebooks looking to create un unstoppable killing beast.

So long as the rest of your group and your GM are all on the same page, who gives a fuck?

Obviously someone playing a "lazy"/underpowered build in a hardcore, high difficulty group is going to be a pain in the arse.
But so is a full on min-maxer in a group of people just playing for kicks/new to the game when he dominates everything the party does and roflstomps the GMs soft-ball monsters.

Depends on what you want and what you expect. It's a matter of party-wise policy.
Once i was used to a party where a stat of 15 was already well above average. Now i play with a group where everyone goes for stats of 18 or above, minmaxing for the sake of not being useless compared for the others.

But minmaxing is not such a bad thing if you aren't a douche about it. The real problem are those assholes who minmax and build their PCs to counter and antagonize the other party members, rather than help them , always ready to party infighting and never prone to help them.

The best thing that can happen in these cases is see them trigger the fight and have the other PCs slap them into submission because they didn't think about the fact that no matter how optimized you are, 1v4 against even half competent enemies is not something you can win

I minmax, mostly unintentionally, because when I create a character, I'll come up with a concept. Usually this is some sort of extreme specialist because that's what appeals to me, generalist characters are usually all the same mechanically, as they strive to be generally good at everything. When I come up with the concept, I then try and create a character which fits this concept as closely as possible, with as little wasted stats or points which don't fit as possible. So I often come out with a character slightly more powerful than expected.

That said, I may simply be making average characters and my GMs have a poor sense of balance as many of them have had little to no experience playing RPGs prior to the campaign.

For example, the last game I played was a Shadowrun 4e game, in which I played a sniper. I dominated every encounter and outclassed the street sam and adept, but I suspect perhaps the encounters were either poorly set up or maybe the other poorly optimised. I certainly didn't set out to outclass everyone else.

I for one find great joy in optimizing a character. I wouldn't call it full-on munchkin minmaxing, but the idea of playing a character who isn't good at something sounds utterly boring to me. Failsalot the man who fails a lot isn't my idea of a fun time.

>>44539663
I personally really dislike rolling. The only experience I've had with it I massively outclassed the other characters, with a maxed out stat and not one with a negative modifier, whereas others found themselves with a "balanced" set, made up of mostly neutral or negative modifiers. It could have easily led to an unfun atmosphere and I ended up intentionally being a sort of useless specialisation to allow others to shine. Even then I shot better as the fighter pilot than the dedicated soldier.

>>44539432
My experience has actually been the exact opposite.
All the shit needed to break a game will be in the original books, with other books trying to fix what the original book did.

>>44538468
Because I'd rather not have my character die in the first combat encounter.

>>44540281
Gr8 B8 M8
Some people chose to level a character in a way that feels organic as oppose to the most optimal choice.
You know, part of playing ROLEplaying.

>>44541820
Yes, and it feels very organic that my PI would drop points into being better at his job rather than putting points into cooking;

>>44541693
It's usually both. 3.5 is a good example of a broken core book, with splats to fix it and splats which made it worse.

>>44538468
Yeah, fuck optimizers, warforged with diamantine plating monk for life!

>>44538848
I did, they don't last more than a couple of sessions before they either die or get kicked out the group because dead weight.

>I can't have fun if I'm not relevant
>I can't find enjoyment if I'm meaningless

>>44538468
>Why do people minimax?
Because it's fun,
>Do you find enjoyment in it?
Yes.
>Is it a compulsion?
More often than not, yes. If I can improve something, I do it.
>Do you ever even recognize when you're doing it?
Always.
>Above all, do you care if you do?
Ofcourse I care, optimising stats is an important part of any crunch-heavy game I play.

>>44542476
Since I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, yes, those statements are perfectly valid and in many cases true. RPGs are more enjoyable if you can affect what is going on meaningfully.

>>44542510
Spoke like a true powergamer.

File: bait.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>44542535

File: 1446762382898.png (122KB, 262x380px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 262x380px

...because some players think this is how you "win" a TTRPG.

They want attention because their character is the "real" hero and everyone else is their backup.

Anyone who has any problem with minmaxing are pretentious hipsters who are far more focused on stats than people they call "powergamers", to the point they think bad stats make good characters.
When in actuality, they lack creativity and think having multiple flaws that render their character average at best gives their character depth, when it's a very shallow way to create a character.

Yes, your shitty can't-do-anything character was cute the first time he failed to do anything relevant and risked the lives of the rest of the party, because he doesn't have anything higher than a +3 in a swingy succeed-fail system where the rest of us have +7s in our own specializations, but when there are jobs that need to be done, I will simply hire an NPC specialist and tell your character to stay home.

What is with all the minmaxers trying to justify their selfish bullshit by claiming its the same as just making a capable, optimised character.

>playing systems where min-max is a continual issue

You all asked for it, begged for it, and now you must sleep in your grave!

>>44546406
Its inevitable in any system with lots of options. The GM having to tell people to stop being dicks is a vastly better alternative than a system with few options.

>>44546560
But people don't stop being dicks
We all know this because we play TTRPGs

Systems with few options are usually more description-based instead of +this +that +this other thing +this thing in particular
It means you use one bonus or the other and maybe rarely both

>>44546629
Then you tell them they are no longer allowed to play.

I have never had problems with shitty players and I would kick them out if I did.

>>44546249
There is no fucking differnce. If you're making a "capable" character from the start you are a fucking min maxer, you earned nothing and just made a wank fantasy. Then again anything beyond AD&D actually rolling your character is a power fantasy wank fest.

>>44538468

OP you're probably getting two things confused. Lemme explain:

Min-Maxing is not a bad thing. All min-maxing is, is character optimization. Which can actually be beneficial to roleplaying. It's looking at a character concept then going "how do I make this design viable?" It helps make players who have out there or unusual ideas feel more comfortable in the system.

What you're probably thinking of is munchkining. When you're a munchkin then your goal isn't to make a character but rather a result. You want something that can throw the universe or attack 500 times a round and so you follow the rules and ignore fluff/lore in favor of getting your demented result.

Munchkins are the guys who just wanna break the game and watch the world burn while a character optimizer can in fact still be interested in roleplaying.

>>44538573
>this is what retards actually believe

>>44546976
>character optimizer can in fact still be interested in roleplaying.
What a fucking retard, and a gun can remove cancer if you fucking melt it and then cast it into a scalpel and give it to a surgeon. When you optimize at all you do not care about story, you are caring about fucking numbers and mechanical benifits you dumbass.

File: 1437876769793.jpg (353KB, 637x955px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 637x955px

Min-maxing is not a bad thing, and it is not about powergaming either. You can min-max to play a cripple, or a person who isn't good at his profession. You can min-max a bloody Commoner if you want to. The goal of min-maxing is not, and has never been, to be the most powerful character. The goal of min-maxing is to make the character that is capable of doing, mechanically, what the character is supposed to be doing. It is using the rules as they are meant to be used.

For example, the commoner cripple who isn't good at his profession. You would take the flaws that reflect his disability, a couple ranks in the Profession skill, and a level in Commoner. Then you would, like a proper min-maxer, choose some excellent feats, skills and possibly templates to make this character a useful and productive member of the party. Why? Because this game is not about a bunch of idiots who stick together for no reason: if your character cannot actually do anything, he is boring and you are doing a disservice to the other players on the table by forcing them to make up for your clownfest. A flawed character in a good story has depth: he can pull off unexpected solutions using [insert positive quality here]. If your character does not have positive qualities, you are an ass hole.

That isn't to say you have to play a cripple, either. The wizard obsessed with cosmic power is a staple and valid character type, as is the great and mighty warrior or always-prepared engineer.

The story is represented by the mechanics. If the crunch of your character does not match his fluff, you are a bad roleplayer, and a bad min-maxer.

>>44546976
The line you're trying to draw is really thin and really spectral.
There's that separation of initial intent but it doesn't stop the same result from occurring.

>>44547058
Let me condense this

>The goal of min-maxing is being insecure that someone else may do what your character should be the best at.

You don't need all that fucking justification in there. Just admit you're a shitty insecure person who needs numbers so your character can "work".

>>44547021
>I focus so much on stats but I call you the shitty roleplayer
>You can't be an interesting character if you're good at your job

Pretentious hipster trash, who's character is not only shitty, but shallow as well.
NPC specialists are more interesting than you.

>>44547021

>When you optimize at all you do not care about story, you are caring about fucking numbers and mechanical benifits you dumbass.

Those numbers influence the story though. They influence how much input you can have on the story and how well you can deal with opposition and enemies.

Some optimization guys aren't even interested in breaking the game. Just in making a character concept able to do things like fight well or affect the setting.

Most times optimization is perceived as munchkining because the players and the GM are less experienced or the book provides shitty underpowered encounters. Which to be fair if the optimizer KNOWS this and isn't helping out the other players/GM then yea he's being a dick but that's not the same thing.

>>44547021
>Someone has a different playstyle/character creation method than I do
>I BETTER GET REAL FUCKIN MAD ABOUT IT
hahahaha look at this dork. Look at him and laugh!

File: giphy.gif (879KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 500x281px

>>44547126
>Mechanics influence the story
I love when autists think they're roleplayers, It's pathetic as fuck but sometimes it's cute.

No amount of mechanics stop a GM from having the story go the way they want it. No amount of HP on your character sheet keeps a GM from killing you. No amount of damage you can dish out keeps the GM from makign something that your character is powerless to kill. You are truly a stupid dumbass and I hope that you were born this unfortunate instead of wasting your entire life to acquire this amount of ignorance and brain damage.

>>44546870
I hope for your own sake you are not stupid enough to believe that.

A game that allows a huge gap in what a minmaxed character can accomplish and what one cannot promotes minmaxing. Using dice roll instead of point buy doesn't help because having high mental scores won't benefit my sickly weak barbarian. The idea of a smart weak barbarian is funny, but the game isn't crafted in such a way where I can still be useful. I don't gain intelligent rage abilities. I don't get some tactical bonus in fights for being smarter. I don't make up for the fact that if I pumped my strength and health I'd be much better at what I'm supposed to do, which is get up there and hurt things.

The greater the disparity, the more important min maxing is. On the other hand, the lesser the disparity, the less stats truly mean. A class would need to balance to scale off every stat somehow so that dumping specific skills isn't the way to perform your job most efficiently. It's all well and good if I'm roleplaying a well dressed gentlemanly character that drops into a murderous rage in combat then says "oh dear I seem to have gotten blood on my monocle again", but if Baron Von Murderfuck is likely to die because I chose to build my character to do 3 less damage every hit at level one, what's the point of trying? The sin is in the game, not in the player.

>>44547096

No. You can min-max a party of four swordsmen, all of whom swing swords. You putting words in other people's mouths does not make them true. Being the best in the party at your specialty may be something you are min-maxing for, and it also may not be.

An example of a NOT min-maxed character would be to make a swordsman who supposedly is good at swinging swords, when in fact, mechanically, he's awful at it. Another example of a non-min-maxed character is a character who isn't actually good at anything, and thus there is no reason for the party to keep him around.

The numbers that make your character "work" are in tangent with the rest of the players on the table. It is they that want you to be the best at what your character should be the best at (what that thing is, is up to you and your friends). A Role-Playing Game is not just Role-Playing, it is also a Game. You are part of a team, and nobody likes a team member who isn't contributing to the team's success.

>>44547202
So we're just operating under the assumption that the GM is a railroading cuntrocket who is more interested in writing his book than letting the players have meaningful input? Why even bother having character sheets to begin with, as you say the GM is just going to tell us what happens and dictate our character's actions for us.

>>44547236
You also don't need to minmax to make a capable character, I personally don't feel like trawling through pages of feats just to get that last +1.

>>44538468
It just naturally happens.
>You're presented with two options.
>One will give you +4 to 2 skills
>One will give you +2 to one skill and +1 to one other
>It's just a mechanical boost to what your character is supposedly good at

Now some people who actually buy into the 'stormwind fallacy' will tell you that if you pick the better of those two options, you hate roleplaying and can't make a character with personality if your life fucking depended on it.

BULLSHIT.
With the amount of refluffing or completely disconnected mechanics in most game systems, purposefully making yourself as bad as possible at everything you do makes you a SHIT roleplayer, NOT a good one. Just because you think your character has to be a burden on the party and as much a failure as you are in real life in order to be roleplaying doesn't mean you're not a cockmonglingly fucktarded abortion.

I don't understand minmaxing. The rules are simply a framework to start from and are completely at the discretion of the GM. It's not a video game, with unchanging rules hardwired in that you can exploit like a machine.

You can have all the stats and rules you want backing you up, but if the GM says they're using modified rules, or ignoring certain rules, or playing things a certain way, or whatever else, then... that's just how it is.

>>44547384
You're talking with insecure autistic dear, they are incapable of seeing capability outside of min maxed numbers.

>>44547384
>I personally don't feel like trawling through pages of feats just to get that last +1.
Neither do I. Min-maxing is not about searching all the books, that is a different concept. Nor is it necessary: D&Dtools for 3.5, PFSRD for Pathfinder, the character builder for 4e: the books are only for decorating a shelf, you can use a search function to find relevant feats in seconds.

>You also don't need to minmax to make a capable character
Depends on the character, and on the game. I would argue that you are still min-maxing, you are merely doing so at a low intensity. If you play a melee combatant and put your high roll in Strength and your low roll in Wisdom, you have already done some min-maxing, since you are maximising your strengths and minimising less important traits.

>>44547474

>but if the GM says they're using modified rules, or ignoring certain rules, or playing things a certain way, or whatever else, then... that's just how it is.

Yea which is why he should explain these rules to begin with.

If he doesn't then he's kinda being a bad GM.

>>44547474

If the GM is using modified rules, that is no different from those rules being printed. You can min-max using any rules, not just official ones.

File: retardedlaughter.gif (6MB, 408x208px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 408x208px

>>44547460
Look at this sperging, this fucker doesn't' understand shit.

>>44547546
You see you're using the definition that any sort of good choice is minmaxing. A character isn't minmaxed unless its the most powerful you could possibly build

It's hard not to in some scenarios when a class completely revolves around one aspect.

Take for example a wizard. I need my Int as high as I can get it

For more spells, More skill points because my class has so few per level and for the skills I do posses are primarily INT based skills.

>>44539951
>It's borderline euphoric to feel superior because you're partaking in some sort of highbrow shared narrative that's all about character development and verisimilitude. Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. It's a game about knights and wizards fighting monsters and getting loot.
Murderhobo detected.

File: Archaon_Lord.jpg (87KB, 900x594px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 900x594px

>>44547667
>A character isn't minmaxed unless its the most powerful you could possibly build

In that case, absolutely no-one has ever played a minmaxed character, because nobody plays Pun-Pun. You can cancel this thread, as if minmaxing is according to your definition, it never, ever happens.

No. Min-maxing is not about building the most powerful character you can possibly build. It is broader than that, and people min-max characters that obviously aren't the most powerful character they could build, all the time.

>>44539394
Level 1 isn't a good optimization point. It had the least choice.

>>44547736
Yep and doesn't care about actually playing a roleplaying game. Just reducing life points and getting loot to further reduce life points, theyre's a genera of video games just for that but it's "beneath" them. Hence why they have to drag roleplaying into the mud as a whole.

>>44547750
According to your definition you're min maxing if you take anything that isn't the worst choice you could take

>>44547816
>Broad generalizations because I'm a hipster fag who thinks his shit characters are good because they're shit

>>44538523
Simple, and yet deep.
So many of these shit posting single question threads are basically exercises in how far anons can cram themselves up their own asses about what might basically be a terminological dispute.

It reminds me of the "if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound" argument. One person says "Yes, it makes a vibration in the air, a sound," and one says "No, there is no perception of it as sound, required for it to be a sound." And then, despite the fact that neither of them are describing a different situation or would expect a different world based on the out come, they waste time and energy arguing that they're right, almost strictly for the sake of appearing right.

I would call "minmaxing" making a character that is mechanically optimized in a way that a) breaks verisimilitude, b) means they're only useful in a narrow set of tactical situations.
"a" is of course a little subjective, but often means the fluff for the character (if there is any) seems ridiculous and bent backwards and tied in a knot. ("They were raised by polar bears before being randomly teleported to a small tropical island to learn martial arts.")
For "b" I mean things like the character that can do things like deal the theoretical maximum damage per round in combat, but can barely, metaphorically, even tie their shoes outside it.

Anything else, specifically just avoiding trap options, generally seeking out a mechanically favorable build, whatever, I would call simple "optimizing", but would understand others putting the label "minmaxing" on it.

>>44547474
>You can have all the stats and rules you want backing you up, but if the GM says they're using modified rules, or ignoring certain rules, or playing things a certain way, or whatever else, then... that's just how it is.
You have to make a character somehow.
I don't really ever have one idea BURNING in my head that I have to realize, I could draft any number of concepts, really. But I only get to run one, and I'm not going to go through the problem space exhaustively looking for one.
So I kick the question over to the Rules As Written, and see if there's any build I want to optimize, and then stretch a character concept over those bare bones. And if the GM has impromptu houserules that make the build worse... whatever, I have the character concept already, it's all up to player skill now.

>>44547021
>When you optimize at all you do not care about story, you are caring about fucking numbers and mechanical benifits you dumbass.
Oh, so I should play my 4 charisma half-ogre as a suave, charming handsome, well spoken gentleman!

>>44547628
>>44547460
Well, hold on a minute
The problem with any attempts of "roleplay vs. efficacy" is that some characters aren't trying to dabble; they are only interested in one avenue of experience and proficiency.
We're going to continue seeing this because it makes sense for that character while another character may enjoy some diversity in their studies or experience.

Many game systems think it fair to reward the single-minded pursuit of +20 to one thing when the player had creation opportunities elsewhere.
Likewise, many campaigns will be combat-heavy--this means the +20 to Ass-thrusting is almost always applicable, while the +5 here and there never even see the light of day.

People who didn't dedicate to a tunnel-vision character are therefore boned but it should be noted their frustration can be aimed at multiple sources, not just the players making the murdermachines.

>>44546976
This.

Min-maxing is simply making a character competent at one or more things, at the expense of being less competent at one or more other things. The alternative is to have everybody be equally good at everything, but where's the fun in that? Literally, choosing a class (in a class-based system) is a form of min-maxing, since Fighters (for example) are better at stabbing people and worse at sneaky stuff, and typically they can't do magic at all.

In fact, any interesting character (in a ttrpg, a book, a movie, whatever) is virtually guaranteed to be better at some things than others. That's just how people are.

>>44548027
Then min/maxing is a meaningless term

File: knife.jpg (67KB, 720x607px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x607px

>>44547898
To a lot of people (many in this thread no less) that is *exactly* what it is.

>He gave his cleric more wisdom than constitution because he's nothing but a sperging minmaxer

>She put her 18 in Charisma and 10 in strength instead of the other way around for her crossbow-wielding bard because she's nothing but autism that spends all her time on CharOP

>MY wizard has 15/11/15/8/12/16 because unlike all you roleplaying-hating assholes, I actually care about my character's personality and background. What? Story? Yeah of course. Look. 15/11/15/8/12/16. That's way better than that bit about the two villages the wizard pretended while minmaxing

>>44548053
Optimizing is like taking your charisma down to 8 as barbarian so you can have an extra point of strength.
Minmaxing would be dropping your charisma to 3.

>>44548060
I actually have one of those guys at my table.

The fighter with a 2-hander who's in medium load because of it

His Cleric who won't be able to cast third level spells until level 8 IF we can get him to put his point in WIS

The social assassin - a good concept, excellent I'll give him that, but *not* when for once you make a backstabbing dexwhore and assume you can avoid all dicerolls related to charisma.

>>44548027
>Min-maxing is simply making a character competent at one or more things, at the expense of being less competent at one or more other things
False. Making choices isn't min maxing. Choosing a thing to be good at isn't min maxing. Being slightly less strong and slightly less agile because you spent your life studying books isn't min maxing. A wizard choosing to be so weak as to be unable to hold their own equipment without a magical enchantment that boosts their carrying capacity is min maxing.

I don't play shitty games that allow you to do that, or in the rare case I do: I do it with people who are not idiots who can make a functioning character from a concept without minmaxing it to the space.

>>44548060
A min/maxer to me is one that will never take a slightly less powerful but more interesting option.

>>44538468
Because it fucking works if you are someone e who thinks you need to 'win' every game for it to be fun.

>>44548053
Whether or not someone min-maxes is typically irrelevant, because 99.9% of characters are min-maxed to some degree. If someone doesn't, that's relevant.

What's typically most relevant is -how much- someone min-maxed.

It's like talking about fuel consumption for cars. They all use some kind of energy source to move, whether it be gasoline, natural gas, or a battery, the question is how fast it uses up what it carries.

>>44548085
Different people are welcome to have their own opinions on it, but I see optimizing and min-maxing as two different terms for the same thing.

With optimizing, you're making something better at whatever it is that you care about.

With min-maxing, you're minimizing something you don't care about (within the bounds of what you think is reasonable) and maximizing something you do care about (as much as you can without impacting something else).

You don't necessarily want to take a character's Charisma down to 3, because maybe you plan on doing something social once in a while, so you're only willing to go down to 8 because anything more than a -1 is a bit much.

>>44548221
Under that definition many people optimize, but few are min-maxers. Which is fine.

I know I optimize. I also happen to particularly enjoy the challenge of taking some kind of subpar concept, and seeing just how far I can take it. Start with the fluff, and then see what you can do with the mechanics.

Because let's be honest here: except for "new ability", most aspects of, say, levelling a pathfinder character, are completely and utterly detached from anything you might otherwise consider 'character growth' in any other sense of the term.

>>44548182
By your definition, a min-maxing Wizard should find a way to drop his Strength to 0 (without dying or falling unconscious or whatever) so that he can be a little better at Wizardy stuff. Since that would probably require that he be incorporeal (depending on the game in question), that would probably mean he can drop his Constitution a little lower than normal since he doesn't have to worry about some peasant hitting him with a crossbow bolt, so even more Intelligence.

You don't have to take any given thing to the maximum possible extreme, when min-maxing, you merely have to drop one or more things you don't care as much about as low as you're willing to take them in order to boost one or more things you care more about higher.

>>44548314
I find min/maxers tend to make boring characters. As a GM, powerlevel doesn't matter to me but bland characters suck ass to do anything with.

>>44548360
>powerlevel doesn't matter
This is very incorrect. Power levels are VERY important -within the group.-

You want all the PCs to be about as powerful as each other, with some extra wiggle room existing for characters with their own niche, and you want the DM to be able to challenge the group. Once you've got that handled, THEN power level doesn't matter.

So typically an optimizer in a group full of people who pick things because they sound cool is bad, same with such a person in a group full of optimizers, but a group of people who all optimize to the same degree is good (even if that means someone has to tone things down to fit in with everyone else).

>>44548467
The system I play favors in game tactics over builds so it's not much of an issue for me

>>44548531

Interesting. Which system is that?

File: 1451791212015.gif (951KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 500x384px

If your players minmax in a tabletop, you need to make the options less clear and the story more fun. If they still choose grinding over even trying to delve into the story, you're playing with autists.

>>44548315
This has come up before, actually. Pathfinder having something called Juju zombies that a player character could become, which for a while wasn't considered an evil undead. You could build your HP score as low as possible, craft the item that turns people into Jujus then stab yourself, and now you use your high casting mental score as your constitution score.

Regardless, there is a difference between minimizing your scores and just not choosing for them to be high. The wizard being unable to walk if someone breaks his magic suspenders was a real thing, and thinking up a scenario where it could be worse doesn't mean this wasn't bad. Dumping a stat to 4 when 10 is what an average person can do is min maxing.

>>44548552
Homebrew, I basically comb through other RPG's and crib stuff that my group likes.

File: i-dont-believe-you-80833061859.jpg (46KB, 679x540px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 679x540px

>>44548573

>>44548531
Fair enough, though in a less balanced system (3e and it's derivatives come to mind) it's possible to have wildly differing power levels, even from players of the same skill, and that can make it very difficult to DM.

>>44548601
That's fine, it's not like in impacts you at all.

>>44548619
That's one of the reasons we stopped playing DnD

>>44548565
>there is a difference between minimizing your scores and just not choosing for them to be high
Yes, but they are still (different degrees of) min-maxing.

Think about it this way: if I want a noodle-armed weakling Wizard, I'll drop his Strength some amount and increase his Intelligence as much as I can based off what that gives me. However, if I think my DM will have an enemy break my magic suspenders if I need them to walk, it's probably a bad idea to be so weak that I need them to walk

Because of this, I'll only drop my Strength to 6 (or whatever) because that gives me just enough to carry the essentials. In that situation, having 3 or 4 Str is a liability and the extra point or two of Int is likely not worth it, so the optimizing, min-maxing choice is to drop it to 6 even though I'm allowed by the rules to take it lower.

Now lets say I think I'll need to do a bit of climbing semi-frequently (or some other Str-based activity and can't just use magic to get through it). Maybe I'm not willing to drop my Strength down to 6 if it means I'll be taking a -2 to all of that stuff, so I think 8 is safer and only drop it down there.

Both of these situations and the 3 Str Wizard are examples of min-maxing, though some are less obvious than others.

Another example is if you want to roleplay a relatively weak Wizard (but not super weak) and you decide that 8 Str is about what you're looking for, and you use the extra points for more Int (or some other stat). This is also min-maxing, though in this case it's done for roleplaying reasons. Min-maxing is literally just making a character better at something at the expense of something else.

>>44538653
Why is it that so many people who gain a measure of system mastery and suddenly think they're the Rain Man of D&D?

Half the time when people go on about their ability to manufacture pretend ubermenschen its because they're misinterpreting rules or making heavy use of RAW grey area or are just playing with a bunch of people who don't try to break the system.

Honestly if it's such a curse then I'd recommend either playing a game you know less about or rolling with a pre-gen character. Hell, just play a character someone else builds for you and stick it out, have them level you up too. Then the only optimization you have to worry about is what your character does in combat and the equipment they buy. You may have more fun if you only have to focus on the moment, trying to view the character as more of a person than a sack of numbers.

File: Vidya_Meme.png (494B, 38x58px) Image search: [Google]

494B, 38x58px

>>44538468

>>44538670
This.

A lot of the time it is a sort of "immune response" to asshole GMs who are just out to somehow "win" the game by beating the players mercilessly. Then they carry that same once-bitten-twice-shy behavior to new games with new GMs who start off cool but then start having to get rough just to deal with that one powergamer. This often winds up hurting other players the same way that initially caused the powergamer to start doing that, prompting yet another damn GM/PC arms race.

It's like a fucking virus that spreads betweens players and GMs too passive aggressive to just talk it out and come to an armistice like adults.

>>44538848
I've done it before. Played a one armed guy who couldn't climb (forget penalties, the book just says you can't) or do a lot of other things to save his ass. He somehow survived.

Man, there's a lot of shit you need two arms for.

>>44548849
Not that guy, but I (and several other people in my group) have a tendency to take underpowered, gimmicky concepts and optimize them into actually being able to keep up with the rest of the group.

We do the same thing in MTG, or we did back when we played regularly.

>>44540179
He was wrong to say that a 3.5 Monk wasn't a character clearly in the wrong profession (adventuring) but trying their damnedest.

>flavorful character
>mechanically fucking retarded bad and a weight on the party
BAD WRONG

>character with no flavor or regard for the fluff
>mechanically perfect Overgod of doing everything right
BAD WRONG

>character with no flavor or regard for the fluff
>mechanically fucking retarded bad and a weight on the party
OH SHIT NIGGER WHAT ARE YOU DOING

>flavorful and in tune with the fluff
>Mechanically viable and helpful to the party and NPCs
You are This Guy

>>44540281
wow. you sound like a lot of fun to hang out with.

>>44549932
This, basically. The best characters are the ones that are competent both mechanically and roleplay-wise, and can make the two align well. Ignoring one or the other results in a forty-page backstory for a useless dead weight who dies in the first combat, or a shallow jackass who does nothing but resolve what he's poured his points into and then sit on the sidelines grumbling.

The best players are the ones who start with an RP concept or character, and then design the character to fit that concept as well as possible while being overall useful.

>>44538468
I do it because I enjoy treating game systems like puzzles and in finding ways to make them do whatever it is I want them to do. When it comes to actually playing games, I generally try to scale characters back to something reasonable. I might have them be very good at one specific thing, but not minmaxed to the point where they can -only- approach a problems from the angle of that one specific thing. It's not fun to play that way, and the really narrow design of truly minmaxed characters tend to annoy other players and GMs.

>>44549932
Wrong, if you play anything that isn't a mechanical mess of useless features you're a filthy powergamer.

>>44550994
This. Not only do I view optimizing as a very interesting puzzle to play with, but I also unfortunately tend to be in games where not optimizing can lead to boring characters. I consider a character boring to play as if:
1) They have a flat personality (luckily, this is easy for me to prevent as the player)
2) I have few options and often have to spam the same type of action (fighters in D&D are often boring to me because I find very little tactical challenge/fun to be had in spamming "move to enemy if not next to one" and "attack with weapon")
3) I am bad at enough tasks that I feel like I have little to no impact on the story.

Numbers 2 and 3 were a big problem for my friend in a recent 5e campaign we played in since he decided to make a fighter without thinking about optimization. Time and time again, he found himself unable to contribute to the campaign because he was unable to perform the same stunts as other, magical players such as invisibility, grease, silent image, etc., instead only being able to hit things real hard (but again, not in any interesting way; just "roll for damage").

Optimizing is also useful because it breaks immersion when you have a character who is supposed to be heroic and excellent at a certain type of task, but in practice falls flat. For example, if you have a rogue who is supposed to be a stealthy thief, but you don't optimize and have a mediocre stealth score, it'll feel silly in play when the hulking barbarian will relatively often be stealthier than you because of the swinginess of the d20 system.

>>44538468
Because some players think this is how you "win" a TTRPG.
plus
They don't undertand GM is here to balance
plus
Vidya
My childhood friends do this every time when we play, sesions are mostly dice rolling without a change of losing, so I normaly nap.
Its like the guy that camps when we play split screen in CoD, he always wants to play the same maps (smalest one available crowded with bots), he keeps camping even if you kill him 40 times at the same spot just because it's the easiest way to win.

>>44538468
Enjoyment of maths puzzles, personally.

>>44538468
I like to pick weak classes and character concepts and improve them to the point of performing almost as good as the strong classes or at least be good at what they're supposedly good.

>>44538468
I usually minmax when I want to play an unviable build that sounds like it would be fun to play if viable. I usually start with the build and minmax it to be viable. Sometimes I just make an overpowered character and don't actually do anything that would show I'm overpowered unless I need to.
Then again, I mostly play support characters or randomized ones, and usually in bad games with shitty GMs, you know, the kind that ignores both RAW and RAI to needlessly debuff your fun class perks while keeping the ones that would actually kill the game.

>>44538848
Not outside some beer & pretzels one page system or some other lite shit like that. Because my GM would just shit with my character. Because he can't bother to sculpt his campaign around giving my cripple a chance to shine while others spent their points well and made good characters.
Also, it doesn't make sense really. Unless your character is useful, which band of adventurers would even look at him, let alone welcome him.
Unless, of course, your cripple can ride a horse and shoot spinning nails, then we're aces!

>>44539115
The way to deal with escapists is usually facing them with situations that show weaknesses in their characters that they wouldn't have in real life (of course, scaled to normal people's problems and not lvl 20 dnd characters).
>Bullied by jocks and made a big bad martial
"oh look, you're being looked down for not being able to understand this conversation"
>Sperg made a cute bard
One flirt too many and he can be sure I'll send one or two angry husbands after him
>Lardplanet made a ninja
You are faced with a 50 ft eagle... it's flapping wings produce a gale that pushes back your nimble cloth-covered physique like a kite.
Make them understand dude, make them understand what they are.

>>44555281
You are a huge asshole who probably should kill himself.

Basically everyone does it to some extent or another, even if it's just the most basic level of ensuring that your character is competent at their job.

I used to primarily because it was necessary to remain effective in my DM's campaigns.

File: 5r4owTK.jpg (67KB, 630x864px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 630x864px

Ive played so many vidya RPG's that I really can't help it. I just see skills that fit together and use them.

That said I've never made a character mechanically before I've made them fluffwise.

>>44556902
Why? So one less person can prevent you from playing the strong, resilient, god favored and charming hero without flaws?
Characters should have a degree of flaw somewhere. It can be anything from being overspecialized and useless anywhere outside specific situations, or being too broad and lacking a punch in anything you do. If your character has no flaws then you're better off playing some CYOA book by yourself.

>>44557043
>Hey, a person wants to play a character that has traits they don't in real life
>BETTER SHIT ON THEM MERCILESSLY AND TELL THEM FUN IS BANNED

File: 1418329289230.gif (84KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x281px

>>44555281
>People want to not feel like shit for a couple of hours
>Better go out of my way to make them feel like shit for those couple of hours for no real reason

>>44538468
I personally enjoy the activity of it. I have no problem being restricted and tell my dm that. I will do my best to make an effective character within the restrictions given. So if the dm says that it's a low powered game I'll ask what they mean by that and try to conform to the themes of their game while still making the most effective character I can within those parameters. This has worked out with most dm/gm that I've had.