Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Some posters here seem to define minmaxing as a thing where you intentionally look up the absolutely most objectively optimal builds and strategies. But I don't think recognizing that a warrior needs some STR equals minmaxing. Overall afaik it's a term that applies more to multiplayer games where your build is in direct comparison to the builds of others in terms of performance.
This new breed of gamers wants to have 16 charisma on a fighter (for no reason at all) BUT without being punished for it. Soyer based his whole design philosophy on this. But it's just not possible though
An organic character would not have the choice; stats reflect not only their own personal strengths—but more importantly their weaknesses. It reflects their limitations as an individual.
Who would be more fun to roleplay, Superman or Daredevil?... Indiana Jones or Data from Star Trek... Picard, Riker, or Q?
Minmaxing clashes a bit with the narrative structure of some games. Point systems are often intended to be abstractions or simulacrums, but when you squeeze them for value it becomes more Excel sheet-like which... you know, it kinda always was, but you're throwing back the curtain a bit by leaning into it. I'm actually quite surprised RPGs didn't continue to lean in Fallout's direction where if you made a character too stupid it would show up in the game. I thought this would see further exploration, like making a weakling mage who was dangerous on his feet, but enemies could drown you in a puddle of water if they got their hands on you.
My personal belief is that devs shouldn't fight too hard against minmaxing because it is the nature of players to pursue it, and in trying to combat it you only piss them off more and more for little gain with the wider gaming consumer base who isn't even engaged with it at all. Also, if you make anti-minmax a cornerstone of the design then you turn the overall vibe of the game into a sludge. POE1 definitely had this feeling to it, at least for me. An entire party of characters, but nobody felt really 'in their lane', it just felt like a goop of a party where no one had any 'standout' moments which IMO is important for party-based games.
This isn't RPG-related, but I was a playtester for a game and some of its achievements were based off of what we were doing during our sessions. Basically, we beat it, then went back and started pressing the systems to the max and found out what was feasible/not feasible, and out of that evolved said achievements. I became quite fond of the idea that the base game could be played any way you wanted, but to actually invite minmaxing through the achievement system.
At the same time, I think what you don't want either is the feeling that you have to minmax to get the most out of a game right from the start. This sort of thing has turned those looter RPGs into Excel sheet-sludge for me, as thanks to the internet they're minmaxed right from the jump and often have a feeling that by not following at least a guide to some degree you're going to spend x-hours to make a character who can't do anything in the late-game. Because the late-game is the best part of these games, hitting that brickwall can be quite painful as it necessitates a do-over, something that's even more painful if the opening half of the game is boring dreck which it almost always is.
I think my favorite bit of minmaxing is actually the bizarro kind where you minimize a game's fundamentals, and then max out what remains. For example, I beat Silent Storm using only 1 ultra-minmaxed character (a Scout) and had a blast. Same for the BG games where you just play the game with 1 character.
nothing wrong with having high non-main stats if you can afford it or if you can't avoid it. upping them at expense of your class stats is ghey tho. it's roll playing and roll players should be beaten and humiliated.
Minmaxing clashes a bit with the narrative structure of some games.
...
I'm actually quite surprised RPGs didn't continue to lean in Fallout's direction where if you made a character too stupid it would show up in the game.
In some systems, min-maxing can lead to a character which looks powerful on paper at the end-game, but makes playing through the rest of the game less enjoyable.
In that system it's relatively easy to get a high value for your primary attribute and have enough points left over to build a balanced character. The only time you really have to mix-max is if you're playing a character that requires multiple high attributes, like a monk, some kind of gish, or a multi-dip aberration (which is what most min/maxer's go for).
Even then, it is generally unadvisable to dump intelligence or wisdom as you need them respectively for skill points and Will saves (which need to be kept at a good level because failing one can be really annoying). The first one can't easily be solved (unless you take levels in a class that give a lot of skill points per level up, which you might not want to do) and only way to get around the latter is to either focus on or take a dip in a class that replaces Wisdom as the attribute you use for Will saves (such as Paladin). Dumping Strength below average nerfs carry weight (being encumbered is generally a bad idea, can only be delt with by casting spells/finding items/not carrying as much loot) while low Dexterity harms initiative and AC (requires feat investment, Monk dip, or magic item/spell buffing to fix).
By taking levels in classes that cover your weaknesses, you're developing your character's primary skills more slowly and reducing the rate at which your main classes abilities become available. Having a Fighter with a couple of levels of Paladin won't hurt you much, but if you're dipping Paladin and Monk levels to give your Sorcerer an AC and Saving Throw boost you're delaying your spell progression, spell penetration, and caster level so overall your character will overall be less useful than if they'd just stayed a pure Sorcerer.
In some systems, min-maxing can lead to a character which looks powerful on paper at the end-game, but makes playing through the rest of the game less enjoyable.
In that system it's relatively easy to get a high value for your primary attribute and have enough points left over to build a balanced character. The only time you really have to mix-max is if you're playing a character that requires multiple high attributes, like a monk, some kind of gish, or a multi-dip aberration (which is what most min/maxer's go for).
Even then, it is generally unadvisable to dump intelligence or wisdom as you need them respectively for skill points and Will saves (which need to be kept at a good level because failing one can be really annoying). The first one can't easily be solved (unless you take levels in a class that give a lot of skill points per level up, which you might not want to do) and only way to get around the latter is to either focus on or take a dip in a class that replaces Wisdom as the attribute you use for Will saves (such as Paladin). Dumping Strength below average nerfs carry weight (being encumbered is generally a bad idea, can only be delt with by casting spells/finding items/not carrying as much loot) while low Dexterity harms initiative and AC (requires feat investment, Monk dip, or magic item/spell buffing to fix).
By taking levels in classes that cover your weaknesses, you're developing your character's primary skills more slowly and reducing the rate at which your main classes abilities become available. Having a Fighter with a couple of levels of Paladin won't hurt you much, but if you're dipping Paladin and Monk levels to give your Sorcerer an AC and Saving Throw boost you're delaying your spell progression, spell penetration, and caster level so overall your character will overall be less useful than if they'd just stayed a pure Sorcerer.
My favourite Pathfinder examples are when some dickhead sees that you can use dexterity* for its usual duties as well as to hit and damage, etc. so mega dumps strength and then can't figure out why their shitty guy can barely move and has no AC. Then gets totally ass blasted when realizing that even carrying weapons makes them encumbered.
* not necessarily dexterity, but it's the most common example.
In some systems, min-maxing can lead to a character which looks powerful on paper at the end-game, but makes playing through the rest of the game less enjoyable.
In that system it's relatively easy to get a high value for your primary attribute and have enough points left over to build a balanced character. The only time you really have to mix-max is if you're playing a character that requires multiple high attributes, like a monk, some kind of gish, or a multi-dip aberration (which is what most min/maxer's go for).
Even then, it is generally unadvisable to dump intelligence or wisdom as you need them respectively for skill points and Will saves (which need to be kept at a good level because failing one can be really annoying). The first one can't easily be solved (unless you take levels in a class that give a lot of skill points per level up, which you might not want to do) and only way to get around the latter is to either focus on or take a dip in a class that replaces Wisdom as the attribute you use for Will saves (such as Paladin). Dumping Strength below average nerfs carry weight (being encumbered is generally a bad idea, can only be delt with by casting spells/finding items/not carrying as much loot) while low Dexterity harms initiative and AC (requires feat investment, Monk dip, or magic item/spell buffing to fix).
By taking levels in classes that cover your weaknesses, you're developing your character's primary skills more slowly and reducing the rate at which your main classes abilities become available. Having a Fighter with a couple of levels of Paladin won't hurt you much, but if you're dipping Paladin and Monk levels to give your Sorcerer an AC and Saving Throw boost you're delaying your spell progression, spell penetration, and caster level so overall your character will overall be less useful than if they'd just stayed a pure Sorcerer.
That's more of an issue of multiclassing in 3e D&D being a noob trap. The Pathfinder threads are full of these kinds of builds--
-A build that looks awesome at level 20 but plays miserably from levels 1-19.
-Giving up passive boosts for temporary, limited, or rest-based buffs
-Giving up long durations and higher caps for multiple low-level buffs
-Basing a character around specific situational tactics that may not always work (i.e. assuming you can sneak attack all the time, always being invisible, etc)
-Giving up core stats like BAB, Monk attack progression, or Caster Level (almost never worth it)
The dirty secret to 3e D&D is that your items do most of the heavy lifting for your power level. A preset cleric with the Vanquisher axe in Kingmaker will be pretty much as effective as the most munchkin build you can think of, most of the time. The only multiclasses that are worth it are the ones that complement your class while sacrificing essentially nothing, which are mainly PrCs.
This is why I think it's pretty funny to accuse min/maxers of being 'copycats' who can't think for themselves. I don't get my builds from anywhere, what happens is online communities have a 'first mover' problem. The first person to post builds becomes the orthodoxy that all the lazy gamers who can't truly optimize for themselves end up copying.
Minmaxing clashes a bit with the narrative structure of some games.
...
I'm actually quite surprised RPGs didn't continue to lean in Fallout's direction where if you made a character too stupid it would show up in the game.
Yes, a reaction to min-maxing/stat dumping. Fallout just as well could have had 1 INT be the exact same as any other game with the usual skill checks that the 1 INT could not complete. Making it affect the entire playthrough is a direct response to min-maxing itself. Remember what I said at the start: min-maxing strains the believability of the setting because it illuminates the spreadsheet nature of the cogs spinning behind the game. Fallout's decision to make your INT dump actually 'corrupt' the playthrough is a fascinating response to this, but it's a concept not often explored.
That's not a min/maxed build though, that's being a munchkin. The 'min' means to minimize weaknesses, and a fighter with 3 Con has a huge weakness. Dumping your HP isn't optimizing, it's bad play. The opposite of min/maxing.
In 3e D&D fighters can't entirely dump Int or Wisdom or they'll have no skill points and die from low will saves. The only real dump stat is Cha, which D&D has had a problem with since inception.
A properly min/maxed character leans into their class strengths while shoring up their weaknesses, being well-rounded and optimal across all scenarios. That usually requires thorough knowledge of the game's systems and challenges, which means multiple playthroughs at least. How is that anything other than winning at the game? Haven't you ever finished a game and said to yourself, "Knowing what I know now, I bet I can make a much stronger build."
Calling skillful play "cheating" is super weird. Maybe my definition is wrong, and I should use 'optimizing' instead.
I literally don't understand why some people use this term disparagingly. What's wrong with putting all of your available points into the stats that you need, while completely avoiding the stats that you don't need, for your class/build/role/whatever? Is it, like, some kind of violation of the equity thought police that mandates gender quotas and affirmative action for all stats, to make sure the useless ones don't feel left out? What's the downside of min-maxing?
Make it make sense to me. Also, what does it mean when you put 1eyedking as a tag for your thread?
The problem doesn't lie in the concept of min-maxing but in the essence of what it means for the game you're playing. Min-maxxing is focusing on the most rewarding behaviors / pathways and the scarcer they are the slimmer the actually chances for RPG roleplaying in the sense that if min maxxing involves combat then necessarily the alternatives for diplomacy, charm spells, social spells in general and alternative rewards / approaches are going to not be desirable.
So in the sense that it can show the flaws in game design it's more of a tell for the game itself .
The problem doesn't lie in the concept of min-maxing but in the essence of what it means for the game you're playing. Min-maxxing is focusing on the most rewarding behaviors / pathways and the scarcer they are the slimmer the actually chances for RPG roleplaying in the sense that if min maxxing involves combat then necessarily the alternatives for diplomacy, charm spells, social spells in general and alternative rewards / approaches are going to not be desirable.
The problem is when the min-maxing is nonsensical.
For example, a wizard getting levels in red wizard of thay despite never stepped a foot in Thay. I don't like making nonsensical builds but if the guy is having fun, I don't see any problem or wanna try tyo dictate how people should have fun
I like to pick a theme for a character and try to min-max that. I don't care what's the best choice, I just want to try be the best at what I'm trying to accomplish with my character.
The problem is when the min-maxing is nonsensical.
For example, a wizard getting levels in red wizard of thay despite never stepped a foot in Thay. I don't like making nonsensical builds but if the guy is having fun, I don't see any problem or wanna try tyo dictate how people should have fun
im the same way. during my bg3 playthrough I was a dedicated bard for 10 levels, but then I dipped into a cleric so I could wear heavy armor and get a thaumaturgy cantrip. deep down inside I felt like a big cheater
I think there is some mix up going on here between what constitutes min-maxing and employing game breaking strategies. Min-maxing is simply optimizing your strategy based on the preset rules provided. For me that is no issue. It also shouldn't break the RP element as that should be part of the rules of the world you are using for optimal play.
Gamebreaking things like abusing mechanics in a way they were obviously not intended for or exploiting interpretations of rules that are obvious towards a player's advantage to the detriment of everyone else is what's not great.
What this tends to mean practically speaking is that players skilled enough to know the rules for optimal play are also most likely to attempt to circumvent established rules (and their interpretations) to gain an advantage that they know they shouldn't have.
Min-maxing has nothing to do with looking up guides, but is rather about making your character a one trick pony that would be ridiculous to roleplay. If your only character trait is 'really good at firing arrows at long range' you're not exactly going to add a lot to a roleplaying game compared to the drunken burly thief who throws a fit and tries to smash shit whenever he fails a lockpicking check. OTOH, you can do this shit right, like the frail sagely cleric everyone needs to desperately protect from being knocked over by a stiff breeze is a min-maxed build too, he's just not minimaxed for combat and the resulting character is actually interesting.
Most CRPGs don't have enough detail to make a difference though, so it's not really an issue there. There's no reason to make a drunken burly thief in a crpg because you can't get drunk and can't break down doors or chests, and doing those things wouldn't attract attention if you did, you wouldn't get a reputation or criminal record, etc.
