What type of minmaxing irks tables the most in your opinion?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 pm

1.) Straight up cynical number pushing/stacking.
4E D&D example: Rangers piling on damage and spamming Twin Strike + Off Action Powers, Clerics buffing AC very damn high.

2.) Internal combos that takes a bunch of horizontal or minor vertical advancement and use it to form Voltron.
4E D&D example: Netizard Wizards who push + slow + prone enemies in a wide burst. Hammer Bros. 3.0 Fighters who push + slow + prone + daze + huge penalty to attack anything they hit.

3.) Tactical forcing or funneling that once it gets started the player can pretty much just go 'lol no' to any attempts to break free.
4E D&D example: See above, but this also includes things like Warlocks doing boatloads of damage with Hellish Rebuke if they get access to a Shadowrift Blade.

4.) Force multiplication where while the player's individual contribution might not be meaningful they boost the party's output to something ridiculous.
4E D&D example: Pacifist clerics before they got hit with the nerf stick. Warlords in general.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:37 pm

I have noticed that DM's who bitch the loudest about min-maxing won't even notice #4, and even if they do will tend to not realize it's due to the support character and will nerf the fighter because the bard gives him +8 to hit/damage...

the_taken · Post by **the_taken** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:42 pm

Personally, I love doing that kinda stuff. When I actually get to do that, I stop feeling like a useless tool on a hamster wheel and more like a winner...

Most of the time, though, Game Masters find ways to nerf that, or just tell me not to do that. Then I get sad again.

As a Game Master, I don't mind when that kind of stuff happens. It means I can counter the PC's abilities with either larger, more epic scale fights, or take the kid gloves off and show them tactics they didn't think of yet, and can't implement.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:57 pm

Not #4.

Any of #1-#3, if the particular optimization comes up over and over again.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:12 pm

MCs are most annoyed by any min/maxing where it takes a long time to explain what the fuck the player is doing. If a combo takes more than a single paragraph to explain, the MC feels like they are being made to sign a contract without reading the fine print.

-Username17

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:17 pm

I don't see most of those as disruptive optimizing actually. Any optimizing is disruptive however if there is only one or two players optimizing. If everyone is, no big deal. If it's one person, any optimization disrupts the game.

Which sucks when you get people who want to do shit like be a force-spells-only mage who blows chunks at... well... everything. Any competently designed character will make a crappy concept character look useless, and that creates player (not character) friction.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:10 pm

In my experience, it's not the numbers that matter. You can be a fighter with +100 to everything and stupid DMs are fine with that (unless you're level 1 or something).

The problem is when you have any ability or combination of abilities that lets you dictate anything whatsoever to the DM, instead of vice-versa. Charms/diplomacy, teleportation, item creation, whatever. Player input is baaaaaad. The purest example of this is the Wish spell, where the accepted response from the DM was literally "hahaha fuck you".

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:11 pm

any kind that is done for the intent to force others to follow your own minmaxxing ideals.

"the cleric is a healbot" why didnt the fighter prepare himself for getting hurt? before the LFG flag comes or shows on the bulletin board, the fighter had to take care of himself, so now the cleric is hear it just means that the fighter can heal more, not that he should forgo taking care of himself.

IF everyone wants to optimize a party, then everyone agrees to do so, but one person or even a small majority (3v2) wanting to does not mean the rest should have to.

you play YOUR character, and the other players play theirs, and never the twain shall meet.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:24 pm

When taken to extremes I find that 3 tends to be the most problematic, or, at least is the most problematic in games that intend to have a degree of tactical depth baked into the combat system. If combats are going to take a while and we're supposed to care about where the minis are going I'd rather people not have fire and forget sustainable crowd control that spanks anything short of cherry picked Fuck You monsters.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:24 pm

"Adventure bypass" combos, or anything that involves massive real-time amount of pre-adventure planning and preparation. For that matter, these often go hand in hand.
Barring that, your number #3, if only because rolling through the fight without actually being able to do anything meaningful is no fun.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:27 pm

Whatever wrote:In my experience, it's not the numbers that matter. You can be a fighter with +100 to everything and stupid DMs are fine with that (unless you're level 1 or something).

At least until you come across a monster the DM thinks should be unhittable. Then he'll squawk "what???? no fair!!!!"

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:46 pm

Anything that makes adventures go off the rails. If there weren't rails in the first place, that's fine, but leaving rails is a sore spot.

It doesn't even need to be min-maxing; using Control Undead at all is probably enough.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:54 pm

IME, anything that pwns BBEGs. Many DMs don't care that much when you vaporize a bunch of minions, or even normal enemies, but when their boss monster gets taken out in two rounds, they get annoyed.
Also, anything that makes you obviously immune to foes. Being effectively immune by being able to easily survive or having a guaranteed backup option can fly under the radar, but when they literally can't touch you it gets noticed.

If you're talking about what irks me the most, it would be #3. Just killing the monsters, fine, but don't make the fight a drawn out parody.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:17 pm

I'm not going to speak on behalf of most MCs, but for me, 1 is super annoying, because there should be no reason to have to do that, and it breaks the RNG.

2 is usually totally fine, A) not minmaxing, B) exactly the type of optimization that should be in a game, though C) The 4e version sounds fucking terrible, but that's probably just because it's 4e.

Tactical funneling that isn't unstoppable is probably fine, and again, has nothing to do with min maxxing. I'm noticing a theme.

Four is terrible if it is minmaxxing, because it breaks the RNG and is therefore fucking stupid. But aiding others isn't particularly bad in any great sense.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:28 pm

@Kaelik, min-maxing doesn't refer to minimizing/maximizing strictly numeric quantities. Min-maxing refers to any disadvantages or advantages, of which numeric quantities are obviously a part: if the system provides the options to do so, you can min-max on combos and tactical funnelling.

Neurosis · Post by **Neurosis** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:38 pm

None of those are the kind of min-maxing/munchkinry that have historically bothered me.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:51 pm

DSMatticus wrote:@Kaelik, min-maxing doesn't refer to minimizing/maximizing strictly numeric quantities. Min-maxing refers to any disadvantages or advantages, of which numeric quantities are obviously a part: if the system provides the options to do so, you can min-max on combos and tactical funnelling.

Minmaxing doesn't refer to advantages and disadvantages at all.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:52 pm

It originally meant "Minimising your weaknesses and/or maximising your strengths". So either finding a way to make your weak points not applicable (or better so they're not weak points), or making your strong points extra awesome. Or both.

#1 makes me kind of annoyed at the game for making it possible. Including "at myself for including options that led to this" just as often as not. And if it means it's turned into a long, drawn-out fight with an inevitable conclusion, then it gets boring. But that's generally a 4E thing anyway.

I don't really care too much about 2 and 3, and I'm not sure many DMs do.

#4 is a problem if you specifically mean "The Helper gives everyone +$TEXAS to hit and damage" (or more annoyingly, to AC and Saves), but things like "And now all the enemies fall asleep and the fighter and rogue CdG them" aren't a problem - and basically never get called out as a problem (particularly when you do it to groups of weak enemies rather than the boss).

As Frank mentioned, if it's some AWESOME STRATEGY that requires explaining to the MC and takes a while, it's going to try their patience and they're more likely to tell you to fuck off. Also, the more books you reference, the more likely it will hit their bullshit threshold and you'll be told "No". Some MCs say "Core only" (or "Core + Complete" or whatever) out of laziness when it comes to reading new stuff, and I kind of understand that, and when you say you're playing a CArcane class with stuff from Incarnum, CMage, DMagic, FCodex, MIC and Your Mum, you're pushing it.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:59 pm

Koumei wrote:It originally meant "Minimising your weaknesses and/or maximising your strengths". So either finding a way to make your weak points not applicable (or better so they're not weak points), or making your strong points extra awesome. Or both.

No it didn't. It meant, and still means, that you minimize some attributes/qualities in return for maximizing others.

The quintessential minmaxed character is really good at what it does at the expense of any ability to contribute outside that scope, IE, the guy who punches so hard because he spent points that he got from the "can't shoot a bow" or "can't speak" disadvantages.

Charisma in D&D became famous for being something you could minimize at basically no real cost to yourself, but minmaxxing does not, and never meant minimizing your disadvantages and maximizing your advantages.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:59 pm

Stealth min-maxxing probably produces the most rage that I've seen. If you're upfront about "This ability will let me mind control literally anyone I encounter", then the MC knows exactly what he's getting into if he okays it.

However, if you just have a +30 bonus to diplomacy and you don't explicitly point it out as something you'll be doing (even occasionally), expect butthurt retribution.

Just having big numbers doesn't make people ragequit, but springing the "pleasant surprise" of winning the encounter instantly does.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:22 am

Minmaxxing by playing by different rules irks me.
Like for example in one of the games I played everybody pretty much played by the rules. But one person wanted some powers from a prestige class (that lost like 3 caster levels or smt) and got the dm to agree to just fold those in the base class.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:36 am

ishy wrote:Minmaxxing by playing by different rules irks me.
Like for example in one of the games I played everybody pretty much played by the rules. But one person wanted some powers from a prestige class (that lost like 3 caster levels or smt) and got the dm to agree to just fold those in the base class.

This is where I point out that this is not minmaxxing.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:55 am

Kaelik wrote: No it didn't. It meant, and still means, that you minimize some attributes/qualities in return for maximizing others.

I stand corrected. I probably got my definition from a Monte "always wrong!" Cook article or one of those RPG joke books that must sell all of five copies like "The Munchkin's Guide to Minmaxing" or maybe the Ask Red Mage column on 8-bit theatre or something. I'll admit that neither is exactly an authority on anything.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:16 am

Kaelik wrote: This is where I point out that this is not minmaxxing.

Yeah I guess that is true.

But many of the things that annoy me about minmaxxing isn't really the minmaxxing itself, but more the things surrounding it.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:34 am

Here's the things that bother me the most:
- minmaxing simply for the sake of doing it, with complete disregard for things like theme, flavor, or purpose .... just because you can dress this up with fluff, such fluff is usually gotten to by backing in to it with questionable mental acrobatics; said fluff is also usually nothing but a smoke-screen to try to get away with their shenanigans.
- going out of your way to use fictional positioning to completely avoid/ignore the RNG. Usually boils down to "I'm going to exploit and abuse the DMs fidelity to the fiction so that I don't have to actually interact with the system" .... this way lies a bunch of pointless dick-waving.
- stealth munchkining -- complete trust destroyer.