The Problems Of Mini-maxing

Many times as GM I have run into players who often seem to think it is wise, smart, or even the point of roleplaying games to make or create the most powerful character they can under the rules. That point, 'under the rules,' is rather important. It gives them leave to say the character is perfectly ok since it IS rules compliant. Thus, if anyone doesn't like it, they should argue with whomever wrote the rules such that one could generate such a character, and they certainly shouldn't complain to them about it.

You may be wondering by now what the hell I'm talking about. What is "mini-maxing?" In short, mini-maxing is a style of play where one attempts to put in minimum effort to achieve maximum results. It almost sounds like something you should be doing, doesn't it? And, in truth, in most typical games, if you wish to win, it is something you should be doing. But a roleplaying game is a whole other kettle of fish.

In a roleplaying game one is not trying to "win the game." Yes, it would be good to do well, but even that is a rather subjective term, for doing well is usually accomplishing what you are trying to do. If you try to play a poor, antisocial character, for example, who is hated by all, and you succeed at this, it may seem to most people that you have lost, when in fact, you have achieved your goal. If you sacrifice power and position and wealth but gain love, there are many that will claim you are a loser, but are you? That's up to you decided. But what is the goal of a roleplaying game if not to win?

As a game concept, roleplaying is a rather remarkable thing. It leaves traditional games far behind as one no longer has a set playing time - or expected duration of the entire run of a game - a set goal - eliminate all opposition, get so much power, accrue 1,000,000 gold pieces, etc. - or even a complete set of rules - hard as we may try, the rules are always deficient in some areas. Fortunately, one gains a great deal leaving these traditional goals behind. The game can last years, it is different every time, and it allows one to stretch the limits of their imagination. If one fails to leave all traditional game thinking behind, they may miss out on a lot of the benefits. It is therefore not surprising when one applies traditional game approaches to roleplaying games that they often miss the point. For example, as far as this article is concerned, the mini-maxing approach misses the point.

The goal of a roleplaying game is not to win but to experience another reality, another character, another personality, and play that role - whatever it may be - in its make-believe environment, by themselves, or with other players who are doing the same thing. This could be anything, and one may have some awfully strange experiences, but usually, as a matter of course, the make-believe environment only deviates from what we commonly think of as reality in a few given and rather specific ways. For example, magic is real, we can travel faster than light in hyperspace, dragons exists, society does have certain characteristics, or we live on a different planet, etc., etc.

For the most part, however, all else, unless explicitly told otherwise, is supposed to approximate our understanding of the real world and the real universe. This is necessary, in fact, for without some common points of reference we will find it difficult to build our characters or understand their experiences. We may have an idea of what it is like to be farmer on another planet with an Earth-like environment in a medieval setting, but few clues as to what it's like to be an energy being devoid of feeling, driven only by logic and facts, living in a society of such beings at the heart of any typical red giant star. Thus, as much as we are able, we confine ourselves to an approximation of reality like we know it.

One may note here that "probabilities" are part of real life as well, and a tendency to play the improbable, though it may be with us, can only go so far before one blinks. I mean, there's improbable and then there's IMPROBABLE. A well rounded character with higher than average statistics, for example, is improbable, but no more so than a lot of other things going on in a fantasy setting. However, a character can easily get into the realm of such improbabilities that it makes most experienced players cringe at the unlikelihood of it all. So if your GM has a problem with some improbable things - like three 18s in your character, or having a +5 sword at 1st level or any number of things like that - this is probably the reason why.

But what do we really know of reality, is it easy to quantify, and can we agree upon a way to represent it? Take a long sword, for example. If I hit you with it, you will probably be hurt, maybe even die. How much damage does it do? How much damage can you take before falling unconscious or dying? Will the sword break? How easily may I hit you, or how easily might you avoid the deadly blow? In our real reality we do not sit around and argue about the possible outcomes. If I try to hit you, I will or won't, you will die or not, etc., and the universe takes care of itself. This is not so in a roleplaying game. Someone must take care of these things in lieu of universal law and truth. Usually, a set of agreed upon rules will do it for a particular game; but make no mistake, for a different game system may easily have a very different idea of an identical situation. Thus, a long sword in AD&D will do one thing, it will do another in Rune Quest, it will do a third thing in G.U.R.P.S., etc., yet it is the same long sword.

Since each system is different, it is a rather impossible task for us mere players to really know what is the best approximation of reality since even so-called experts often cannot agree. Which brings us to the point - finally! How can our characters know which is the best weapon without ever having experienced them all? How do they make these choices when selecting weapons, equipment, spells, etc., since they ostensibly have little or no experience yet as to what is the best path in life? When even experts argue about what is best, how can they pick the one weapon or spell that is the best - according to some tables they do not have as characters?

Mini maxing violates a basic, fundamental premise of roleplaying. As roleplayers, we try to act as our characters would act, given their knowledge, their beliefs, their feelings, and their understanding, and attempt to make decisions for our characters based upon that and NOT upon our knowledge as a player. For example, if you, the player, knew the party thief stole a ruby from the party, but your character did not know this, it would be inappropriate for you to have your character behave as if they knew the thief took it. Demanding to search them or even keeping a closer eye on them NOW - all born of your knowledge he is stealing from your character - would be bad roleplaying. So we strive, as roleplayers, to keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate when it should be two distinct things.

Assume your would-be mage is learning magic. What spells will he have? The GM says he may have only 4 spells to start. Do you read a list of the 100 possible spells available and choose, perhaps picking the 4 most powerful? If you do, that is mini-maxing and certainly the way to go if you want to be as powerful as possible. And do not think I'm suggesting your character wouldn't want to be as powerful as possible, because I'm not. I'm sure he would want that, if only he knew all the secrets of the universe already or all the details of all 100 spells he has never seen in actual practice. So I am suggesting he doesn't have access to the detailed knowledge of 100 spells, nor can he pick the best four as a result of this "player" knowledge. The player should instead try to pick some theme or specialty, something to emulate a particular style, or perhaps select a wide range of choices to be more versatile because he doesn't know what the world has to offer yet - before he goes forth and sees for himself. It may even be the case the GM decides "spells" come to your character almost randomly, as accidental discoveries and follow ups have led them to an understanding of these four spells - and he rolls to determine which spells. Alas, four randomly determined spells may be almost totally useless.

Obviously, a middle ground is probably best for a game, and research with direction and guidance will be a goal of your character, and some hints by your teachers and parents will help you benefit from their experiences. Just remember that these teachers and mentors do not know everything either, even with all their experiences.

Similarly, your warrior character is not looking over a table of hundreds of weapons, comparing speed factors, damage ranges, weights, costs, lengths and ranges, etc. He wouldn't be able to pick the best handful of weapons to become proficient in either, and even if he could, chances are it's more realistic he learns the weapon his master or mentor happens to be skilled with - or maybe even the weapon he can afford. After all, why do you think they have hundreds of weapons if one were clearly the best?

Yes, the player may pick his weapon as a matter of choice, but when he begins to build upon it using every rule in the book, as if the character had such precise, quantified knowledge, then it is mini-maxing. For example, playing a warrior, specializing in darts - as he has exceptional strength and knows he gets full damage bonuses for every thrown weapon, no matter how unrealistic that is - using racial advantages on top of that, using kit advantages on top of that, etc. etc., will give you a character with such combat bonuses such that he'd be a true wonder of the world. That is a good way to maximize your character's power before they even step out the door and see what color the sky is, but it is not roleplaying.

Your character may be so lucky as to have one or two overlapping advantages by chance or by virtue of having a guiding mentor, but if specifically created using the full measure of the rules - which may even be different in other systems - then the player is sort of missing the point of roleplaying and mixing player and character knowledge, perhaps even achieving maximum power before they have even decided upon their character's name.

And what of character development? If your character starts out with every advantage possible, they can have no immediate goals along those lines - they already got everything. Wouldn't it be more fun to EARN your character? Many say yes - I know I do. If you take nothing but advantages and forgo all disadvantages and weaknesses, your character is unrealistic, the GM will be reluctant to help you along since you are so powerful, you should be able to help yourself. Also, he may feel you need extra bashing just to make it interesting, and he certainly won't feel inclined to give you more power when you are already the most powerful character in the party - and a major headache for him because of that. And chances are he wants to allow you to develop your character, but you have already cut off most avenues of possible growth before you even began to play. When you start at the top, not only didn't you earn it, but also there is no where to go but down.

It all gets to be even sadder when players are allowed to custom pick or generate their own statistics rather than taking what the dice actually gives them - even if using dice, the mere fact you are allowed to "arrange" your stats is often a mini-maxing problem. Getting maximum bonuses and avoiding most, if not all, penalties, or often ignoring the ones they do have, is the mark of a mini-maxer. For example, taking exceptional strength, high constitution, and high dexterity for all those lovely combat bonuses, and taking high intelligence and wisdom for better saving throws and extra non-weapon proficiencies, and perhaps taking average - gosh, not even below average - charisma, all while describing yourself as ruggedly handsome or good looking despite average or below average charisma is, well, not exactly cheating, but certainly not indicative of good roleplaying either. It's mini-maxing, and if your goal is to be the most powerful character in the group, certainly it is something you may try. But it is not good roleplaying.

At this time I must point out that mini-maxing does not mean you cannot play the role of such a powerful character, and even roleplay it well. A mini-maxer may be able to roleplay very well. In fact, as long as they have a powerful character, they may be excellent roleplayers. Mini-maxers, despite the fact they often use game rules as character knowledge, can roleplay. What makes one a mini-maxer is not an inability to roleplay, but a tendency to wish to play only from a position of strength and advantage. Mini-maxers tend to use the rules as character knowledge as well.

Roleplayers, on the other hand, embrace a much wider variety of roles, from very weak to very powerful. Mini-maxers, though they can play their role of power well, do not tend to wish to play from any weakness, let alone many weaknesses. In fact, sadly, they may gripe, complain, whine, bicker, and sulk like any immature little boy might, should they not be allowed to have a powerful character and get their own way. *Sigh!*

A minor note: There is a subtle distinction between mini-maxing and munchkinism, and though munchkins may use mini-maxing techniques where they can, the munchkin goes further. First, munchkins are often younger, need not have as firm a grasp on the rules, and derive their power not by maximizing the advantages within the rules, but by taking it - if allowed to create a character by design. For example, simply taking three 18s or more and a plethora of powerful magic items, or often by having power handed to them by GMs known as Monty Hauls. The munchkin also strives to be the most powerful character walking and often has notions their character is on the path to god hood - even if it might take months of playing to get there!!!

Mini-maxers, after squeezing the rules for every advantage, tend to be more realistic, so their "problem" mostly concerns character generation, while the munchkin's extends well into actual game play. Munchkins often do not roleplay well or even particularly wish to, though mini-maxers may play their roles very well, after character generation gives them the advantages they desired to play.

You may now be thinking I am condemning non-roleplaying approaches to roleplaying games as "inappropriate," and you'd be right if you thought I disliked them as a personal choice, but incorrect if you thought I was saying they are flat out wrong. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it. They are a matter of personal taste and preference. Mini-maxing is never a problem if the other players and the GM all feel the same way, and everybody can mini-max, or hack and slash, or reap the rewards afforded by Monty Haul GMs, or do whatever else they wish or feel is fun and enjoyable, and no one can say they are doing it "wrong" if they're all having fun. But how often does everybody agree on what is fun? Probability suggests there will be some players in the group who will not like this style of play.

So, I strive for roleplaying in my roleplaying games, whether I run them or play in them. This is my goal, and by achieving it, this is how I might "win." If this is not your goal, you are not wrong, but we clearly have different ideas of what is fun. I wish you luck in your gaming endeavors, no matter what they may be - assuming you are not hurting anyone. But I will continue to expound upon the virtues of a more roleplaying philosophy, since I feel I have good reasons to do so.

The majority of mini-maxers also fail to take into account a fundamental truth of most roleplaying games. The more powerful your character - just to make it interesting - the more powerful the opposition MUST be. So if your bonuses make you +6 to hit and +9 to damage with the best weapon for damage on top of that, and you have nothing but benefits too numerous to mention in all other areas, and your character is rather devoid of normal human weaknesses, the GM has little choice but to toss comparable creatures or comparable encounters at you, else it would be a cake walk and not very interesting. And woe to the roleplayer's character standing next to your character, for he is only +1/+0 and has no hit point bonuses, AC bonuses, or similar benefits. Chances are, he'll probably be killed due to collateral damage as your character and the GM's augmented NPCs slug it out. Hardly a fitting reward for roleplaying well. And, like I said, the GM will not, therefore, tone down the NPCs since to do that would simply allow your PC to best all encounters without much difficulty, without much of a challenge, and in the final analysis, without much merit in achievement. If you have all the power, you are expected to succeed.

This will often be why you may feel your GM is hard on you if you keep coming up with these godlike characters, even though technically allowed "under the rules." And if he rejects one possible character for inclusion in his game as too powerful, you should probably guess a similarly mini-maxed character would also not be to his liking. They run the risk of destroying a carefully balanced campaign, making existing players feel cheated if they didn't similarly squeeze the rules in the past, or feel cheated if they fail to squeeze the rules from that point onward.

More often than not, mini-maxing will simply escalate the level of the game more into the realm of the improbable and unrealistic. And for what? If a player's character had only +2/+3, do they think the GM would still toss godlike creatures at them? If he does, he's a killer GM, and that's a whole other issue. No. The GM is NOT going to slam you any harder than your character can take, and if you play with intelligence, wisdom, and care, and above all, team work, you should be fine no matter how innately powerful or weak your character may be. If you play with stupidity, foolishness, and recklessness, and above all, try to be loner in such a hard world, your character will probably die no matter how innately powerful or weak that character may be.

NOTE: Do not think this means the GM will not kill your character. The possibility of death is an important part of the game, for without it, the rewards are hollow and victories are meaningless. But having more advantages and bonuses will not make it less likely your character will die, since the GM will just toss larger things at you, so the probability of character death is comparable whether you mini-max or not - though it may be higher for innocent bystanders due to collateral damage during those all out slugfests the GM must dream up just to keep it interesting for the mini-maxer.

So you see, there is little point in taking every advantage under the sun that you can lay your hands on. Unlike traditional games where this may help you achieve victory with relative ease, in a roleplaying game, it will not, and in fact it may hurt a great deal. Either those around you may suffer, or you may suffer since the GM has to rise to your challenge with such unrealistic levels of power that almost anything can happen, and often does. Also, a lot of literature and roleplaying center around having and overcoming weaknesses, and if your character has no appreciable weaknesses, that avenue of character development will be closed to you.

Of course there is another reason why one may wish to be so powerful. It doesn't reflect on their relative power level in the GM's world - which should rise or fall to meet your character, no matter where it is - but your character's relative power level in the party. Being the most valuable player is a wonderful feeling, and there is no doubt that being the star of the show is often fun, but when you do that in a roleplaying game you are effectively, whether you mean to or not, delegating the other players to mere supporting positions.

These other players are NOT there to make your life better or support you as you play YOUR game, but they are there to play as well. They are living characters with their own goals, problems, wants, and needs. As such, they deserve equal time in the spotlight, the chance to be the MVP in some scenarios, and the indispensable character to some story line, etc. As players, we are all equal in wanting this and should be given equal opportunity. If your character, by virtue of mini-maxing, is disproportionately powerful, or disproportionately diverse, such that the other characters are relegated to back-seat positions, the other players often feel like third wheels or stage extras and frequently and correctly arrive at the conclusion it doesn't matter all that much if they pay attention or participate, or even show up at all anymore. What's the point? After all, the star of the show can do it, so why does anyone need them?

Now, you may say "All right, but if everyone mini-maxes then they are all on equal footing and we needn't worry about such things." Unfortunately, this will only work when ALL players have a similar feelings about a lack of need for roleplaying weaknesses, realism, or concerns about probabilities, or other such "trivial" concerns, and treat the entire thing more like a traditional game with traditional goals, and often even move their characters around like pieces on a game board rather than trying to "share" their character's experiences. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? Depends on what you want.

I know I often feel one should expect to find more versatile roleplayers in a roleplaying game, but it doesn't always work out that way. However, there is usually one or two in any group, and I speak for them - or at least I try to.

Knowing the GM will just augment the power of the NPCs to meet the challenge of young godlings will perhaps help those players who are mini-maxers such that they might consider toning it down a bit - or a lot, depending on where they start - just to help the game along. In the long run, it shouldn't affect their fun unless they only can get off by being the MVP, and that's sort of sad when it's not born of any actual ability on their part, but of numbers they selected and merely printed on a page, or choices their characters made by virtue of using complete OOC game mechanical knowledge.

Often, the greatest challenge of roleplaying games is to achieve your goals when you are playing from weaknesses, meet and deal with your character's shortcomings, and yet still "win," however you may define that for your character.

Finally, mini-maxing will always be part of the game. It's impossible to get rid of it completely, so no one should try. After all, some of it is bound to occur and probably should. Though a character doesn't have all the rules, they do reflect their reality and they should have some notion of them. Probably just not to the degree most mini-maxers take it. But you should eventually try to develop a sense for what is the acceptable level under a particular GM or within a particular group of players. If you are a good gamer and have come to play as equals, it should be no problem to adjust yourself to the limits set forth in the particular game, whether higher or lower than to what you may be accustomed.

If you have difficulty playing WITHOUT an "unfair" advantage, find the entire concept unfathomable of NOT taking every advantage you could even when technically allowed by law or by rule, or feel the GM is inflexible, officious, or even playing some other game when he frowns upon such things, then you are probably a mini-maxer. This doesn't make you evil incarnate, but it is probably a good indication you are not a versatile roleplayer so much as a traditional gamer, and that's fine, if you are with similarly opinionated gamers.

If you are a mini-maxer, however, I just think you're missing some of the best qualities of roleplaying games, and perhaps can't even begin to see that playing one's weaknesses can be as fun and rewarding as playing one's advantages - if not more so. After all, the majority of my most memorable moments came from near-death experiences, or when I was out matched in power, but still persevered due to intelligent play or team work.

It is, after all, overcoming one's weakness and shortcomings that is a major part of character development. And if you find no wisdom in any of what I have said here, that's fine too. It doesn't make you wrong. It just means we probably won't be playing in the same campaign.