When she said "I'm against child soldiers" I fully expected Brennan to blurt out _"If they're smaller, they're harder to hit!!"_ or something like that
"I'm against child soldiers IN DND" well i'm not - that can be a great worldbuilding tool to show how fucked up the villain is. And it allows the party to save them. Or a PC to have been a former child soldier. You just want to stop your villains from doing evil things? Well then what's the point?
I was expecting him to be like. "But the morality factor that the enemy has to shoot children will fuck them up and some will more then likely not shoot or harm the child soldier."
@@DellikkilleD but at what point do you tell a player to just go play Baldur's gate 3 because they want to control a party by themselves(aka use sidekicks which isn't a rule but is DM optional). I hate gamers who play TTRPGs and expect me to allow them to take over everyones game and turn it into their own personal fantasy sandbox and if you dont go along with something they will annoying demand you show them the rule where it says they cant do something, then i have to slam the emergency brakes on everyone elses fun time to account for the meta gaming player who had years to analyze the perfect race/class combo to allow him to live out his Dark Souls single player fantasy while everyone else spent maybe an hour on the books to find something they think they would enjoy playing. One player wants to win everything(probably save scums to the max on BG3) while the rest of my players are trying to roleplay and have a good time. I dont know about you but that is why metagaming/powergaming sucks. Min-maxing wasn't a thing till 3rd Edition, thats when the game went from a ttrpg that would take place in thinkspace to the WOTC D&D which we know today. 3rd to 5th edition was very tactical and technical because they wanted to the game systems to be similar to rpg video games being released at the time, therefore making in an easy transition between the way people approached video games and the way people approached TTRPGs.
Min/maxers are great when newer players also exist in the game because, usually, the min/maxers are super dedicated and into the game and they are totally fine helping the newbies get used to the mechanics. And I tend to homebrew shit a lot so it means I can make cooler crap for my party to fight >:). As a bonus that also means I can help the less experienced player catch up with cool items that are simple to use while also giving the min/maxer more niche and situational (yet still strong) stuff for them to be creative with
@@athenaraines I remember this one group I had where a friend and I were tasked to handhold some of the beginners we had at the table (total beginners, no ttrpg playing or spectating background). My friend was always the RP first guy and I was the power player. My friend built this elaborate document detailing every spell in their spell lists and how to use them. Meanwhile, I instead just gave the players what combos I normally do in their respective classes. I initially thought the players prefer the non-spoonfeeding guide because it is less backseaty and has more freedom, but turns out the beginners just felt intimidated by the amount of choices and felt more confused. I guess it was because it made them more familiar with the "feel" of the class more by just doing the cool stuff the class does, then decide themselves whether they want to lean on it or deviate from it. I was pretty proud of myself, sad the table had to disband.
Hope you are doing good and staying safe. If you need to talk to someone or need help, there are people who care. Sending support and hearts. ❤️❤️❤️❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
"Aren't we both, like, ex competitive debaters?" "Yes, I believe so, uh, shit, yes. BUT!" That interaction was so funny to me, as a guy who did 4 years of high school debate. Felt that to my soul, and the feeling was comedy
One of my tables was a min-maxer carrying a bunch of fun characters through combat while we carried them through the actual story. It was like having 1 sober character and their 5 absolutely trashed friends. It only went on for a few months but we had a blast. If you just understand why everyone's at the table and find a way to make them fit its fine.
Well when you turn the game into a running joke...you get this. I don't need to 'find a way to make them fit' When I say what I am willing to run, if someone feels they need to be something counter to that, they will not have a fun time.
@@miked.9364as a dungeon master you adjust your game to what all your players enjoy. If I have a player that enjoys puzzles and a player that loves being powerful I'll be damsure to make those things relevant to our campaign
@@jesusguadalupe8396 only to a certain degree tho. You are not a slave to the players, and if they actively try to spite you they dont really get to expect being catered around. If you say that you want to play an underwater campagin and someone choses to go with a hydrophobic character, thats fully on them. Same if you tell them at the start that the need to be good or atleast neutral aligned for this plot, or have loyality towards group x for that one, and they then with that prompt create a character thats outside of these bonds , they dont get to wonder about why things might not work out for them. Then again im not sure what the point of that poster was
@@brawlyaura5799 he was forced to argue for people that complain about people that are playing the game well and good. Thats the one thing he cant argue for lol
Because he believes the opposite of what he said about minmaxing. Admitting defeat is admitting that the position he actually have doesn't have a reasonable leg to stand on
@@brawlyaura5799 okay… that was pretty obvious in the video.. But I still love the way it was played out. Lots of good natured humor as it was hard for him to argue the side he didn’t agree with and he was obviously getting slammed and didn’t want to argue.. but sorry, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here or why you @ me specifically 🤷🏽♀️
@@thegmwitch That is fair, but I did feel she could have picked a better topic where both sides could have had equally entertaining arguments. I really liked Matt Mercer and Brennan duking out whether milestone or XP was better. It was entertaining and both sides are swinging till the very end. I kinda didn't like that the debate was over as soon as it started, but I do agree there is still entertainment and valuable points (just not as much on an argument with a level playing field)
As a min maxer one point I want to be made is that, researching how to create over powered builds IS part of the fun for me. Like ‘how do I make a ranger the face of the party’ or ‘how can I be a tank front line wizard’ are characters I was able to build because I started off with ‘how do I create the strongest archer’.
I really appreciate this comment. I'm a not min-maxer. The fun for me is dreaming up character ideas that aren't bound or limited by any system and slotting into the system in ways that seem like it makes the most sense. In D&D this results in tough decisions - like, ideally my character would have both of these feats because they're cool, but darn I'm only level 2 so I can only get one of them - and lo and behold, I think the one that doesn't help me in combat is more important to the theme I'm going for. It's not that I'm bad at min maxing, I just value different things. Another part of it is that I can usually trust the DM to make me feel powerful anyway despite the limitations of the system (I couldn't get the two feats I feel describe my character well enough) (or we're low level so it doesn't make sense that my character can do these things yet) ... if the DM can't do that, I could just as easily say git gud to the DM. I admit, there can be some tension between us because often we tie the DMs hands in mutually exclusive ways. I think we should be less critical of DMs trying to work through this very real problem and more understanding to each other in general.
Big same for me. I went from "how I go absolutely crazy making the most combat destroying character possible" to "I want a druid who is the most threatening utility caster ever with no damage spells" to making a charlatan wizard that was more face than anything. It's gotten to the point where I wait for everyone else to make something so I can see what I can brew up on the spot to fill the niche we need filled in while using none of the classes or races chosen.
@@johnfernald-t9y Not OP, but my favorite characters are front line wizards of some variety. My two favorite so far are Eldritch Knight 7 / War Wizard X and Blade Singer 6 / Echo Knight 3 / Blade Singer X. Your AC is absurd and you have the ability to spike it. Your hp is a little lacking so 1/2 damage on successful save spells will still whittle you down, but you won't get hit by most single target attacks and you even do have spells to help mitigate your damage on those as well. The main downside is that you're highly effective for a short period of time before needing that long rest.
The only thing I would add to this conversation as an unrepentant min-maxer who loves to roleplay is recognize the table you’re playing at and hold back at times so you don’t overshadow the other characters, giving them a chance to shine as well. If someone else is good at something that you’re also good at, help them to give them advantage and let them roll. Also, since you’re so good at the game, your turns should be quick like a bunny. Don't make your DM do math. They have enough to do already. The other thing you can do is min-max a support class and play it really really well.
I really like your POV! You're right that sometimes the "bad minmaxers" take it too far and make themselves the main character of the story by doing everything fun in the game and not giving other players a chance to play the game. I think reading through these comments my problem with min-maxers can really just boil down to them not making it about playing the game, but about knowing the mechanics of the game itself. That's fine to a certain level, but at some point it gets hard to a point where they take it soooo much more seriously than I have time/effort to dedicate to. That's why "get good" isn't good advice to me, because the min-maxers that truly bother people are the ones that dedicate so much time that if you were to dedicate similar amounts of knowledge learning about the game it would break your enjoyment. THen it just becomes homework instead of playing a game to blow of some steam.
Im a first time player who has watched a lot of DnD content so I like to believe I still know quite a bit. That aside, the rest of my party are completely new to DnD as a whole. I went a sorcadin that absolutely excels at smacking the fuck out of enemies, but my flavoring is sort of meant to lessen the overbearing strengths. I also went veng pally and shadow sorc so I tend to be extremely broody outside of combat. Helps give my team their own moments to shine.
Personally, I'm a minmaxer who's very forgetful at the table, and I often forget situational abilities that are buried in my spell list or features from multiple classes, so there are often games where my character doesn't make as much impact just because I don't realize I can until it's too late. That tendency, along with my BardLock's 7 Wisdom that I loved to roleplay, led to that character getting the party into trouble almost as much as he bailed them out of with his damage numbers
All I really do at unoptimised tables is hold bless and draw fire while they fuck the goblins up, even if I'm not applying the builds full potential until things get scary I'm still doing something and helping the party at all times
The good thing about min-maxing is if you can play something strong you can easily make it weaker, the opposite isn't true. If you're too strong for your team you can decide to limit yourself but if you are a liability you can't really change that without the DM's assistance
As someone who likes making mechanically strong characters, I really like making characters who need to overcome problems outside of combat. You can have a lot of fun in combat, and have interesting ideas to RP with outside of it. A character I’m playing right now, for example, is a mercenary who hates his profession, but feels trapped by it. Rather than a mechanical struggle, he’s struggling to find identity and peace in the chaos of an dnd party
Yeah, my current character is a warlock with dumped INT and WIS, but an 18 CHA. I roleplay those stats appropriately, he was raised on a pirate ship so his knowledge about the world is pretty heavily skewed, he is good at exactly 2 things, escalation and de-escalation, he can fight very well and he can talk his way out of situations very well, but he's also an idiot who's naive about the world and as such makes a bunch of dumb decisions. Combat shouldn't be a challenge because of player build decisions, it's the DM's responsibility to ensure combat is adequately challenging and a good DM will try to find ways to make things work regardless, building a character who is deliberately bad at fulfilling their role in the party isn't making a flawed character, because having low modifiers isn't a character trait, so the argument of "I want to play a character with FLAWS" doesn't hold water, and yet so many anti-optimizers cling to it as though we just don't understand their "artistic vision" instead of being annoyed that they are risking our character's lives with their unwillingness to play co-operatively.
Ive been playing through my first campaign and I went with a character kinda like this lol. I gave him great barbarian stats and did variant human to get great weapon master, but he basically never rages cuz of long story lore reasons as long as his opponents are humaoid. He will only rage against like demon monsters or if he has a rly good reason to, and Im happy to say it led to my fav moment ever so far in dnd when a boss of bandits who he was trying to talk reason to knocked him to 0 hit points, just for me to crit on my death save and then next turn rage for the first time all campaing into a crit on the boss to kill him, such an awesome feeling
It really depends on the table you're playing at. If your character is tremendously better than the rest of the party min maxing creates issues. But if you're playing with an experienced group of DND players its better everyone makes a mechanically sound character. My only real issue is when players are following a cookie cutter guide designed to max damage per round.
The optimization community generally uses the terms "practical" vs. "theoretical optimization." Practical optimization builds characters with a theme, whether mechanical or narrative (e.g., a sword-and-sorcery character), looks at the options available (e.g., a Conan-like character could be a barbarian/rogue), analyzes them, and finds the most mechanically harmonious ways to marry them (e.g. our Conan might not take Arcane Trickster because Rage prevents spellcasting, and they might not take Berserker because the Frenzy bonus action attack conflicts with Cunning Action). Theoretical optimization, on the other hand, is the glitch-skip speedrun of D&D - it exploits unintended or underdeveloped rules interactions for purely mechanical benefit (e.g. a Blinded character would only benefit from dropping Prone because they would reduce ranged attacks against themselves to a straight roll instead of advantage, but would not be hampered in any way they weren't already by being Blinded - it's a weird quirk of the (dis)advantage stacking rules, and makes little sense in the narrative).
Casting revivify on this old comment. But narratively to me it makes sense that someone blinded would go prone. When trying to avoid gun or arrow fire most people "hit the deck" and if you're blinded with both melee and ranged folks around you, why not take an action that at least makes you harder to hit for the guys with bows. There are things that only serve mechanical purposes, I get that. But I do think you can role play yourself into something narratively satisfying to cover many of those.
I like what this comment is saying a lot. There's a world of difference between finding the best mechanical cohesion of your character idea and the options provided to you vs. making a build you found on a Reddit post that can deal 700+ damage in one round at Level 3. The game never intended for the second one to be an option. People who try to sneak builds like this into their games are intentionally taking advantage of jank in order to make something unreasonable happen to the detriment of the game experience for everyone else at the table.
@@ss3nm0dn4r8 But being blinded *and* prone should have huge effects on your combat prowess. Instead, once you're blinded going prone results in the exact same level of effectiveness.
I’ve played with a whole range of min-maxers myself, from the ones who make great characters and just like to feel powerful (perfectly fair and understandable) to the less savory ‘I will abuse the rulings to create characters that can’t be beaten’ and hogged the narrative all to themselves, and ultimately I think min-maxing itself isn’t the problem. The problem is and always will be poor team players who only care about themselves and their enjoyment at the table.
Definitely! there are people on here who argued with me saying if someone chose to make a "min maxer" within the rules they were given, and others chose to dump certain stats for roleplay purposes, that those who dumped stats should be able to tell the min maxer to change their character because its making them feel inferior. Some people are very odd and have quite the entitlement complex I suppose. Just let make characters however they want (but definitely don't abuse the system or rules or else face the DM's wrath lol).
@@Dave004 Honestly, I feel that those people who dump stats for "roleplay" reasons want to *say* that they have a flawed character while still kicking ass in the reality of the game i.e. they want to play the underdog but at the same time not suffer any kind of mechanical handicap because of that, and that makes them upset when they can't compete with an optimized character. I find it pretty dishonest tbh.
Precisely. I've been DMing since the red set and have seen this happen and it does cause problems. Not min-maxing itself as you say, but diva players that continually want to hog the spotlight. It is a thorny issue and difficult to deal with. I've tried various methods with very mixed results. Ultimately I've decided on the following method. First, am I getting complaints from the other players, if not, I chalk it up to my reading too much into it. If I do get a complaint, even if it's only one player, I simply have a private conversation with Diva player and ask them to be more mindful of this issue. Usually, the player agrees because they didn't pick up on the issue. Where a player is obstinate and refuses to change their ways (and this has been mercifully rare), I usually kick them out of the game. I'd rather have the other players happy as opposed to only the one.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 I disagree wholeheartedly, I don't see it as a disingenuous "flaw". I feel like a character's FLAWS make the character. The character isn't the stats, it's the outcome at the table. I've gamed with dozens of the same, "I'm gonna make the most damage heavy...blah blah blah." While playing you invariably accept that they destroy the field, so much so, that stops being special for that character, it becomes accepted. Where those character SURPRISE you is when they can't handle their flaws. That's the meat of the potato. Perfect example of this kind of character in media. One Punch Man, the combats are a forgone conclusion but the character's BATTLES, are in the flawed social engagements he's only equipped to bumble through. Of those min maxers, I can recall 3 that decapitated dragons. Boring. What I do remember was one immovable tank of a beast who killed a dire bear in single combat while tripping on his own entrails, who nearly died because his Dex was so abysmal he failed a series of saves and managed to slip into a relatively shallow river and was swept several hundreds of feet before plummeting over the falls.
@@GrugTheJust I do find there are degrees to min maxing. You can have a Fighter who takes Str and Con as their main stats, dump Int, Wis and Cha because they want to be a warrior, take GWM and Polearm and still have fun roleplaying. Thats a very optimal build, and yes min maxing. But then there's those who multi class 3 times with really powerful classes thats purpose is to just make an incredibly hard to beat combo or something. My DM always says you can multi class but you need a reason and story behind it, not just you want a dip in Cleric for heavy armor, thats not logical. But again, its good to get these intentions out session zero so everyone knows "oh this guy is going full on fighter and taking all the powerful feats so we should maybe make our characters a bit stronger so we're not just back up" kind of situation.
I wouldn't say obvious truth for this one since a lot of people really don't like min-maxers but Brennan really doesn't believe that and literally nothing he says holds any weight because of it
@@crystalshard1349 But those people are in the wrong for not liking min-maxers, because this episode proved that there's nothing wrong with being a min-maxer.
@Crystal Shard but on the reverse side of that lists of people don't like people who make everyone in the parties life harder by adding an intentual disadvantage
@@tuomasronnberg5244 there is something wrong with it if the rest of the party and the dm dont like min-maxing. Context is always important when considering what's right or wrong, even with what we think are universally right or wrong.
@@brawlyaura5799you’re stretching way too far just to hate on someone you dont even know. you made so many assumptions on a stranger just because they were efficient in making their points. quit being an ass
@@brawlyaura5799You do know this is just some banter between friends and the way they portay their position in this discussion is most likely not the way they would act in rl?
@@brawlyaura5799 I have played broken builds other characters can still shine in other moments, sure Titan the Solo I made really did solo combat, the GM having to pull out more and more enemies, including a sniper and 2 guys with a machine gun on a Jeep to deal with me, but the net runners still got to do their nerd thing and social encounters were fun for all. it's only a problem if the game is only combat and people can't think of other things to try.
@@brawlyaura5799 do you know the concept of... commiting to the bit? like when she said no I think i came from a rib looking dead serious did you think that was genuenly her opinion or just being contrarian because that's the premise of contested roll
In my view it was a terrible angle on her behalf. Obviously, Brennan is arguing against his beliefs and her bringing out that intrinsic discrepancy serves her no good. She should defend her position and let Brennan at least try to defend the opposite instead of her arguing that Brennan is actually a min-maxer, which is a well-known fact. It's a classic case of at hominem in a format, where Brennan is essentially playing a character.
The most fun I ever had in D&D was with my first group, a group who got so into it that we all became min-maxers and hardcore pro character builders. We were all coming up with increasingly creative and powerful characters until we were playing full on super heroes and demigods. This goes for our DM too, who got good enough to make seriously threatening super villains to pit us against. This culminated in a epic level gestalt campaign where many gods became cool characters themselves.
That’s pretty awesome your table is able to get along that way. Not everyone at my table (including me) is interested in pro character building, so it can get a little frustrating at times. I’m glad your game is rad tho :)
Hey if the whole table is min maxers and love the challenge it is awesome. It becomes a problem when you have one min maxer who needs tro be challenged and the rest are not min maxers. You either balance the encounters for the min maxer, then the rest is basically fucked, or you balance it for the rest then the min maxer is bored that leads to an awkward table dynamic. For the rest of the table it looks like the min maxer is the problem, which is why they have a bad reputation, but the real problem is that people have different expectations of the game. You need to clear that in session zero. You either need no min maxers or mostly min maxers to make it work.
@@BrenGamerYT Yea a mixed group usually leads to an awkward table dynamic. Either the min maxers are bored since the encounters are not challenging enough, or the non min maxers get frustrated since encounters are too hard, and you cannot really balance for both. I have a similar problem atm. we lost a bunch of characters and our d/m insisted on the new characters being level 1. I am a level 10 thief and a level 8 paladin (long story my character started out as an assassin, found religion, well religion found him, and became a paladin, lost the assassin stuff but can still use most of the thief stuff as long as it is for the right reasons). I nearly one shot our last boss encounter (he had like 3 health left after my first attack), and after an intense dungeon crawl i still had 2/3 of my health left and I don´t think i healed even once. Heck a lot of opoonent could not even hit me unless they crits since my ac was too damn low (first edition, the lower your ac is the better, most in my group are 10 and up, i think we have one 8 , and there is me at -1) but at least I don´t need the challenge like min maxers do so it is not as boring to me as it would be to them.
She brought up the subject because she is passionate about it. We all have those topics that piss us off because of people who have dumb ass takes. So you practice imaginary arguments in the shower XD She probably rehearsed this for 70 hours already XD
@@dukstedi Arguably, the masterdebater himself was/is pretty effective in maximizing the rules for counterspelling - and it didn't/doesn't even detract from the story
She makes an argument so great that we almost forget that the rest of us are not playing with professional actors paid to role play, but rather waiting 30 minutes for our friend/sibling/partner to read through their spell list and measure the battle map to decide which spell is going to do the most damage while we sit there and twiddle our thumbs. Then it's our turn. I swing my axe. I swing it again.... and then we wait another 30 minutes. I feel like people are often arguing different points on this particular topic. Character optimization is not the min/maxing many of us have grown to hate. It's when 4 players want to play a game and the 5th one wants to do math 😆
That’s called a snail rather than a min-maxer though. They don’t take too much time because they’re a min-maxer, it’s because they’re undecisive, slow or just kinda dumb 😅
I have a “min maxer” at my table and they are by far the most invested in the story. I just have to get more creative with enemies, which as a DM, is fun! It’s part of the game.
As stated, in order to min-max successfully you have to know the game very well and that often means you are very invested in the game and paying attention to everything going on.
I kept doing a double take every time I saw this thumbnail because she looked so familiar. I finally watched this and confirmed it is the barbarian from Relics and Rarities. She was great in that.
One thing that’s often overlooked about min-maxing characters is the role playing and storyline it supports. So many of my min-maxed characters are BECAUSE of storyline. How I am supposed to say my character is a phenomenal archer without backing it up with game mechanics.
@@Sindrihelgathat's only true if you let it be true. Maybe my incredible archer's growth isn't in the archery, but in magic. Maybe my archer is incredible, yes, but nowhere near what they could be, explaining the level progression, maybe they even get humbled by a bad guy who's an archer that makes them notice just how much they still have to learn. Maybe they're extremely good at archery and yet, in a anime-sensei kind of situation, they just want a quiet life after experiencing the terrors of war. The "little room for growth" is self-handicapping and could even actually help build the character. Imagine an archer so good, they don't have any challenges anymore. Even if there is room for growth for them, they don't want it because it'd only mean even less challenges, they lose whatever little passion. All of a sudden they're forced into a situation where they have to fight again and suddenly, they have to regain their passion and slowly learn new ways to apply their archery, once again explaining the level progression. What I'm trying to say is that, don't let that stop you narratively, especially since in one way or another, there will ALWAYS be mechanical room for improvement because of the level system :)
@@Sindrihelga No amount of min-maxing leaves zero room for growth though. It's genuinely impossible to make a level 1 archer that doesn't get huge boosts at 3 (subclass), 4(sharpshooter feat), and 5(second attack).
@@Orobascientia Agreed. You can start with a powerful character and still have them grow emotionally as well. Many stories start with characters that already know what they are doing, and then develop in other ways as the story unfolds.
Brennan's face of absolute defeat was so funny. It's hard to find people that can debate Brennan in a quick back and forth scenario, but she didn't even let him start to get speed. Incredible debater and absolutely right. Would love to see longer versions of this segment, cause the topics are always fascinating.
My very first ttrpg that was not played with my "core group" of friends (I stepped outside my comfort zone and joined a campaign with some people in my WoW guild I didn't know very well, but who seemed cool, and I really wanted someone to be available to teach me Pathfinder), I went into it how I usually did, not min/maxing too hard, trying to do my best, and role playing how I think my character would behave. There was a specific moment, where I made a choice for my character, and the table made fun of me for it. They laughed at me and almost acted like I was doing something weird or wrong in the moment, like I was a creep (we found a lost girl in the woods and I wrapped a blanket around her shoulders and patted her on the head, then gave her my rations for the night so she had something to eat). In my head, this was a pretty normal action to make someone feel welcome and not afraid (she was very uneasy around our party and wouldn't come near anyone). I was relentlessly laughed at for this, and left the campaign a few sessions later (for a mostly unrelated reason, but I did make my decision to leave with that event in mind). Ever since then, I haven't been able to freely role play the way I want to. I kind of clam up or play dumb characters who speak mono-syllabically. It kind of turned me away from wanting to just become a character within the game world, when even the DM was laughing and making fun of me for how I portrayed my cleric.
That really sucks to hear, this is awful to go through in TTRPGs definitely wrong to do to a player but I recommend trying to rp freely again, find a group that you're more comfortable with. There are lots of people who are very supportive in the community. Don't let a bully change who you are
@@er4din903 Patting a young person on the head. It's something you mostly see in anime, so they found it funny. And the DM role played that she found my character creepy for doing it. We encountered her character again later, after she had been adopted by the guild master who had given us our primary quest, and the DM made a point to role play that the girl avoided me and looked away from me like she was scared every time I was around.
Been one receiving end often on the "everyone misreads my action as something different than I intended effect". It sucks, but happens a lot due to the effect of differing minds eye teaters....
Min-maxing is taking the character rules and treating them like a puzzle to solve, and I for one love puzzle games. It's basically the only way to "play" D&D alone, since you don't necessarily need the rules to make up a character or a setting. I guess the stigma sources from when players/DMs take that singleplayer mindset and bring it to a table. Important to remember you're playing with other people, and cooperate with them, right?
Also, in reference to 6:35 , I'm almost certain the term min-max comes from chess algorithms, where you choose your Maximum value move on your turn, and assume the Minimum value move on the opponent's turn (under the assumption they are trying to minimize your success). The term is inherently adversarial when viewed in that light, I suppose.
Min maxing where I learned the game was involved with dump statting and creating characters that were extremely niche. The two down one up house rule had people with a couple 18 stats but a 5 in charisma, they could use their sword (usually triple specialized) or bow extremely well, but outside of situations, even combat situations where a sword or bow wasn't useful, they were worse than a level 0 peasant. It was frustrating to DM characters like that, because everything that didn't cater to the specialty felt like you were stonewalling the PC in a game with many save or die situations, but in reality, you're just running a normal campaign. It's harder to minmax in later editions because everything is a bonus, and there are fewer penalties, so you don't really get the min aspect of minmaxing.
@@marclemieux4902 minmaxing means minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. Strictly speaking, your example is not minmaxing unless you add the caveat of minmaxing for combat. But minmaxing in a roleplaying game tends to mean being really good in situations you want to be good in, and not being super weak in others. For example, a properly built skill monkey is insane in noncombat encounters, but it's not like they gave up all combat capabilities to do so. So I think it's the opposite. It is easier to minmax now than it was in your example. Because focusing on one thing isn't completely to the detriment of everything else.
@@ashtonhoward5582 Not necessarily. That may be the most common definition today, but another might be minimising undesired or unimportant traits and maximising desired ones. That was absolutely how it was used in older editions, as described. Edit: an example of how it was used, and some problems it could lead to, can be seen in the Goblins webcomic with "Minmax the Unstopable Warrior" who maximized combat prowess at the expense of minimizing everything else, including trading his ability to read for a +1 to hit, among other things.
Yeah, complaining about minmaxing in 5e is a little hollow because there aren't any "min" mechanics anymore. In 3.5e you really could take a shitton of flaws and lopsided traits in order to get certain facets of your character into the stratosphere by *tanking* the others. In 5e I think the better term is "optimization"
I think one of the big problems with twitter debates about min-maxing is that people overuse the term to refer to anyone building a character to be effective in combat, while the term was originally created to describe a very specific kind of player. That is, the kind of player who creates a deaf, mute barbarian with a -3 to charisma, wisdom, and intelligence so they can get a +5 in strength, dexterity, and constitution along with the ability to carry a greatshield while duel-wielding battleaxes with no penalty, making a character who's incredibly effective in their niche (which is very often combat because min-maxing and murder-hoboing often go hand in hand) but borderline nonfunctional in any other situation. This kind of player (and, of course, their character) can end up dragging down a party and make it harder for the rest of the group to do what they want, which is why they have such a bad reputation. Also, I suspect part of the reason people conflate it is that it's far harder to do in popular RPG systems nowadays than it once was without significant house-ruling, since many modern rule sets like 5e tend to limit how much players can do to cook the books, as well as make stats more universally useful to disincentivize throwing away the ones a character doesn't "need". Overall, this makes it much harder to create a half god-made-flesh, half useless worm than it would be in other games and older rulesets where they didn't have mechanics like that.
Well said, much better than I tried to say it. I've heard that 3.5 had a lot of disparity between someone who knew all the tricks and someone who was just starting. But nowadays publishers know to look out for that sort of thing.
Yea the biggest thing with 5E really is that there are unbeatable strategies but it usually has nothing to do with your stats and more your class and items that you have access to.
Yeah I feel like there is an over-emphasis on combat. I admittedly most likely fall into the min-maxxer category, but my character was actually designed mostly for out of combat situations, and whenever I *was* in combat I was more of a supporting role for the more combat-focused characters in the party. Like I could use my high movement speed to give other PCs flank bonuses very easily, even though I couldn't take advantage of the bonus myself because my damage output was so low, it would be helpful for my party members, just to name an example.
I think the general impression of a min/maxer is someone who has created a character/build so capable that they no longer 'need' to count on their party. Combat? Min/maxer did it singlehandedly. Maybe the other players didn't even get a chance to go. Social encounter? Min/maxer did it. Puzzle? Min/maxer circumvented the complexity. Min/maxing isn't bad. But in a group game, hogging the spotlight is bad form. Not giving your friends the opportunity to usefully contribute makes them feel unneeded. Handling all challenges without breaking a sweat makes the other players realize that they're about as important as NPCs. So it's not about 'Is mix/maxing bad'. It's really about "Are we all getting to have fun?". If everyone is having fun, there are no problems. If people aren't having fun because they're functionally 'on the team but have been relegated to benchwarmer', then the min/maxer has the responsibility to stop doing everything so that their friends get their own moments in the spotlight. Personally, I love playing a skill-monkey Rogue. I absolutely min/max my character... BUT! I hate being the guy in the spotlight. I don't like attention or to be the one that saved the kingdom. I like playing support. Support is important because it's very important, but doesn't get the glory. The team knows that they may have died without their support, but the support character is making everyone else do better. It's cooperatively oriented. Min/maxers just need to be able to cooperate as a team. Share responsibility. Don't step on toes. The frustration against min/maxers is actually frustration at a lack of basic manners and social etiquette.
So I think the reason why there's a lot of discourse around "Min/Maxer's" is a confusion of terms. I think people are more worried about "Power Gamers" who's intention is to make the most broken build that the rules allow to "win" the game. They don't focus on roleplaying, they don't focus on the story, they treat DnD as just another board-game. And for new DM's, that can be a challenge! But rather than talking about how to "deal" with a player, it's always best to just communicate with the table. What intentions you have going into the campaign, what player expectations are, and move from there to find an amicable balance between the core power fantasy of DnD and its story telling mechanics. And if the player is unwilling to cooperate or put in the effort to "play with friends" rather than "play to win," then they are a problem player and they need to be talked to, and potentially even removed if they still refuse to cooperate. Now, that being said, I feel some DMs also have a challenge dealing with both Min-Max-ers and Power Gamers for more than just the reason of "they don't roleplay." There's the thing to consider that there's other people at the table who, very routinely, want to play in a completely different manner. They don't care about optimization and want to just do something goofy or fun. Which normally isn't a problem for people with experience with this situation. However, for those who don't have experience or are new to the hobby, and run things by the book without knowing they can tinker or adjust, they come across problems with balancing encounters. Even in narratively driven games, the goal is always to make an engaging encounter for all players.Tune things towards the majority players and you have one player curb stomping encounters and not giving any other players a chance to shine, or even worse, make them feel as though they aren't able to participate. Tune things towards the Power Player and you either wind up targeting one person the entire time (not a good feeling) or you curb stomp everyone else that *isn't* the Power Player. I think the core issue comes down to a lack of experience, a lack of communication in the play group, and, ultimately, a lack of confidence on the DM's part. Like Jasmine said, all players at the table and all play-styles are valid, but it shouldn't come at the cost of everyone else's enjoyment. Outside of just talking to the play group and having a dialogue to work things out, there's other options in the DM's toolbox that you can use. -Magic items are always a good thing to hand out. They don't have to be strong or rare or anything, but you can pass out items either to give more all round utility to the entire group, encouraging out-of-combat interactions, or give players struggling to keep up items that will balance them out or make up for shortcomings. Just as well, you could give the Power Player more utility based items, allowing them more chances and incentive to do out of combat things. -Reward good roleplay! Whether through tangible story rewards, or through inspiration, if your focus is to run a narrative game, reward players who interact with the narrative, and it will encourage the entire group to do the same! -Fudge stat blocks. Either through adjusting certain stats to make a monster hit a bit harder, or give opportunities for other characters to take advantage of vulnerabilities, you can always add and remove mechanics to make the fight feel more dynamic. Add in resistances or immunities! Create your own monsters! Again, make sure if you are throwing creatures, adjusted or not, don't hard focus on one player. Spread things around so everyone feels like they get their time in the sun. -Create dynamic encounters. utilize different mechanics, moving terrain, really throw people out of their comfort zone. And of course -Just talk to the player. I know I said there's other options outside of it, but it's really important to communicate. For most play groups, it's a group of friends. And you, as the DM, are there to create an experience for everyone. If you're worried about a certain playstyle, talk to them. Ask them what they want to get out of the campaign, and if they're nervous about roleplaying, open up new avenues for them to dip their toes into it. You can have Min/Maxers and Power Gamers that are also really good and fun during roleplay. If you're worried about them blowing through shit- It's your story! Add in a few more encounters, throw in a few more plot lines! But sincerely, just communicate with people.
The most difficult thing about Dming for min-maxers is the fact that they commonly so much more powerful than the other players, that you end up making a boss difficult for that one character and then almost impossible for the rest I feel like that's the difficulty with min-maxers
I feel like there's still some pretty simple ways to balance that out tho. Mainly the fact that if it's obvious to everyone at the table that a character is the most powerful and causing the most trouble for the baddies, it would be just as obvious to the villains - so they would focus their attacks more on them over the ones that arent causing as much trouble You can only do that so much tho before that player feels like you're singling them out just one example of a workaround
You sort of have to make do, you know? I love making combat proficient characters, so yeah I'm a hard-core min-maxer, but my DM has played into that. He puts us against tough odds, but always sends the biggest hitters my way while the rest of the party deal with other threats.
Have you heard of shadow of Mordor? There’s this amazing game mechanic that was implemented called the nemesis system, If you encountered a chieftain or someone of worth in the ranking of the orcs they would rank up both in stats and their ranks in orc society for defeating you. On the opposite end they would also lower in rank and power if you defeated them, humiliate them (a mechanic which weakens and drives the opponent insane) or even kill them off. But, they can also be resurrected and the nemesis’s gain buffs, bonuses and level ups in rank. These mechanics if used well in combination with character motifs create a characteristics to a npc that ultimately create terrific role playing moments and challenging encounters that often counter act most of the players most common actions. Steal the concept for your own DnD game, make the nemesis solely fight min maxers and it might work
I think the best way to make an encounter challenging for the min-maxer is to find out the min part of the equation. Hit them where it hurts, but make the challenge easier for other players. Maybe your monster is resistant or immune to bludgeoning, but magical attacks knock it down fast. Something like that would make your fighter have to think about how to keep the wizard safe so they can keep spell slinging.
10:29 Having a character's rolls or actions in game be counter to their designed intention can be really interesting if you go along with it. I think Matt Mercer's Leiland from Escape from the Bloodkeep is a great example. He's this mighty warrior who's second in command of the evil forces, but due to poor rolls just keeps failing in combat and in other areas, but Matt leans into that and ends up with a very interesting character who plays at the heart of the group dynamics and is eventually able to get some redemption and uplift at the end of the campaign in a few crucial moments.
In my experience min-maxing a character went hand in hand with passion for a character. I had an idea and found joy in working that out as well as possible and finding fun ways to get complimentary mechanics. So when I have a min-maxed character I will also role play better because I am excited. However, I've had a character where whenever I did something that was effective, whenever I thought of an optimal strategy or clever trick I'd get a bunch of critique, sometimes just in the constant stream off "I need to check this, does that item say that because that's too strong and". Where I was getting a level of scrutiny that no other player was getting despite it always turning out that "yes, that does work like that". And it got to the point where I was just no longer enjoying the character because I was making sub-optimal plays or plays I didn't really want to do, simply because I didn't want another conversation about "whether that's too powerful, maybe we should nerf it, bla bla". And as a result, instead of describing something cool I wanted to do, I fell into a rut of just going "yeah, I attack it, 8 damage, I end my turn", because the passion for playing my character, and therefore, playing the campaign, was gone.
I cannot think of a time when I’ve seen Renan look as frightened and excited at the same time as he does in this video. Bren and met his match and I’m here for it
He totally owns his loss. It is glorious! Now I want a BBEG encounter where the party completely tears the minions apart, and the BBEG just looks around and says "- I lost .." with a resigned shrug
@@brawlyaura5799its hard to debate on a side that you dont agree with, but especially when that side often uses illogical/unfair reasoning to support their claim. not deliberate, just expected.
I like optimization, I think it's so bloody fun. The biggest thing is knowing when to flaunt the power you give your PC. Keep up good RP and when the time calls for the optimized abilities we so carefully built, unless when the time is right.
Goddamn! This is currently the strongest argument I've seen for a side in Contested Roll. She just shut down any opportunity for counters and argument. Very well played!
Afterwards they really got to the crux of the argument, the entire problem is just DMs not knowing how to handle a Min-Maxxer. Its a table issue, not a player issue.
@@seasnaill2589 I mean, I do think that if everyone else at the table comes in with unoptimized builds, and you the one min-maxer guy comes in with a build that does x2 the damage as anyone else while also having better skill checks than anyone else, then it does feel kind of bad to be that monk PC. You likely won't be better than everyone at everything, but you can definitely have a character that is better at everything than one specific other character, and then it kind of feels like you're shitting on that character a bit.
"You killed the adult dragon very quickly. Unfortunately, it laid eggs, and now ancient dragons are hatching." "Wait... how are they ancient if they're only hatching now?" "Pay no mind to the stat block, just accept it and roll a new initiative!"
I like how they started with distance and somewhat guarded body language and around half way through they are facing each other and both leaning forward and the convo really starts rolling.
As a forever DM who enjoys coming up with interesting, theoretical characters, I really feel like there's a difference between "min-maxing" and optimizing. While creating a character, it's fun to figure out not only where their strength's lie, but how to feel truly powerful as that character. When my players are looking at their stats and character sheets, I want them to get the absolute most out of that character
I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of min-maxing because I've suggested optimizing things like giving yourself even stats when you're using point buy. A 12 is exactly the same as a 13 unless you're taking a +1 feat, so I try to avoid odd ones. All the time I see players with all odd stats and no dump stat, so they end up being disappointed that all their checks are +1 while everyone else specialized and have a +5 (or more) in something.
I watch all sorts of DnD optimisation content. And read all sorts of articles about broken builds and combos. But I don't play broken characters. I just want to take the idea I have in my head and make it as mechanically functional as I can. Because with how DnD works, you can't effectively roleplay without your character being able to back it up mechanically. Lie my current fighter is a spearfisher/whalehunter who fights by throwing harpoons. So I tried to find a build that could do that in a fun way. And doing no damage because your build sucks isn't fun.
@@KingBobbito Min-Maxxing is when you break the game by exploiting every little loophole and multiclass option imo. I agree with you, its very different from optimizing.
@@KingBobbito exactly, if I want to make sure my character is effective at the kind of things I’m going for I’m going to do my homework. For example, I came up with an undead hunter recently inspired by Van Helsing and making sure to read up on the appropriate feats, race options, and ability bonuses is half the fun
Oh, and on the Counterspell issue, if you are like Jasmine as a DM, look to how much havoc you can cause by having your minions able to cast the simple cantrip of Chill Touch. It hurts you with Necro damage, and keep you from healing until THEIR next turn. I have driven a party nuts using this simple cantrip!
Is it just me, or is counterspell a bit boring? Its too easy to just *turn off* someone else's spell, and then that person is just stuck without an action. It feels anticlimactic in a sense, regardless if it happens to a player or to a boss.
my table being both RP fanatics in-session and min-maxers out-of-session is actually so fun, because the DM knows we can mess some shit up so he can throw the crazy encounters at us, but we're also crazy immersed during the social encounters and out of combat
Once she reached for "did you or did you not play a min-maxed character and yet your roleplay was not lacking?!" Whoooff debate mastery! The only problem I have with min-maxing is that I sometimes play in rounds with them where the DM goes "oh well this was clearly not a challenge for the group I gotta give you stronger enemies" and then that character is either caught or taken out with a trick or magic and all of us are in danger of one-hit-k.o. 😅
That just sounds like your dm makes the combat deadlier to equalize the min maxed character and then throwing a spell to incapacitate them anyways. That’s a dm issue and not on the min maxer
I agree. It can cause some challenges when half the party went the demigod route of good min max and the others are new, fledgling story filled pinatas. But I have just made it so these "bad asses" names have proceeded them and now they get focused a lot more due to their fame. Freeing up the new players to have more freedom in combat and at times find more success. It def is a balance to be found and grown by the table. DM and Players together
Starstruck Odyssey supposedly had all of the Intrepid Heroes make "the most busted characters I have ever seen" (Quote: Brennan Lee Mulligan) and their roleplay was never found lacking. Why does having a busted character mean you're a worse roleplayer? When I found my players started becoming a bit strong for their level I started throwing bigger enemies at them, causing environmental challenges in the encounters and giving them in world consequences (Yes. If you use firebolt in the bar fight then the house will light on fire)
@@GamerGrovyle it's only an issue when the party balance is hard. Not impossible tho. There are lots of creative ways to handle things, so long as the min maxers at the table don't claim it's not fair if you balance things harder for them and easier for others on some level. Narrative choices help a lot here. Some min maxers play that way not because they like a challenge at all, but purely because they like feeling overpowered. So if you balance their power down you can make them salty for not letting them make the entire parties battle fast and easy with 2 round kills.
My old group had a party where one person chose a druid and made Wisdom his dump stat because he didn't realize that druids use Wisdom for spells and that his favourite ability, Flame Blade, used his Wisdom modifier instead of Dex. We of course helped him reorganize his stats after our group had cleared the first mission, but it just goes to show that some people just straight up don't read the PHB when making their characters.
Brennan also Roleplayed the shit out of Deadeye on NADDPOD season one, and he was straight min maxed to the gills. He practically transformed the rest of the NADDPOD crews skills just by them seeing what was possible when you really dive into your characters capabilities.
Fully agree on this one. The only time a min-maxer is really a problem is when the player themself is toxic and is using min-maxing as an excuse to abuse other players (the "OMG you're not playing your class in the specific meta way I think is best? What a noob!" type), at which point it's not min-maxing that's the problem, it's a toxic player. It's hardly limited to toxic min-maxers either, a hardcore role player can be just as toxic on the other end ("You're not using a special voice for your character and monologuing in ye olde speeke for every action that you do? Ugh! Don't you know this is a *roleplaying game*?"). Toxic people suck no matter what their preferred playstyle is.
I have a friend who I used to get into this with fairly often, and what we eventually realized is that the ways we approached the game were completely different, almost polar opposite, but we got to the same place - I'm a min-maxer, partly because I like numbers, but largely because I have rotten luck with dice; min-maxing is how I compensate for my inability to roll over a 7 for an entire session. (As a sidenote, this is why I like dice pool mechanics as they tend to simulate a bell curve better) As Brennan mentioned, it can feel really cruddy to have, on paper, a super cool character, but then have them be completely ineffective every time they're put into a combat situation. What got us to meet in the middle after truly years of having the discussion was talking about how we went about making characters. He is very much a big-concept-first type of person, and often leaves the actual mechanical build questions to the end of his character creation. Meanwhile, I start in the weeds looking for mechanics I think will be fun to play with, build the character from numbers, and let the numbers inform me on what the character might be. I think too that a lot of what the discourse around min-maxing misses is that a lot of min-maxers do the more absurd min-maxing as more of a thought exercise than anything else. There are some who will bring it to the table, and it's a problem if some characters at level 5 have problems with a group of a half dozen orcs while others can reliably deal enough damage to one-shot Asmodeus in a single round. My advice to any min-maxers who want to make truly powerful characters and minimize at-table friction: Build your broken abilities to boost up your team mates. Not only is it (usually) more effective overall, but it also helps your broken builds not feel like they're taking up the spotlight. 'Cause yeah if your 3.5e Bard whose bard song adds +10 to hit and damage and provides 2d6 healing per round to friends and deals 2d6 damage per round to enemies is a bit overpowered, it helps *everyone in the group* have cool moments, and really feels like you're contributing. Especially now that RPGs are becoming more seen as a story-telling medium and a collaborative endeavor, rather than a confrontation between GM and players, I think it's becoming more of a non-issue than it was in years past. The systems like FATE and Kids on Bikes/Brooms that give players some benefit when they fail in the form of fate/adversity/whatever tokens that can be used later to boost a roll or turn a situation in their favor somehow really helps take the sting out of failures, and makes it feel less bad to play flawed characters in games.
I'm less of a min-max-er and more of an optimizer. I narratively theme my characters and focus my build to make them the best at what I set them up for.
That is how I play the game to a tee and I feel doing this sets up my characters for role play more because of how I themed and the tropes associated with the themes
Do you like wargaming? 3e. Do you want as much roleplay with as little pesky rules as possible? 5e. There isn't really an argument there, but a very simple question of preference revolving around the different design philosophies of the two editions.
@@kylesmith7413 you could make more of an argument for PF vs 5e since PF takes the roleplaying and adds numbers and equations to it whereas 5e simply removes rules and allows the DM to custom make their games.
To make a bad analogy, it's like watching 2 professional swimmers; 1 is swimming off into the distance, the other has drowned. 3rd Isn't sleeping with the fishes btw. Does this mean that 3rd is perfect = nope, but 5th Ed just grates, it feels inferior, a childish version aimed at ppl with no attention span. The poorly written rules, the pointless artwork spanning page after page of every book, the poor class balancing, the favored classes with their always-picked specializations. I cannot take D&D seriously anymore, I moved to Starfinder a while ago (rather than Pathfinder) and I don't see any obvious opening for D&D in the near future... Hasbro, or Wizard's, or whoever constitutes the thinkers in that organization need to be locked away in a cupboard somewhere I suspect. The idea that D&D will become a service model in the future may well be the death knell of D&D, and in it's current state that might not be a bad thing.
@Blackfox413 "Allows the DM's to custom make their games" is the most diplomatic way of saying "Never fully fleshed out their rules, and expect the DM to do half the work for them." I've ever heard. FWIW, PF2e isn't the inviolable ruleset folks want to make it out to be, the primary difference between the two is that PF makes clear what the intent behind rules and systems are, while arming the GM with the tools to modify and add to those systems. A great example is the sheer amount of Variant Rules there are. You can look at that and say "Wow, they have rules for everything, I guess you aren't supposed to modify the base rules!" but really it's more "Wow, they expect you to modify the base rules, have thought of some common ways GM's might want to do that, and went out of their way to provide GM's with pre-altered rules. These are some GREAT examples of what I could do with the system."
I think a lot of it comes down to the reasons why someone is min-maxing. I recently had a player who only did it for the purpose of being the bad guy main character. But there already is a BBEG. He just wanted to be the main character of the party as an evil person just looking to be more evil in a group full of good characters.
Hope everyone doing good and staying safe. If you need to talk to someone or need help, there are people who care. Sending support and hearts. ❤️❤️❤️❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I think I'm starting to see Brennan's POV now. I hate minmaxers because they often get so powerful and know so much about the game they take all the fun out of it by taking away my opportunities to do things. Like yeah I want to fight, but everytime I swing at an enemy that enemy is already blown up. If I wanted to get to that level of power I'd often have to devote more time/effort than I have, and it would be to a point where it breaks my enjoyment of the game because it just feels like homework. That's my problem with minmaxers, but that's a problem with the player moreso not letting anyone else play. It's the DnD equivalent of not letting anyone else get a turn on the swingset.@@UltimateChaos233
You both make very good points. If these people actually only cared about role-playing, then they wouldn't be upset at party members figuring out how to create a character that is stronger than theirs. A 100% role player wouldn't care at all. In fact, it would probably contribute to immersion because it doesn't really make sense for all members of a party to arbitrarily be equally strong.
And to be honest, a 100% roleplayer probably needs min maxers at their table since they likely have very little in ways of defense or damage abilities. I dunno, roleplay to me doesn't rely on ability scores too much. I mean yes if I'm a Bard, Warlock, Paladin, etc I"ll be a bit more charming or talkative than maybe my Wizard or Druid, but there's no reason you can't still attempt it. I picture it like real life, how many of us know that person who thinks they're really funny or charming and talks alot but is really annoying and dull? There you go, thats a character who likes to talk a lot and thinks they have high charisma, but ability score wise is low. Same with INT, you could have a Barbarian whose super confident and talks about knowledge and what he knows all day long but is actually wrong in everything he says, but dang if he isn't confident in thinking he's right! So I prefer playing those ways, so that my character scores are highest in what they should be for optimizing that class, but give a good background story to roleplay them however I want.
@@alphaamino Definitely, same with roleplayers who call out a person for "min maxing" for choosing the right abilities for the class they picked. Everyone should play how they want, as long as roleplayers don't also whine that the min maxer is destroying everything in combat because the roleplayer chose that route.
I think it’s more a frustration over a lack of roleplaying. I don’t mind roleplaying against a minmaxed character, as long as they have a personality and aren’t just a stack of big stats in a trenchcoat. My lifeweary old war veteran with a heart of gold and a bone to pick against authority doesn’t have much to interact with if his partner in the scene is “man who is very strong and fast and also good at magic”.
I sort of disagree. A 100% roleplayer might still want a character to succeed at combat because that fits the narrative of who their character is, and they would be willing to play a min-maxed build because they're fine with reflavouring as needed. I.e. I think a 100% roleplayer would be fine playing a fighter with a bow if they want to play a more combat effective ranger archetype. But someone who is actually interested in the unique mechanics of the ranger class, not just the roleplay, has to trade that off against being more combat effective. (Yes, I know there are ways to make the ranger work, it's just an example). I also think combat isn't the only issue. Someone could hypothetically make an optimized bard that is great at social interactions and then dominate all of the social interactions without giving the other characters a chance to participate.
It's all about the fundamental design of the game. Some tabletop rpgs lend themselves better or worse to min-maxing based on their design. D&D is definitely a game that encourages min-maxing. I'm sure there are some smaller tabletop rpgs out there that thought of some creative solution that discourages min-maxing without making those who enjoy paying attention to the rules feel punished.
Or, Pathfinder 2e, where the difference between an "Optimized" and "Unoptimized" characters is like, a +1 *maybe* a +2 in a couple things. It's noticeable, definitely, but not overwhelming.
@T. Estable Exactly, there is of course a difficult balance between trying to make everything viable and making everything feel the same. I think if someone wants to have a game that is less concerned with optimal play, then you should probably condition your players to not necessarily always fear failure. Showing them that a failed charisma check can lead to something interesting down the line etc.
@@BigmanDogs Incomprables can help solve this problem. They're used in video games a lot but they're good in any boardgame or ttrpg too. For instance, being able to summon a dog companion to help you pick up loot vs summoning a eldritch abomination to tank damage for you. They're so different that you can't easily say which one is best (unless the balance is really off) because they do different things. If you don't use incomprables (looking at you stat based mmos) the choice between options is often just "guess I'll use the sword with more damage."
A common solution is to have scaling costs which tends to be point buy systems. The study of what is optimal to do in a game is called Game Theory, this does include studying how to manipulate what is optimal to get the behavior you want.
In the only session I've ever run as a DM, I had 3 players and all of them were minmaxers and it was it was incredible. I was literally able to throw an ogre, a bandit captain, and a mimic at them and they shredded them without even needing to take so much as a short rest. They were level 3.
When I was in high school I had a group of around 7 friends I would hang out with, but it was very rare that we were all in the same place at the same time. Each time "the group" would meet up it would be a different combination of friends, so we couldn't really have an ongoing campaign with any sort of reliability. We ended playing a long series of unrelated one-shots. I had a lot of fun with this idea but I felt like I was missing out on the "progression" element of Tabletop RPGs, so I learned how to make stronger and stronger characters over time in the systems we played. I once built a level 1 character in D&D 4e with the *technically possible* ability to 1-shot some dragons, (although to be fair, the odds were slim,) without ever having consulted the internet for builds. It was a fun time.
You hit the nail on the head when it comes to "Min/Maxers are a mechanics issue, not a player issue." I can definitely point to times when it felt like I just didn't have ways to be useful to the party (even as an "OP" Paladin). Some of that was not understanding the mechanics of my class well, some was self-imposed RP decisions because I wanted to build characters with serious drawbacks to fuel more interesting narrative RP, but it definitely wasn't a great time. I think it has similar connective tissue to why it feels so bad when climactic roles I'm glad you delved into "give them other unique challenges" as a solution, it reminds me of how Overly Sarcastic Productions has talked about the best writers handling the character of Superman: If he can steamroll any matched opponent, give him conflicts that aren't relying on matched opponents. Hostage rescue, natural disaster, etc. Places where his powerset is absolutely useful, but the outcome is not so predetermined. Great talk and glad you guys dispensed with the debate to enjoy the conversation!
When Brennan mentioned them being competitive debaters it became too serious for them both. Jasmine successfully winning and Brennan saving the “debate” by furthering the actual show
I'm so here for this perspective, I always hate when people act like roleplay and following the rules are diametrically opposed to one another even though literally the only purpose of the rules is to facilitate drama and influence you into making more interesting choices. Roleplaying is more than just players reciting dialogue at each other during downtime, casting a healing spell is roleplaying, a barbarian drawing aggro with their high amounts of HP is roleplaying, rolling above 20 on a Deception check is roleplaying.
I had an argument with my best friend that running and escaping from a dragon's lair is in fact, roleplaying, despite the fact that we used every single expendable resource and spell slot to make it out alive.
This feels like a straw man to me. It's rare for me to find Roleplayers who dump the stat they're trying to RP. If they wanna wow people in speech they don't dump charisma (generally). What rubs them the wrong way is when they get denied their moment by "big numbers guy" who clearly isn't into it ("I rolled a 23, I convinced the king even though I didn't present an argument, too bad 'impassioned argument man' rolled a 1" -suddenly the RP player was denied both the success, and the failure, of their hard work.) Their moment was stolen by someone who wanted "all the moments." Bad min-maxers, and bad non-minmaxers, do this (barb rolls 20 on intelligence 5% of the time. But the novelty wears off when the "min-maxed" rogue/ranger/bard with 8 expertises continuously out-knowledges the 20 int wizard and out wisdoms the druid).
@@Xyronyte Well like they discussed in the video, a player trying to have too many "moments" isn't a problem with minmaxing it's a player problem, you can totally have that kind of player without them having the stats to necessarily back it up.
@@Tickerbee Very true. It's just, when they fail, we get to laugh at their hubris. The m/m doesn't usually fail (unless the whole party is balanced, or the dm is a biased arbiter and gives one player a higher DC than the others). Fail enough, and they may just learn something without intervention. Anakin resembles the bad min-maxer: everyone kept trying to rein him in so he didn't hurt himself or others, but he was just OP enough that things always went his way (and he never learned the needed lesson). I personally prefer to talk things out out-of-character, but some players/dms prefer to use natural consequences. Min-maxers are hard to "punish." (I'll be clear I don't agree with punishing players)
One of the things I always try to tell my "Role Play Focus Player" is to ask the "Min-Max Player", how they do what they do and how they can do it too. The inverse of this having the "Min-Max Player" be pulled into Role Playing cool or key moments by the "Role Play Focus Player". I agree these things are not mutually exclusive but when they are. Working together helps. I've found its the best way to remove misunderstandings and overshadowing. Ya know, being collaborative in this collaborative game. Great Video!
I've never played D&D, but I want to someday. I've been watching videos on how to play, learning the rules and vernacular used in games, and listening to horror stories. The conclusion that I've reached is that min-maxing, power gaming, or optimizing isn't inherently bad. The true problem is that it comes with a stigma of being associated with "that guy."
@@DjG7979 how does the rest of the group feel about that? When you say "harder stuff," I'm assuming you mean combat encounters. Is the rest of the group able to contribute somehow, or does your min-maxer become the mc because they're the only one that can handle what you throw at them?
@meijinx9673 depending on what character he plays. I have run several campaigns with him. He also DMs at times. Usually, I will create encounters that exploit his weakness. I.e. if he tents to grapple things "too" effectively, I will throw monsters of a large or huge size every few encounters. It's not outside of the range of the other players, so they still have fun and contribute equally. And there are lots of combats where I he still dominates because I don't want anyone feeling targeted. Outside of combat, if his character is "too" observant, I'll get a bit nitpicky. (He will notice the lines in the sand no one else can see. Or he will smell the smoke in the air, but I will make him roll survival or nature to see if he understands what they mean. (I make the other payers do it as well, but since it is the observant one, it comes up more with him. Communication being key we talk about this to make sure we are not ruining each others fun. After several years of playing together I think we have it down.
@@meijinx9673 Your powerful character becoming the anchor of the group isn't a bad thing, they can prop up the other characters and create a stronger identity for them. Like how Gandalf carried the fellowship of the ring.
@@punishedwhispers1218 while you may be right, from what I've heard in "that guy" stories, those guys usually don't give a fuck about propping up the others and being Gandalf. You should say it "isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing." I can think of plenty of ways that shit can go wrong if the right people aren't involved
This is a really interesting topic. From what I've seen, usually when people complain about Min-maxers / optimizers what they're really complaining about is someone always hogging the spotlight. So it's not really a problem with the min-maxing in and of itself, it's a problem player trying to make everyone else their sidekick. Also, a video on how to handle or design for different types of players could be cool.
@@tieflinglesbianyeah, so that everyone can sit and watch the min maxer do 7 things and murder 30 enemies, then the wizard can hit one guy with a firebolt and go back to ordering pizza
@@tieflinglesbian so is the min maxer just supposed to breeze through every encounter or should they be ramped up in such a way make the min maxing redundant and make the rest of the party feel more useless? Neither sound like good options to me but I don't really understand the appeal of murdering custom tailored encounters just as well as an unoptimised party except with less variety
This conversation is almost entirely about the Min-Max Player and the DM, and mostly whiffs on the actual issue, which is the table dynamic It is rare, especially when you have a table of relatively novice players, that you’ll have 4 or 5 players that are enthusiastic to role play as the sidekicks to one much more powerful player, especially if you’re in a game where the majority of the table is less concerned over the mechanical elements of the game, and more invested in the narrative Moreover, one thing is playing with Min-Maxers like Brennan and Jasmine, or Erika Ishii, that study the mechanics, internalize them, and maybe even drill potential scenarios ahead of time (and then are also great actors on top of that) It’s very different when you have a person at the table that’s taking 20-30 minutes consulting the manual (or worse still, passionately arguing with the DM about the META) just to decide what their “6 second” turn in combat is going to look like A turn timer isn’t always an appropriate solution because a) it may only serve to discourage the player from participating entirely, rather than encouraging them to play looser b) it may be that another player at the table legitimately needs more time as an accommodation Lastly, and this is less relevant, purely min-maxing can miss out on some of the more rewarding narratives I consider myself to be a bit of a min-maxer myself, certainly in regards to how I approach combat When designing a character however, I really like to intentionally give the characters I play a mechanical disadvantage to try and overcome in the campaign This only works in longer games😅 One time, I played an Owlin that was afraid of flying, but the module the DM was working with wasn’t very long, so my character didn’t get over his fear before the game ended His backstory was cool though, and the traumatic event that made him afraid to fly informed many of his decisions in the game in a way that I didn’t expect going in All in all, I really enjoyed playing him The “Git gud” attitude they conveyed really rubbed me the wrong way A good DM can craft an asymmetrical challenge that doesn’t “feel” unjust, unfair, or cruelly and unusually punitive A comprehensive session 0 can iron out these discrepancies before the game even starts A group of strong players, be they narratively or mechanically proficient, wouldn’t be in this predicament to start… but the players that DO find themselves in this situation aren’t quite there yet Saying “Git-Gud” is like saying “you don’t deserve to be having fun playing DND until you reach a certain level” which is the type of gatekeep-y BS rhetoric that keeps people from getting invested in this game
I think min-maxers can even be a fit within a role-playing group, depending on how adaptable the other players are. Imagine a min-maxer's character as something like a John Wick or Jason Bourne: someone who becomes precise and mechanical in battle situations (or any high-stress situation). Perhaps due to their training, or as a coping mechanism, or for any of a variety of other reasons: a cleric of a lawful deity might believe that violence must be precise, ordered, and dispassionate in its application, a warlock might have a patron which prefers its feast of blood unseasoned by the passions or preferences of the warlock who acts as the conduit for said tribute, a monk could enter a detached zen-like state while channeling their chi, or a wizard could return in their mind to the memory of their studious youth when they conjure forth their memorized spells. Min-maxers who have no interest in meeting role-players halfway, or vice-versa, can be an issue. But sufficient imagination and a desire for everyone to enjoy the game in their own ways can create a very fertile middle ground.
I think that was best way for it to go. The points Jasmine was making were just incontestable. And Brennan making the point that it almost always comes back to a mechanical Issue. ... get good? I have to agree. If you want to make a bad ass character min-max wise, but you don't know the rules that well. ask a Veteran player, or the GM. either most of the time will love nothing but to drop things and sit down and geek out on TTRPGs, not just D&D. But i've always like the balance that is there in the game. You want to be amazing warrior that is good with a weapon, and maybe tactics. Fighter. OMG Fighter to the max, but then you need a character that can handle the talking, and the social aspects. Bard, sorcerer, Cleric, and/or Paladin at times. Need that sneaky person that can get into the backlines, or into somewhere they should be? The Rogue, or a Ranger. But don't count out the Druid either. You need an specialist on the Arcane? Find the awkward, introverted Wizard that can recite Mordenkainen's laws of "Whatever" and can end an encounter with a spell, but guess what they can't take a hit. That is where the Fighter steps up and is like "I got this." If you got a min-maxer that doesn't rp at much or at all. Its more often than not because they feel like they will just embarrass themselves. Start little with them, don't ask them to do a voice, just get little thing out of him, and be encouraging. You work with them and show them that your not going to berate them if you don't suddenly break out into Old English. Back in college I played with guys in 3.5 edition and we were all min-maxers. I mean we bending the rules till you could hear them start to scream and crack. BUT, so was our DM. He would put things infront of us that we had no business taking out and most of the time we would sqeak by. but even then we had our moments of role play. all the while sitting back and meming before that was a thing, and laughing our asses off over some of the most stupid things. But it was fun. Most of us were in same martial arts club, so after the season, lol many times the session would become an imprompt sparring session. lol so much fun.
Pretty much all the issues with power gamers are other issues with the player that get exacerbated by the fact that they are more powerful than their allies. I'm a bit of a power gamer myself, and for years I've run games with a group consisting of a mix of power gamers, storytellers, and friends who just want to hang out with almost no drama, because everyone understood why everyone else was there, and wanted to help everyone have a good time.
Let's not forget she got to pick her position. Brennan is pro minmax, it is hard for him to argue against it as effectively, particularly when she starts using his tendency to minmax as an argument. It is a little like me saying "ballet is a good thing and you now have to argue against it" to a ballet dancer then I proceed to say "you are a ballet dancer so why are you arguing against this?".
Yeah, I've always hated that part of formal debate. You're *assigned* a position to argue, even if you don't believe in that position at all. At that point, you're not practicing debate anymore, you're practicing deception.
That wasn't her argument. The standard minmaxer complaint is that they minmax instead of RPing, so she provided an example of a person and character that was able to do great RPing while still minmaxing. The fact that that person happened to be her opponent was just a bonus, not actually relevant to the argument.
@@IceMetalPunk >> You're assigned a position to argue, even if you don't believe in that position at all. At that point, you're not practicing debate anymore, you're practicing deception. The idea is to be able to consider different perspectives and understand their logical underpinnings well enough to use them in discourse. It can get a little goofy, but it can still be a useful mental exercise. And there are much worse problems with modern formal debate than the assignment of positions.
5:51 Brennan's got that face of "Oh, man, this wasn't supposed to be ACTUAL debate, we're just supposed to be messing around and now I have to make this work..."
Classically, as in 2e and earlier, Min-Maxing was more defined by use of the point buy system raising one stat to the highest available stat at the cost of putting one stat at the lowest possible. These types of characters were difficult to justify in terms of roleplay; min-max in those days was 3-18. We don't use that style of definition anymore because the standard point array is already min-maxed. There's a 15 (highest possible pre-racial stat) and an 8 (minimum). Everyone's min-maxing by 2e definitions.
On the story aspect of min-maxing my characters is that I love playing the min moments up for the comedic beat. So my barbarian is a Hulk and nothing can get past him, but intel and charisma checks are terrible-- and play up the failure. No one likes characters without flaws. This is the whole point of different classes with different +/- to each, and combining them is the soul at the center of share storytelling experience.
i play my arcane trickster's low wisdom and low strength for all the hilarity potential and play the high dex and int for all the coolness i can pull off
I think you're misunderstanding what the min in min-maxing means. It means to max your character out to to tiniest miniscule detail. But I whole heartedly agree with you. My favorite character I've ever made is my Wizard who dumped all of his physical stats for really high mental stats but still chooses to put himself in harms way to protect the rest of the party since he's sort of the big brother of the group.
I will preface this with saying I am relatively new to D&D, but I have learned as much about it as I can over the past few months. I have min-maxed my characters, *but* specifically with a narrative focus. For example, I have a goblin monk with a level in rogue with low intelligence, low strength, and particularly low charisma, but high constitution, and very high dexterity and wisdom. It makes sense from a character perspective, though: this character is never seen as intimidating, is seen as small, weak, not threatening, but whenever someone calls her weak or similar, she is just furious - like in Back to the Future when someone calls Marty chicken. Her skill proficiencies and expertise are all geared towards this furious character who is deceivingly weak on the surface. There isn't anything mechanically about the character which can't be easily explained narratively - I min-maxed her for that narrative specifically.
The only think that's truly hard to adapt to is if one player at a table of flawed low maximization characters is actually super min maxed, so a challenging battle for one is an impossible battle for others, and a reasonable battle for the group is a breeze for the powerhouse. But as a DM you can still find ways to accomodate this. But ways to do this both narratively and mechanically deserves its own discussion.
Yes this is the real issue with unbalanced characters - they make creating a challenge for both them and the rest of the party very difficult and volatile. In my game I had a ranger who did the most damage and was extremely hard to pin down (I think this happens often with ranged damage dealers, especially if they have decent defenses as well). In order to "challenge that player" I had to devise very specifically targeted mechanics that somehow did not threaten the rest of the party but threatened the ranger, or I had to use monsters so powerful they would mow through the rest of the party and be able to attack the ranger. Part of the problem is the lack of monster immunities and even effective resistances once magic weapons are in play - it would be easier if you could just throw in a monster that is highly resistant or immune to the shenanigans of the overpowered character.
I played a bloodhunter in a game, and went full in on the Witcher theme to the point of their job was a professional monster hunter before they became an adventurer. Literally EVERY check i made to figure out information on a monster was just absolutely beansed due to the dice just not working out. You had this person who was a pro monster hunter who literally never knew anything about monsters.
This actually blends into the conversation they were having. If the dice were "just not working out" for you, would you not then turn around and say "well now my character is just pretending like he was a professional monster hunter!"
The only time I’ve ever had a problem with a min/maxer was with a guy who liked to min/max because he hated any type of unsuccessful combat. His min/maxing was never an issue, the issue was that he was a sore loser and didn’t play well with others. I had an awesome min/maxer in another game, his favourite part of DnD was strategizing and doing really impressive moves in combat and min/maxing was a fun part of that. He was so awesome to play with, the other players had a lot of fun setting him up for his big finishing moves or doing cool combos together. And one of our newbies loved playing with him because they felt less pressure in combat and were able to relax and have fun. He was a teammate, so it was really fun watching him kick butt on the battlefield and we’re all winners having fun!
Hot take: Characters that are optimized to some degree are the most realistic characters to roleplay. Most people in real life are drawn towards pursuits that they possess at least some skill in, because consistently failing at even the most basic tasks of a certain job sucks and feels bad, while doing well at something because you are either naturally talented or well practiced feels good.
I think the difference between optimized and min/maxed is that optimized characters are less likely to be completely useless in something that isn't part of their optimization. They understand that at least a bit of well roundedness is kinda useful. Min/maxed characters only specialize in a narrow area and have to hope that someone else can carry them in things outside that area.
I'm decent at my job, but I'm a complete anxious and depressed mess overall. I also didn't start out the best at my job, I learned it over time.That's not min-maxing, it's specializing, and that's the equivalent of picking a class and then slowly getting better as you level up.
@@JMcMillen Would you not say that leaving room for other characters to be good at the things you aren't is better roleplaying than trying to solve every problem yourself?
@@tieflinglesbian I never said that an optimized character would try to solve everything themselves. Just that if they did something outside their normal role they probably wouldn't completely suck at it. From a 5e perspective, an optimized character used the standard distribution while a min/maxed character used the point buy to start with 3 15's and 3 8's. That means that while the OC doesn't quite have the attribute bonuses the M/MC would have, they have a lot few penalties for stuff outside their focus. Because you never know when you might have to step outside your focus to try and do something, because either the PC that would normally do it is unavailable OR it's something everyone in the party is having to do as individuals. Believe me, I did an extremely min/maxed character for Living Greyhawk 3.5 and it wasn't as fun as you might think. Because if the adventure doesn't give you opportunities to do those things you focused on, you're pretty much doing nothing except following the rest of the party around.
DnD is one of the few games where playing a well developed character and having mechanical strength aren't the same thing. A min maxed Masks character is just a very good and interesting character.
Honestly thank you both for this, I as a player always got so much shit from other players about my characters being min/max and overpowered when in reality I was just the only one that read the whole handbook and really enjoyed making characters. So I made a lot of them, and helped most of my fellow players make their characters. I always followed all restrictions any of my dms made when it came to starting stats and feats etc. Watching this was amazing I 100% Stan the git gud response to this
I have been in a game where one player was doing so much damage that it felt like the rest of us weren't relevant in combat. Part of that was actually him role playing the character as so crazy it was hard to tell if he was actually getting hurt so the fights were closer than they looked. While I actually had a lot of fun in that campaign, I could see where people could be frustrated in a campaign where the fights are either no challenge to one super character or incredibly deadly to everyone else. If everyone is min-maxed or no one is you're good to go, but when you get a mix it can generate some issues.
While I agree that it can be a problem, I disagree that the problem is min maxing, but rather a player problem. I will call min-maxer optimizers from here on out. Just as an optimizer can be an excellent roleplayers, so can they be aware and emphathetic of their fellow players. In the same vein other players can also be bad roleplayers, or not socially aware or emphathetic to their fellow players. Is optimising the problem, or is the problem that they are stepping on other characters toes, or hogging the spotlight too much? I think some people just want to be better than everyone else, which is deeply problematic in a game like DnD. However, I would urge people to not mistake power tripping egoistic players from optimisers. Often the former is the latter, but the latter is far from always the former. Many optimisers care about character concept, and about sharing spotlight, and lifting fellow players up. Many optimisers may choose harder concepts to optimise well to lower their power potential when playing with weaker groups. They are still optimising though. It is just that they are aware, emphathetic of their fellow players, and therefore choose a smart concept for their character which creates an optimising challenge for them.
There is nothing inherently wrong with min-maxing and optimizing your character. There is nothing inherently wrong with building to a theme and selecting abilities that seem fun or fitting to the roleplay instead of absolutely maximizing combat potential. What's important is to KNOW YOUR GROUP. If you're sitting down at a table with a gang of people who aren't here for cranking out the biggest numbers, maybe leave Chad Peak Performance's character sheet at home. Conversely, if you're settling in with a group who are all about extremely high performance combat and difficult encounters, Sheldon the Bumbling Chef probably shouldn't be your go-to.
I feel like the issue here is that kinda ignores that a person could simply want both? We talk a lot about roleplay and Chad Performance like they're always separate things but they don't need to be. If you want to play a prodigy swordsman who's only spent time in isolation with their master and solely studying the blade in order to be the best at it then you've created the opportunity to roleplay someone who is constantly astounded and flummoxed by the outside world, or someone who discovers new passions, or someone who realizes their upbringing was a detriment to their ability to develop meaningful friendships. Separating the two kinda ignores the real problem that people can just be honest about what they want out of a game and what makes them feel bad during the game. It's impossible to be good at everything, and people are always gonna shine in different areas. Sometimes people don't like that and how it shifts things but if that cant be solved with a conversation it wasn't gonna be a good table fit.
@@Xjr555kid Definitely agree. In one of my groups I play in i'd say I am the most "min maxed" or optimized build but i'm also the one who leans the most into roleplay. Definitely not reason not to do both, I prefer doing both, so I am able to do things well with my character and use their backstory and personality to drive the roleplay.
@@Xjr555kid True. The issue occurs when it becomes fun at other's expense. For example, consider a character who is consistently expert at all aspects of the game (think min-maxed fey wanderer who has +10 in every skill check, and pumps out 50 damage a round). Is that a problem on its own? No. What if they don't roleplay? Still not a problem. If the rest of the party plays similar characters, I don't see an issue. I do see an issue if they hog the spotlight and develop main character symptom (e.g., P1 OHKO's the man who killed P2's father, before P2 gets a chance to think, talk, or strike a measly, pathetic blow, followed by that same player insisting on talking to P3's father, the king, and thereby sidelining P3's big moment to defy their father because "well, I have the better stats." The problem isn't min-maxing, but min-maxing can empower the problem player if they lack EQ
@Xyronite But the problem player is gonna be a problem no matter what. Even a player who is really into roleplaying and doesn't think about the numbers can still be a problem player. My broader point about all this is that Minmaxing isn't the problem. The problem is always just a bad player. If someone feels outshined and insecure, usually that only takes a conversation, and the min maxer doesn't even need to change their build. They can just pick their moments better. Minmaxing isn't the problem, bad players are the problem. Minmaxing may enable bad players to be bad in a different way, but you could say the same about roleplayers, rules lawyers, and everything else.
This video actually did show the danger of min maxing. Jasmine picked a strategy that was so optimized Brennan really didn't even get to play. If all the players are Spikes and there is an opportunity to later counter that strategy than that's fine. But Johnny's will be frustrated because they wouldn't have time to get their strategy up and running. And Timmy's will be frustrated because one sided fights feel bad.
Love this discussion, the takeaway isn’t “everyone/no one should min-max”, it’s “let people play how they want, if it’s upsetting the party, maybe you should find a more fitting party to your play style”
This is why I always say create your character and then make a character sheet to match. It can be kind of tricky due to the class limitations, especially at early levels, but I find it far more enjoyable to use a character with a decent backstory and abilities to match than to build out the sheet first and figure out how to make a backstory fit. I recently wanted to create a genie warlock and was struggling to create a backstory for him because I felt hampered by the restrictions of the mechanics. It was like forcing my ideas to fit inside a box and I had to throw out things that wouldn't work with the theme.
As a player who enjoys learning the rules and fine-tuning my characters to function exactly the way I imagined them, it's really great to hear such influential gamers making the points I've been arguing for decades.
For me as a DM, I do agree largely with what was said here. However, there is one situation that they didn't address that I wish they would have. It's no fun to be the only player at the table who isn't min/maxed. I'm talking your first time players getting thrown in with a bunch of veterans. Players in that situation (I've found) are the ones who end up leaving the game because they feel like they just don't get it, and let me be clear, THIS IS FOR THE DM TO FIX. You should help players build the character they want to play. Make them effective at the things they want to be effective at. Throw them the situations their character was designed for! If you have four players, and three of them are combat gods, make sure that you provide situations for the fourth character to shine.
Great video, there is just one thing that is bothering me. Changing the encounter on the fly is an easy but very dangerous solution if you play a long term campaign. If your players ever lose their trust in you as a DM, it will be very very difficult to regain it. If you start adding HP to the monster to counterbalance the high damage output of the players, they will stop trying to do high damage. If you start adding more enemies to the encounter when you players kill every minion too fast, they will stop trying to kill multiple ennemies in their turn. Let you players be awesome, reward them for their strategies instead of punishing them.
I think it's more of a problem when the reverse happens: "And my character was kicked out of his barbarian tribe for being too puny." "So what class is he then?" "A barbarian." "So his goal as an adventurer is too prove them wrong?" "Oh no they were completely right about him. Strength is his dump stat."
@@ethancaron9259 i would not say "completely viable", but they can be playable - you throw away tons of strong sides of class and change them to nothing after all. But you can make kind of good Ancestral Guardian with bow.
@@Michael-bn1oito me that “joke character” can absolutely be played in a way that can be exciting, engaging, and fun. Narratively having a character with the caveat that they’re not great at what they’re supposed to do raises lots of interesting questions, and could lead down so many different paths. Do they find redemption and grow into their original role? Do they go through a journey of self-discovery and re-class/multi class? Do they find a way to make their strengths work within their class and find success? Shutting that down and saying “That’s dumb we can’t work with that don’t play with us” seems harsher than is fair to me, and it’s kind of where I disagree with the argument of “get good or build better”. Obviously it comes down to the individual and there’s always going to be differing opinions but that’s where we get these sorts of discussions.
I think the issue I've seen when a minmaxy person caused issues was because they over expressed how other people could be "more optimal" or really wanted to do a very effective thing that they wouldn't have known to do in character. Those technically aren't unique to minmaxing, but it seems to happen a lot more with mechanically obsessive players
Not all min-maxers are metagamers and not all metagamers are minmaxers. Also isn't the issue with a minmaxer trying to force other players to minmax the same as a roleplayer trying to force another player to speak in character or describe every attack in combat or write a fifteen page backstory. I think min-maxers get way more blame than they are due from other types of problem players.
@@EdsonR13 of course. My point is that minmaxers can get a bad name because of bad things that some minmaxers do as a result of toxic optimization. The same as how metagaming isn't inherently bad. (It's kind of necessary for most parties to actually decide to start adventuring together) but there are negative ways it can be done and often is done such that it gets a bad rep. The root problem isn't minmaxing your character. I just felt like the conversation missed some of the legitimate gripes people have when talking about it and how to distinguish between the two. (I'm admittedly biased because the behaviors I'm describing lead to the latest group drama I've been in)
I think the often overlooked thing about Min/maxing is that it encourages role play. Your character has built in flaws reflected by your character sheet. If you’re a barbarian with 8s in all your mentals, so you can get three 16s with your Vuman +1s and a half-feat, you are roleplaying a dim witted bruiser. If your character has maxed charisma and a negative wisdom, they’re the life of the party but lack insight into the intentions of those around them.
I agree but also you can mix it up. Your Barbarian could believe their super smart and wise, try to but in at every moment with a wise thought or try to solve something only to fail horribly but still have that confidence that they're the smartest guy in the room. Could be a fun roleplay.
This is a lot of good advice that i inadvertently stumbled into because my table was wildly imbalanced, mechanically speaking. A power player, 2 min-maxers, 2 roleplayers, and 1 there for the chaos. Desinging battles & challenges became a nightmare after the first year, until i realized- im the one telling the story, i can make up any situation i want (as long as it fit the rules of my world) and started giving world consequences to what the outcome of battle was. They ended up jelling very well because the more the characters were out for themselves or didn't take care of other party members, the more the world would grow chaotic and unfriendly, but when they acted like a team or took unusual hooks/paths the world was more forgiving & lawful.
I think the main issue is not min-maxing, it's players that want to rules lawyer so they don't have a weakness (or outright cheat). That said there does need to be some kind of balance in the party to make sure we're not leaving players who didn't min-max for combat basically feeling pointless. I remember trying to make a rogue character for an evil campaign where one guy did some really shady stuff (with a newbie DM, most of us players had only played 1 campaign) and tried to mind-control the party. Saying "get good" to a new DM implies that players bear no responsibility to each other and the DM. This is why it's so hard to find people willing to DM. I got no problem if a player wants to min-max, just don't be an ass.
Honestly that's been my major position on it. Min/maxing isn't inherently bad. But if the person doing so is doing it in a way that disrupts the table to a degree then that becomes an issue with that particular mentality of play. Whether that's invalidating other players own play niches (making the perfect pc) , making it so the table has no combat challenges unless the dm hard focuses that one player which can adversely affect the other pcs or as you described it actively being hostile to other pcs using the mechanics as an excuse. All these things can be perfectly fine at a table that plays that way. But at other tables that viewpoint or play style is a hinderence to others there players and dm alike
@@Synetik Most of my favorite characters are straight down the line dice rolled. My DM prefers that, we've been using a modified version of the Old School Ruleset (1e). I think it untethered me from the idea of creating an incredible backstory and roleplaying the rolls more than the stats. It's been great. You're right that Min-maxing takes a lot of forms, and it usually exists as a way to overcome challenges, which is just designing to play the game. My only qualm with the general culture around min-maxing is the plethora of build guides that try to rank the optimal build. That's just me though, so take it with a bag of salt
For me I'll rather be the one that finishes fights quickly so they can go back to roleplaying. Especially if they're trying to save spells so we don't have to short rest or worse retreat for a long rest. This is why I'm fine with running homebrew because there's interesting custom race/linage and class/subclass interactions that can make for good roleplay. Either it be players or NPCs.
I love that Brennan was so quick to admit defeat because he was already on board. It is awesome to see that they point out that roleplay and min maxing aren't mutually exclusive.
For me there is a world of difference between someone that optimizes their character to work well, and someone that tries to exploit weirdly written mechanics to do some objectively OP things. Now it differs greatly per group, cause every table and campaign can function completely differently. Another big point in my opinion is how open any given player is to conversation. For example, I had the well-known Hexblade + Paladin combo in one of my longer running games. Quite early on it became clear that in combat especially he was able to solo many encounters cause of how high he could hit, whilst the others could not hope to keep up. This was fine, right up until I as a GM struggled a bit to keep the encounters fun and engaging for everyone equally whilst not forcefully trying to just do things to counter any particular build. But after a quick talk, the Player agreed it is more fun for our table if everyone is able to fight together in those combats, so on future levels he took some more RP related choices whilst the others improved their combat abilities. He still hit much higher than the rest of the crew, but the encounters felt much more fun and engaging.
Good take, sometimes when there's someone that's so powerful compared to the others, as a GM you're in a pinch cause if that player gets hard counter, not only it may argue you're playing against them, or if the op character drops, now the rest of the party is very ill-suited for dealing with the challenged-up thing you did. sure you can buff the other players, but then again you'll have an even worse balacing to do. In a community where the ratio of DM/GM ratio is already bad, telling them to 'git gud' isn't in my opinion the best take, it's already not easy to compensate for some tabletop bad balance, giving a blanket blame on the DM/GM is cheap. And yeah, depends mostly on communication and group expectations/chemistry, as usual.
@@ProjectBarcodeError Sorry but I disagree. This isn't a good take. @UberGamerNL admits that they asked a player to nerf themselves in order to have a more balanced game. This is completely contrary to what this video is about. This video has a strong argument for why imbalance is baked into 5e and that uncreative GM's are the problem not the min-maxed player. So what if the player has a Hexadin? Throw a cleric on the enemy's side who heals the boss after the Hexadin crits. Hexadin's aren't great at splitting focus. Now the rest of the team needs to work together to take out the boss and the cleric. There are so many work arounds like this if you only think creatively.
I think one can both do their best while also role play well and often. They’re not mutually exclusive and you don’t need to make bad choices just for flavour
completely agree, and if you go too far to the roleplayer/non min maxer side you're now pretty useless in combat and weighing your group down for a falvourful character. I say invest in the abilities that makes sense for your class, and make a good backstory that you can lean into for your roleplaying. It can be fun to make a Barbarian who thinks they're really high in charism and charm but fail miserably at every attempt despite the confidence.
Part of this is about the type of game. In a dungeon crawl or hex crawl wilderness exploration, you want to be good at combat, and if you're not you're going to be bored during combat. While in a political campaign with few combat encounters, you want to have some way to do political maneuvering.
Yeah, but I had a friend who couldn't bear to pay the flavor text. It was a quibble over half orc vs vhuman because of one feat. It's how he enjoys the game, so that's fine; but I feel like he limits himself flavor-wise, for the sake of mechanics.
@@eyflfla tell him about custom lineage from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It has level 1 feat, ASI of +2 to one stat, and either one skill or darkvision. It also has the option of either medium or small size. The idea of it is that you can be any race while having options for what you start with. TCE also lets you pick where the level 1 ability score bonuses go for any race, so long as you don't stack them.
![Nat 1's Are Better Than Nat 20's | Adventuring Academy [Brennan Lee Mulligan, Sam Reich]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ea_cR__Cej4/mqdefault.jpg)
When she said "I'm against child soldiers" I fully expected Brennan to blurt out _"If they're smaller, they're harder to hit!!"_ or something like that
The children yearn for war
"I'm against child soldiers IN DND"
well i'm not - that can be a great worldbuilding tool to show how fucked up the villain is.
And it allows the party to save them.
Or a PC to have been a former child soldier.
You just want to stop your villains from doing evil things? Well then what's the point?
"It's good exercise!"
The fact she's wearing an "Enfants Terribles" shirt is making me go "METAL GEAR?!?!" all of a sudden hahahaha
I was expecting him to be like. "But the morality factor that the enemy has to shoot children will fuck them up and some will more then likely not shoot or harm the child soldier."
When she said "If you wanted a balanced game you'd play Warhammer." Me and 5 other people laughed really hard.
The wink really sold it.
I don't even play Warhammer but I felt that can't possibly be the case seeing as how complicated it is! Glad I found this comment.
@@immanuelaj the concept of the game is really great, but the execution of the game is... Rough most of the time.
(Laughs in codex creep)
There are DOZENS of us!! And the Warhammer players say if you want a balanced game, play chess.
Watching Brennan reluctantly arguing against minmaxing was like watching a fish argue against water
People confuse minmaxing for powergaming too often. You can make an effective character while also being there to have fun.
@@UTO7 powergaming is a lot of fun, come on now
@@DellikkilleD but at what point do you tell a player to just go play Baldur's gate 3 because they want to control a party by themselves(aka use sidekicks which isn't a rule but is DM optional). I hate gamers who play TTRPGs and expect me to allow them to take over everyones game and turn it into their own personal fantasy sandbox and if you dont go along with something they will annoying demand you show them the rule where it says they cant do something, then i have to slam the emergency brakes on everyone elses fun time to account for the meta gaming player who had years to analyze the perfect race/class combo to allow him to live out his Dark Souls single player fantasy while everyone else spent maybe an hour on the books to find something they think they would enjoy playing. One player wants to win everything(probably save scums to the max on BG3) while the rest of my players are trying to roleplay and have a good time. I dont know about you but that is why metagaming/powergaming sucks.
Min-maxing wasn't a thing till 3rd Edition, thats when the game went from a ttrpg that would take place in thinkspace to the WOTC D&D which we know today. 3rd to 5th edition was very tactical and technical because they wanted to the game systems to be similar to rpg video games being released at the time, therefore making in an easy transition between the way people approached video games and the way people approached TTRPGs.
@@UTO7 i just hope the paladin of devotion has a immersive reason for selling his soul and taking on eldrich powers without papa knowing
@@jackk1914 Power, that is the only reason needed.
Brennan could not resist completing his animal fact during the zebra metaphor.
The completion was relevant to the metaphor! He was saying that the issue only appeared to be equally viewable two different ways.
@@Angriestpirate Oh, for sure, he is very pleased with himself for having found a relevant animal fact!
Sad part is that that info is incorrect
To be honest, I was a little disappointed that Brennan got the Zebra fact wrong. They are black with white stripes
@@therealjp5480 Did he? or did he intentionally sabotage his argument because he is pro min-maxer.
I love having Min/Maxers in my group. I get to open the “fun section” of the monster manual.
for real! No more gnolls for you! you get to fight mind flayers :)
I had a dm punish me for min maxing in a campaign.
I was deliberately derailing the campaign
Min/maxers are great when newer players also exist in the game because, usually, the min/maxers are super dedicated and into the game and they are totally fine helping the newbies get used to the mechanics.
And I tend to homebrew shit a lot so it means I can make cooler crap for my party to fight >:). As a bonus that also means I can help the less experienced player catch up with cool items that are simple to use while also giving the min/maxer more niche and situational (yet still strong) stuff for them to be creative with
@@athenaraines I remember this one group I had where a friend and I were tasked to handhold some of the beginners we had at the table (total beginners, no ttrpg playing or spectating background). My friend was always the RP first guy and I was the power player.
My friend built this elaborate document detailing every spell in their spell lists and how to use them. Meanwhile, I instead just gave the players what combos I normally do in their respective classes.
I initially thought the players prefer the non-spoonfeeding guide because it is less backseaty and has more freedom, but turns out the beginners just felt intimidated by the amount of choices and felt more confused.
I guess it was because it made them more familiar with the "feel" of the class more by just doing the cool stuff the class does, then decide themselves whether they want to lean on it or deviate from it. I was pretty proud of myself, sad the table had to disband.
Hell yes
the look on brennan's face when he realises that fantasy high is literally just child soldiers was priceless
Hope you are doing good and staying safe. If you need to talk to someone or need help, there are people who care. Sending support and hearts. ❤️❤️❤️❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
@@zacharynguyen7286 bruh are you tweaking
"Aren't we both, like, ex competitive debaters?"
"Yes, I believe so, uh, shit, yes. BUT!"
That interaction was so funny to me, as a guy who did 4 years of high school debate. Felt that to my soul, and the feeling was comedy
The sheer level of "Oh no" in Brennan's voice was palpable. XD
You can tell with Jasmine, she is good 😅
Actually that’s exactly when I knew this video was going to be annoying and bad
One of my tables was a min-maxer carrying a bunch of fun characters through combat while we carried them through the actual story. It was like having 1 sober character and their 5 absolutely trashed friends. It only went on for a few months but we had a blast. If you just understand why everyone's at the table and find a way to make them fit its fine.
That’s a beautiful love story. I appreciate this.
Well when you turn the game into a running joke...you get this.
I don't need to 'find a way to make them fit'
When I say what I am willing to run, if someone feels they need to be something counter to that, they will not have a fun time.
I’m so lost… what are you trying to say?
@@miked.9364as a dungeon master you adjust your game to what all your players enjoy. If I have a player that enjoys puzzles and a player that loves being powerful I'll be damsure to make those things relevant to our campaign
@@jesusguadalupe8396 only to a certain degree tho. You are not a slave to the players, and if they actively try to spite you they dont really get to expect being catered around. If you say that you want to play an underwater campagin and someone choses to go with a hydrophobic character, thats fully on them. Same if you tell them at the start that the need to be good or atleast neutral aligned for this plot, or have loyality towards group x for that one, and they then with that prompt create a character thats outside of these bonds , they dont get to wonder about why things might not work out for them. Then again im not sure what the point of that poster was
This might be the first time Brennan's willingly and unprompted admitted defeat on camera without going down with a fight.
I think he genuinely would have made a stronger effort on the child soldier debate.
@@brawlyaura5799 he was forced to argue for people that complain about people that are playing the game well and good. Thats the one thing he cant argue for lol
@@brawlyaura5799it was a discussion, not meant to be a serious debate. Calm down
He also admitted defeat on secret death saves in another one of these
Because he believes the opposite of what he said about minmaxing.
Admitting defeat is admitting that the position he actually have doesn't have a reasonable leg to stand on
Brennan sitting in silent glee as Jasmine absolutely cooks him on the spot. God bless.
Also the friggin' "..... I lost" Ahahahahaha! He KNOWS he is getting slammed!
@@brawlyaura5799 okay… that was pretty obvious in the video.. But I still love the way it was played out. Lots of good natured humor as it was hard for him to argue the side he didn’t agree with and he was obviously getting slammed and didn’t want to argue.. but sorry, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here or why you @ me specifically 🤷🏽♀️
@@thegmwitch That is fair, but I did feel she could have picked a better topic where both sides could have had equally entertaining arguments.
I really liked Matt Mercer and Brennan duking out whether milestone or XP was better. It was entertaining and both sides are swinging till the very end. I kinda didn't like that the debate was over as soon as it started, but I do agree there is still entertainment and valuable points (just not as much on an argument with a level playing field)
As a min maxer one point I want to be made is that, researching how to create over powered builds IS part of the fun for me. Like ‘how do I make a ranger the face of the party’ or ‘how can I be a tank front line wizard’ are characters I was able to build because I started off with ‘how do I create the strongest archer’.
I really appreciate this comment. I'm a not min-maxer. The fun for me is dreaming up character ideas that aren't bound or limited by any system and slotting into the system in ways that seem like it makes the most sense. In D&D this results in tough decisions - like, ideally my character would have both of these feats because they're cool, but darn I'm only level 2 so I can only get one of them - and lo and behold, I think the one that doesn't help me in combat is more important to the theme I'm going for. It's not that I'm bad at min maxing, I just value different things. Another part of it is that I can usually trust the DM to make me feel powerful anyway despite the limitations of the system (I couldn't get the two feats I feel describe my character well enough) (or we're low level so it doesn't make sense that my character can do these things yet) ... if the DM can't do that, I could just as easily say git gud to the DM. I admit, there can be some tension between us because often we tie the DMs hands in mutually exclusive ways. I think we should be less critical of DMs trying to work through this very real problem and more understanding to each other in general.
As a fellow min-maxer, I would love to hear about your tank wizard
Big same for me. I went from "how I go absolutely crazy making the most combat destroying character possible" to "I want a druid who is the most threatening utility caster ever with no damage spells" to making a charlatan wizard that was more face than anything. It's gotten to the point where I wait for everyone else to make something so I can see what I can brew up on the spot to fill the niche we need filled in while using none of the classes or races chosen.
@@johnfernald-t9y Not OP, but my favorite characters are front line wizards of some variety. My two favorite so far are Eldritch Knight 7 / War Wizard X and Blade Singer 6 / Echo Knight 3 / Blade Singer X. Your AC is absurd and you have the ability to spike it. Your hp is a little lacking so 1/2 damage on successful save spells will still whittle you down, but you won't get hit by most single target attacks and you even do have spells to help mitigate your damage on those as well. The main downside is that you're highly effective for a short period of time before needing that long rest.
@@johnfernald-t9y Abjuration mountain Dwarf decked in armour
The only thing I would add to this conversation as an unrepentant min-maxer who loves to roleplay is recognize the table you’re playing at and hold back at times so you don’t overshadow the other characters, giving them a chance to shine as well. If someone else is good at something that you’re also good at, help them to give them advantage and let them roll. Also, since you’re so good at the game, your turns should be quick like a bunny. Don't make your DM do math. They have enough to do already. The other thing you can do is min-max a support class and play it really really well.
I really like your POV! You're right that sometimes the "bad minmaxers" take it too far and make themselves the main character of the story by doing everything fun in the game and not giving other players a chance to play the game.
I think reading through these comments my problem with min-maxers can really just boil down to them not making it about playing the game, but about knowing the mechanics of the game itself. That's fine to a certain level, but at some point it gets hard to a point where they take it soooo much more seriously than I have time/effort to dedicate to. That's why "get good" isn't good advice to me, because the min-maxers that truly bother people are the ones that dedicate so much time that if you were to dedicate similar amounts of knowledge learning about the game it would break your enjoyment. THen it just becomes homework instead of playing a game to blow of some steam.
Im a first time player who has watched a lot of DnD content so I like to believe I still know quite a bit. That aside, the rest of my party are completely new to DnD as a whole. I went a sorcadin that absolutely excels at smacking the fuck out of enemies, but my flavoring is sort of meant to lessen the overbearing strengths. I also went veng pally and shadow sorc so I tend to be extremely broody outside of combat. Helps give my team their own moments to shine.
Personally, I'm a minmaxer who's very forgetful at the table, and I often forget situational abilities that are buried in my spell list or features from multiple classes, so there are often games where my character doesn't make as much impact just because I don't realize I can until it's too late. That tendency, along with my BardLock's 7 Wisdom that I loved to roleplay, led to that character getting the party into trouble almost as much as he bailed them out of with his damage numbers
All I really do at unoptimised tables is hold bless and draw fire while they fuck the goblins up, even if I'm not applying the builds full potential until things get scary I'm still doing something and helping the party at all times
The good thing about min-maxing is if you can play something strong you can easily make it weaker, the opposite isn't true. If you're too strong for your team you can decide to limit yourself but if you are a liability you can't really change that without the DM's assistance
"I didn't know there was a winner" brought back memories of Brennan saying "Everything is a contest"
Brennan got a taste of his minutes long rants from Jasmine, and he couldn't help but appreciate it and smile!
My eyes just kept getting wider when she went off. Like damn, that that woman is smart.
Her saying "I'm against child soldiers" while wearing a "Enfants Terribles" shirt is great.
As someone who likes making mechanically strong characters, I really like making characters who need to overcome problems outside of combat. You can have a lot of fun in combat, and have interesting ideas to RP with outside of it. A character I’m playing right now, for example, is a mercenary who hates his profession, but feels trapped by it. Rather than a mechanical struggle, he’s struggling to find identity and peace in the chaos of an dnd party
Yeah, my current character is a warlock with dumped INT and WIS, but an 18 CHA. I roleplay those stats appropriately, he was raised on a pirate ship so his knowledge about the world is pretty heavily skewed, he is good at exactly 2 things, escalation and de-escalation, he can fight very well and he can talk his way out of situations very well, but he's also an idiot who's naive about the world and as such makes a bunch of dumb decisions. Combat shouldn't be a challenge because of player build decisions, it's the DM's responsibility to ensure combat is adequately challenging and a good DM will try to find ways to make things work regardless, building a character who is deliberately bad at fulfilling their role in the party isn't making a flawed character, because having low modifiers isn't a character trait, so the argument of "I want to play a character with FLAWS" doesn't hold water, and yet so many anti-optimizers cling to it as though we just don't understand their "artistic vision" instead of being annoyed that they are risking our character's lives with their unwillingness to play co-operatively.
Ive been playing through my first campaign and I went with a character kinda like this lol. I gave him great barbarian stats and did variant human to get great weapon master, but he basically never rages cuz of long story lore reasons as long as his opponents are humaoid. He will only rage against like demon monsters or if he has a rly good reason to, and Im happy to say it led to my fav moment ever so far in dnd when a boss of bandits who he was trying to talk reason to knocked him to 0 hit points, just for me to crit on my death save and then next turn rage for the first time all campaing into a crit on the boss to kill him, such an awesome feeling
It really depends on the table you're playing at. If your character is tremendously better than the rest of the party min maxing creates issues. But if you're playing with an experienced group of DND players its better everyone makes a mechanically sound character. My only real issue is when players are following a cookie cutter guide designed to max damage per round.
@@Matthew14853 there is a huge difference between cookie cutter character and unlimited spell slots when it comes to power level.
@@Legaleagle0200 ok and my comment is about players who pick a min maxed cookie cutter build
lmao. Brennan, the man who "Will die on literally any hill!" accepting defeat in such a pouty manner is an absolute gem. 😂
The optimization community generally uses the terms "practical" vs. "theoretical optimization." Practical optimization builds characters with a theme, whether mechanical or narrative (e.g., a sword-and-sorcery character), looks at the options available (e.g., a Conan-like character could be a barbarian/rogue), analyzes them, and finds the most mechanically harmonious ways to marry them (e.g. our Conan might not take Arcane Trickster because Rage prevents spellcasting, and they might not take Berserker because the Frenzy bonus action attack conflicts with Cunning Action). Theoretical optimization, on the other hand, is the glitch-skip speedrun of D&D - it exploits unintended or underdeveloped rules interactions for purely mechanical benefit (e.g. a Blinded character would only benefit from dropping Prone because they would reduce ranged attacks against themselves to a straight roll instead of advantage, but would not be hampered in any way they weren't already by being Blinded - it's a weird quirk of the (dis)advantage stacking rules, and makes little sense in the narrative).
Casting revivify on this old comment. But narratively to me it makes sense that someone blinded would go prone. When trying to avoid gun or arrow fire most people "hit the deck" and if you're blinded with both melee and ranged folks around you, why not take an action that at least makes you harder to hit for the guys with bows. There are things that only serve mechanical purposes, I get that. But I do think you can role play yourself into something narratively satisfying to cover many of those.
I like what this comment is saying a lot. There's a world of difference between finding the best mechanical cohesion of your character idea and the options provided to you vs. making a build you found on a Reddit post that can deal 700+ damage in one round at Level 3.
The game never intended for the second one to be an option. People who try to sneak builds like this into their games are intentionally taking advantage of jank in order to make something unreasonable happen to the detriment of the game experience for everyone else at the table.
actually irl you would lay on the ground and roll if you're being shot at to try to make yourself a harder target
@@ss3nm0dn4r8 But being blinded *and* prone should have huge effects on your combat prowess. Instead, once you're blinded going prone results in the exact same level of effectiveness.
I’ve played with a whole range of min-maxers myself, from the ones who make great characters and just like to feel powerful (perfectly fair and understandable) to the less savory ‘I will abuse the rulings to create characters that can’t be beaten’ and hogged the narrative all to themselves, and ultimately I think min-maxing itself isn’t the problem. The problem is and always will be poor team players who only care about themselves and their enjoyment at the table.
Definitely! there are people on here who argued with me saying if someone chose to make a "min maxer" within the rules they were given, and others chose to dump certain stats for roleplay purposes, that those who dumped stats should be able to tell the min maxer to change their character because its making them feel inferior. Some people are very odd and have quite the entitlement complex I suppose. Just let make characters however they want (but definitely don't abuse the system or rules or else face the DM's wrath lol).
@@Dave004 Honestly, I feel that those people who dump stats for "roleplay" reasons want to *say* that they have a flawed character while still kicking ass in the reality of the game i.e. they want to play the underdog but at the same time not suffer any kind of mechanical handicap because of that, and that makes them upset when they can't compete with an optimized character. I find it pretty dishonest tbh.
Precisely. I've been DMing since the red set and have seen this happen and it does cause problems. Not min-maxing itself as you say, but diva players that continually want to hog the spotlight. It is a thorny issue and difficult to deal with. I've tried various methods with very mixed results.
Ultimately I've decided on the following method. First, am I getting complaints from the other players, if not, I chalk it up to my reading too much into it. If I do get a complaint, even if it's only one player, I simply have a private conversation with Diva player and ask them to be more mindful of this issue. Usually, the player agrees because they didn't pick up on the issue. Where a player is obstinate and refuses to change their ways (and this has been mercifully rare), I usually kick them out of the game. I'd rather have the other players happy as opposed to only the one.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 I disagree wholeheartedly, I don't see it as a disingenuous "flaw". I feel like a character's FLAWS make the character. The character isn't the stats, it's the outcome at the table.
I've gamed with dozens of the same, "I'm gonna make the most damage heavy...blah blah blah." While playing you invariably accept that they destroy the field, so much so, that stops being special for that character, it becomes accepted. Where those character SURPRISE you is when they can't handle their flaws. That's the meat of the potato.
Perfect example of this kind of character in media. One Punch Man, the combats are a forgone conclusion but the character's BATTLES, are in the flawed social engagements he's only equipped to bumble through.
Of those min maxers, I can recall 3 that decapitated dragons. Boring. What I do remember was one immovable tank of a beast who killed a dire bear in single combat while tripping on his own entrails, who nearly died because his Dex was so abysmal he failed a series of saves and managed to slip into a relatively shallow river and was swept several hundreds of feet before plummeting over the falls.
@@GrugTheJust I do find there are degrees to min maxing. You can have a Fighter who takes Str and Con as their main stats, dump Int, Wis and Cha because they want to be a warrior, take GWM and Polearm and still have fun roleplaying. Thats a very optimal build, and yes min maxing. But then there's those who multi class 3 times with really powerful classes thats purpose is to just make an incredibly hard to beat combo or something. My DM always says you can multi class but you need a reason and story behind it, not just you want a dip in Cleric for heavy armor, thats not logical. But again, its good to get these intentions out session zero so everyone knows "oh this guy is going full on fighter and taking all the powerful feats so we should maybe make our characters a bit stronger so we're not just back up" kind of situation.
I love how this series is just Brennan finding it increasingly difficult to argue with obvious truths.
I wouldn't say obvious truth for this one since a lot of people really don't like min-maxers but Brennan really doesn't believe that and literally nothing he says holds any weight because of it
@@crystalshard1349 But those people are in the wrong for not liking min-maxers, because this episode proved that there's nothing wrong with being a min-maxer.
@Crystal Shard but on the reverse side of that lists of people don't like people who make everyone in the parties life harder by adding an intentual disadvantage
This is why you do a min maxed support! Your party will enjoy suddenly feeling way stronger.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 there is something wrong with it if the rest of the party and the dm dont like min-maxing. Context is always important when considering what's right or wrong, even with what we think are universally right or wrong.
Brennan met his match. That whole bit starting from paladin/warlock multiclass played by Brennan was an absolute slam. What a joy to watch.
@@brawlyaura5799you’re stretching way too far just to hate on someone you dont even know. you made so many assumptions on a stranger just because they were efficient in making their points. quit being an ass
@@brawlyaura5799You do know this is just some banter between friends and the way they portay their position in this discussion is most likely not the way they would act in rl?
@@brawlyaura5799 I have played broken builds other characters can still shine in other moments, sure Titan the Solo I made really did solo combat, the GM having to pull out more and more enemies, including a sniper and 2 guys with a machine gun on a Jeep to deal with me, but the net runners still got to do their nerd thing and social encounters were fun for all.
it's only a problem if the game is only combat and people can't think of other things to try.
@@brawlyaura5799 do you know the concept of... commiting to the bit? like when she said no I think i came from a rib looking dead serious did you think that was genuenly her opinion or just being contrarian because that's the premise of contested roll
In my view it was a terrible angle on her behalf. Obviously, Brennan is arguing against his beliefs and her bringing out that intrinsic discrepancy serves her no good. She should defend her position and let Brennan at least try to defend the opposite instead of her arguing that Brennan is actually a min-maxer, which is a well-known fact. It's a classic case of at hominem in a format, where Brennan is essentially playing a character.
The most fun I ever had in D&D was with my first group, a group who got so into it that we all became min-maxers and hardcore pro character builders. We were all coming up with increasingly creative and powerful characters until we were playing full on super heroes and demigods.
This goes for our DM too, who got good enough to make seriously threatening super villains to pit us against. This culminated in a epic level gestalt campaign where many gods became cool characters themselves.
Was this 5e? Did you kill off and re-roll characters, or start with powerful build templates at level 1? Did your DM let you respec?
@@Xyronyte I'm guessing it wasn't all one campaign, but rather a group the developed over the course of multiple campaigns.
That’s pretty awesome your table is able to get along that way. Not everyone at my table (including me) is interested in pro character building, so it can get a little frustrating at times. I’m glad your game is rad tho :)
Hey if the whole table is min maxers and love the challenge it is awesome. It becomes a problem when you have one min maxer who needs tro be challenged and the rest are not min maxers. You either balance the encounters for the min maxer, then the rest is basically fucked, or you balance it for the rest then the min maxer is bored that leads to an awkward table dynamic. For the rest of the table it looks like the min maxer is the problem, which is why they have a bad reputation, but the real problem is that people have different expectations of the game. You need to clear that in session zero. You either need no min maxers or mostly min maxers to make it work.
@@BrenGamerYT Yea a mixed group usually leads to an awkward table dynamic. Either the min maxers are bored since the encounters are not challenging enough, or the non min maxers get frustrated since encounters are too hard, and you cannot really balance for both. I have a similar problem atm. we lost a bunch of characters and our d/m insisted on the new characters being level 1. I am a level 10 thief and a level 8 paladin (long story my character started out as an assassin, found religion, well religion found him, and became a paladin, lost the assassin stuff but can still use most of the thief stuff as long as it is for the right reasons). I nearly one shot our last boss encounter (he had like 3 health left after my first attack), and after an intense dungeon crawl i still had 2/3 of my health left and I don´t think i healed even once. Heck a lot of opoonent could not even hit me unless they crits since my ac was too damn low (first edition, the lower your ac is the better, most in my group are 10 and up, i think we have one 8 , and there is me at -1) but at least I don´t need the challenge like min maxers do so it is not as boring to me as it would be to them.
I just loved how Jasmine couldn't stop talking and throwing out facts like a machine gun.
She brought up the subject because she is passionate about it.
We all have those topics that piss us off because of people who have dumb ass takes.
So you practice imaginary arguments in the shower XD
She probably rehearsed this for 70 hours already XD
She absolutely went for the jugular there. I swear I heard someone say flawless victory, FATALITY!
And it wasn't even spreading. It was all coherent, rational, pertinent, and effective arguing.
masterdebater
@@dukstedi Arguably, the masterdebater himself was/is pretty effective in maximizing the rules for counterspelling - and it didn't/doesn't even detract from the story
She makes an argument so great that we almost forget that the rest of us are not playing with professional actors paid to role play, but rather waiting 30 minutes for our friend/sibling/partner to read through their spell list and measure the battle map to decide which spell is going to do the most damage while we sit there and twiddle our thumbs. Then it's our turn. I swing my axe. I swing it again.... and then we wait another 30 minutes. I feel like people are often arguing different points on this particular topic. Character optimization is not the min/maxing many of us have grown to hate. It's when 4 players want to play a game and the 5th one wants to do math 😆
That’s called a snail rather than a min-maxer though. They don’t take too much time because they’re a min-maxer, it’s because they’re undecisive, slow or just kinda dumb 😅
That's not a problem of a min-maxxing though, thats just slow play. It is totally possible to min-max at haste, its called veing good at the game.
I have a “min maxer” at my table and they are by far the most invested in the story. I just have to get more creative with enemies, which as a DM, is fun! It’s part of the game.
As stated, in order to min-max successfully you have to know the game very well and that often means you are very invested in the game and paying attention to everything going on.
"I just want to kill everything really quickly so we can get back to the storytelling sooner."
@@Xhalph haha, nice quote :))
Take me as a player, daddy
How do you balance encounters for the rest of the party that aren't min maxers
I loved Jasmine before but god damn I just absorbed a whole new level of respect for her.
I didn't knew her before but otherwise same
I kept doing a double take every time I saw this thumbnail because she looked so familiar. I finally watched this and confirmed it is the barbarian from Relics and Rarities. She was great in that.
@@theq86 She sure is! Dang did I love Relics and Rarities, too...
One thing that’s often overlooked about min-maxing characters is the role playing and storyline it supports. So many of my min-maxed characters are BECAUSE of storyline. How I am supposed to say my character is a phenomenal archer without backing it up with game mechanics.
On the other hand starting out as a phenomenal archer leaves little room for growth?
@@Sindrihelgathat's only true if you let it be true. Maybe my incredible archer's growth isn't in the archery, but in magic. Maybe my archer is incredible, yes, but nowhere near what they could be, explaining the level progression, maybe they even get humbled by a bad guy who's an archer that makes them notice just how much they still have to learn. Maybe they're extremely good at archery and yet, in a anime-sensei kind of situation, they just want a quiet life after experiencing the terrors of war. The "little room for growth" is self-handicapping and could even actually help build the character. Imagine an archer so good, they don't have any challenges anymore. Even if there is room for growth for them, they don't want it because it'd only mean even less challenges, they lose whatever little passion. All of a sudden they're forced into a situation where they have to fight again and suddenly, they have to regain their passion and slowly learn new ways to apply their archery, once again explaining the level progression.
What I'm trying to say is that, don't let that stop you narratively, especially since in one way or another, there will ALWAYS be mechanical room for improvement because of the level system :)
@@Sindrihelga No amount of min-maxing leaves zero room for growth though. It's genuinely impossible to make a level 1 archer that doesn't get huge boosts at 3 (subclass), 4(sharpshooter feat), and 5(second attack).
@@Orobascientia Agreed. You can start with a powerful character and still have them grow emotionally as well. Many stories start with characters that already know what they are doing, and then develop in other ways as the story unfolds.
@@SindrihelgaLegolas Slander
"I think I came from a rib" gets me every time
Brennan's face of absolute defeat was so funny. It's hard to find people that can debate Brennan in a quick back and forth scenario, but she didn't even let him start to get speed. Incredible debater and absolutely right.
Would love to see longer versions of this segment, cause the topics are always fascinating.
Well it doesn’t help that he also likes min-maxing but had to debate against it here
My very first ttrpg that was not played with my "core group" of friends (I stepped outside my comfort zone and joined a campaign with some people in my WoW guild I didn't know very well, but who seemed cool, and I really wanted someone to be available to teach me Pathfinder), I went into it how I usually did, not min/maxing too hard, trying to do my best, and role playing how I think my character would behave. There was a specific moment, where I made a choice for my character, and the table made fun of me for it. They laughed at me and almost acted like I was doing something weird or wrong in the moment, like I was a creep (we found a lost girl in the woods and I wrapped a blanket around her shoulders and patted her on the head, then gave her my rations for the night so she had something to eat). In my head, this was a pretty normal action to make someone feel welcome and not afraid (she was very uneasy around our party and wouldn't come near anyone). I was relentlessly laughed at for this, and left the campaign a few sessions later (for a mostly unrelated reason, but I did make my decision to leave with that event in mind).
Ever since then, I haven't been able to freely role play the way I want to. I kind of clam up or play dumb characters who speak mono-syllabically. It kind of turned me away from wanting to just become a character within the game world, when even the DM was laughing and making fun of me for how I portrayed my cleric.
That really sucks to hear, this is awful to go through in TTRPGs definitely wrong to do to a player but I recommend trying to rp freely again, find a group that you're more comfortable with. There are lots of people who are very supportive in the community. Don't let a bully change who you are
Is there any explanation offered as to what exactly the other people at the table found funny about that?
@@er4din903 Patting a young person on the head. It's something you mostly see in anime, so they found it funny. And the DM role played that she found my character creepy for doing it. We encountered her character again later, after she had been adopted by the guild master who had given us our primary quest, and the DM made a point to role play that the girl avoided me and looked away from me like she was scared every time I was around.
Been one receiving end often on the "everyone misreads my action as something different than I intended effect". It sucks, but happens a lot due to the effect of differing minds eye teaters....
Simple explanation - the DM was an asshat.
Min-maxing is taking the character rules and treating them like a puzzle to solve, and I for one love puzzle games. It's basically the only way to "play" D&D alone, since you don't necessarily need the rules to make up a character or a setting.
I guess the stigma sources from when players/DMs take that singleplayer mindset and bring it to a table. Important to remember you're playing with other people, and cooperate with them, right?
Also, in reference to 6:35 , I'm almost certain the term min-max comes from chess algorithms, where you choose your Maximum value move on your turn, and assume the Minimum value move on the opponent's turn (under the assumption they are trying to minimize your success). The term is inherently adversarial when viewed in that light, I suppose.
Min maxing where I learned the game was involved with dump statting and creating characters that were extremely niche. The two down one up house rule had people with a couple 18 stats but a 5 in charisma, they could use their sword (usually triple specialized) or bow extremely well, but outside of situations, even combat situations where a sword or bow wasn't useful, they were worse than a level 0 peasant. It was frustrating to DM characters like that, because everything that didn't cater to the specialty felt like you were stonewalling the PC in a game with many save or die situations, but in reality, you're just running a normal campaign.
It's harder to minmax in later editions because everything is a bonus, and there are fewer penalties, so you don't really get the min aspect of minmaxing.
@@marclemieux4902 minmaxing means minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. Strictly speaking, your example is not minmaxing unless you add the caveat of minmaxing for combat. But minmaxing in a roleplaying game tends to mean being really good in situations you want to be good in, and not being super weak in others. For example, a properly built skill monkey is insane in noncombat encounters, but it's not like they gave up all combat capabilities to do so. So I think it's the opposite. It is easier to minmax now than it was in your example. Because focusing on one thing isn't completely to the detriment of everything else.
@@ashtonhoward5582 Not necessarily. That may be the most common definition today, but another might be minimising undesired or unimportant traits and maximising desired ones. That was absolutely how it was used in older editions, as described.
Edit: an example of how it was used, and some problems it could lead to, can be seen in the Goblins webcomic with "Minmax the Unstopable Warrior" who maximized combat prowess at the expense of minimizing everything else, including trading his ability to read for a +1 to hit, among other things.
Yeah, complaining about minmaxing in 5e is a little hollow because there aren't any "min" mechanics anymore. In 3.5e you really could take a shitton of flaws and lopsided traits in order to get certain facets of your character into the stratosphere by *tanking* the others. In 5e I think the better term is "optimization"
I think one of the big problems with twitter debates about min-maxing is that people overuse the term to refer to anyone building a character to be effective in combat, while the term was originally created to describe a very specific kind of player. That is, the kind of player who creates a deaf, mute barbarian with a -3 to charisma, wisdom, and intelligence so they can get a +5 in strength, dexterity, and constitution along with the ability to carry a greatshield while duel-wielding battleaxes with no penalty, making a character who's incredibly effective in their niche (which is very often combat because min-maxing and murder-hoboing often go hand in hand) but borderline nonfunctional in any other situation. This kind of player (and, of course, their character) can end up dragging down a party and make it harder for the rest of the group to do what they want, which is why they have such a bad reputation.
Also, I suspect part of the reason people conflate it is that it's far harder to do in popular RPG systems nowadays than it once was without significant house-ruling, since many modern rule sets like 5e tend to limit how much players can do to cook the books, as well as make stats more universally useful to disincentivize throwing away the ones a character doesn't "need". Overall, this makes it much harder to create a half god-made-flesh, half useless worm than it would be in other games and older rulesets where they didn't have mechanics like that.
Well said, much better than I tried to say it.
I've heard that 3.5 had a lot of disparity between someone who knew all the tricks and someone who was just starting. But nowadays publishers know to look out for that sort of thing.
Yea the biggest thing with 5E really is that there are unbeatable strategies but it usually has nothing to do with your stats and more your class and items that you have access to.
Yeah I feel like there is an over-emphasis on combat. I admittedly most likely fall into the min-maxxer category, but my character was actually designed mostly for out of combat situations, and whenever I *was* in combat I was more of a supporting role for the more combat-focused characters in the party. Like I could use my high movement speed to give other PCs flank bonuses very easily, even though I couldn't take advantage of the bonus myself because my damage output was so low, it would be helpful for my party members, just to name an example.
I think the general impression of a min/maxer is someone who has created a character/build so capable that they no longer 'need' to count on their party. Combat? Min/maxer did it singlehandedly. Maybe the other players didn't even get a chance to go. Social encounter? Min/maxer did it. Puzzle? Min/maxer circumvented the complexity.
Min/maxing isn't bad. But in a group game, hogging the spotlight is bad form. Not giving your friends the opportunity to usefully contribute makes them feel unneeded. Handling all challenges without breaking a sweat makes the other players realize that they're about as important as NPCs.
So it's not about 'Is mix/maxing bad'. It's really about "Are we all getting to have fun?". If everyone is having fun, there are no problems. If people aren't having fun because they're functionally 'on the team but have been relegated to benchwarmer', then the min/maxer has the responsibility to stop doing everything so that their friends get their own moments in the spotlight.
Personally, I love playing a skill-monkey Rogue. I absolutely min/max my character... BUT! I hate being the guy in the spotlight. I don't like attention or to be the one that saved the kingdom. I like playing support. Support is important because it's very important, but doesn't get the glory. The team knows that they may have died without their support, but the support character is making everyone else do better. It's cooperatively oriented.
Min/maxers just need to be able to cooperate as a team. Share responsibility. Don't step on toes. The frustration against min/maxers is actually frustration at a lack of basic manners and social etiquette.
with other words the player is at fault that the system in unbalanced
So I think the reason why there's a lot of discourse around "Min/Maxer's" is a confusion of terms. I think people are more worried about "Power Gamers" who's intention is to make the most broken build that the rules allow to "win" the game. They don't focus on roleplaying, they don't focus on the story, they treat DnD as just another board-game. And for new DM's, that can be a challenge! But rather than talking about how to "deal" with a player, it's always best to just communicate with the table. What intentions you have going into the campaign, what player expectations are, and move from there to find an amicable balance between the core power fantasy of DnD and its story telling mechanics. And if the player is unwilling to cooperate or put in the effort to "play with friends" rather than "play to win," then they are a problem player and they need to be talked to, and potentially even removed if they still refuse to cooperate.
Now, that being said, I feel some DMs also have a challenge dealing with both Min-Max-ers and Power Gamers for more than just the reason of "they don't roleplay." There's the thing to consider that there's other people at the table who, very routinely, want to play in a completely different manner. They don't care about optimization and want to just do something goofy or fun. Which normally isn't a problem for people with experience with this situation. However, for those who don't have experience or are new to the hobby, and run things by the book without knowing they can tinker or adjust, they come across problems with balancing encounters. Even in narratively driven games, the goal is always to make an engaging encounter for all players.Tune things towards the majority players and you have one player curb stomping encounters and not giving any other players a chance to shine, or even worse, make them feel as though they aren't able to participate. Tune things towards the Power Player and you either wind up targeting one person the entire time (not a good feeling) or you curb stomp everyone else that *isn't* the Power Player.
I think the core issue comes down to a lack of experience, a lack of communication in the play group, and, ultimately, a lack of confidence on the DM's part. Like Jasmine said, all players at the table and all play-styles are valid, but it shouldn't come at the cost of everyone else's enjoyment.
Outside of just talking to the play group and having a dialogue to work things out, there's other options in the DM's toolbox that you can use.
-Magic items are always a good thing to hand out. They don't have to be strong or rare or anything, but you can pass out items either to give more all round utility to the entire group, encouraging out-of-combat interactions, or give players struggling to keep up items that will balance them out or make up for shortcomings. Just as well, you could give the Power Player more utility based items, allowing them more chances and incentive to do out of combat things.
-Reward good roleplay! Whether through tangible story rewards, or through inspiration, if your focus is to run a narrative game, reward players who interact with the narrative, and it will encourage the entire group to do the same!
-Fudge stat blocks. Either through adjusting certain stats to make a monster hit a bit harder, or give opportunities for other characters to take advantage of vulnerabilities, you can always add and remove mechanics to make the fight feel more dynamic. Add in resistances or immunities! Create your own monsters! Again, make sure if you are throwing creatures, adjusted or not, don't hard focus on one player. Spread things around so everyone feels like they get their time in the sun.
-Create dynamic encounters. utilize different mechanics, moving terrain, really throw people out of their comfort zone.
And of course
-Just talk to the player. I know I said there's other options outside of it, but it's really important to communicate. For most play groups, it's a group of friends. And you, as the DM, are there to create an experience for everyone. If you're worried about a certain playstyle, talk to them. Ask them what they want to get out of the campaign, and if they're nervous about roleplaying, open up new avenues for them to dip their toes into it. You can have Min/Maxers and Power Gamers that are also really good and fun during roleplay.
If you're worried about them blowing through shit- It's your story! Add in a few more encounters, throw in a few more plot lines! But sincerely, just communicate with people.
The most difficult thing about Dming for min-maxers is the fact that they commonly so much more powerful than the other players, that you end up making a boss difficult for that one character and then almost impossible for the rest I feel like that's the difficulty with min-maxers
I feel like there's still some pretty simple ways to balance that out tho. Mainly the fact that if it's obvious to everyone at the table that a character is the most powerful and causing the most trouble for the baddies, it would be just as obvious to the villains - so they would focus their attacks more on them over the ones that arent causing as much trouble
You can only do that so much tho before that player feels like you're singling them out
just one example of a workaround
You sort of have to make do, you know? I love making combat proficient characters, so yeah I'm a hard-core min-maxer, but my DM has played into that. He puts us against tough odds, but always sends the biggest hitters my way while the rest of the party deal with other threats.
Have you heard of shadow of Mordor?
There’s this amazing game mechanic that was implemented called the nemesis system, If you encountered a chieftain or someone of worth in the ranking of the orcs they would rank up both in stats and their ranks in orc society for defeating you.
On the opposite end they would also lower in rank and power if you defeated them, humiliate them (a mechanic which weakens and drives the opponent insane) or even kill them off.
But, they can also be resurrected and the nemesis’s gain buffs, bonuses and level ups in rank. These mechanics if used well in combination with character motifs create a characteristics to a npc that ultimately create terrific role playing moments and challenging encounters that often counter act most of the players most common actions.
Steal the concept for your own DnD game, make the nemesis solely fight min maxers and it might work
@@zynthio You just explained aggro lul. xD
I think the best way to make an encounter challenging for the min-maxer is to find out the min part of the equation. Hit them where it hurts, but make the challenge easier for other players. Maybe your monster is resistant or immune to bludgeoning, but magical attacks knock it down fast. Something like that would make your fighter have to think about how to keep the wizard safe so they can keep spell slinging.
10:29 Having a character's rolls or actions in game be counter to their designed intention can be really interesting if you go along with it. I think Matt Mercer's Leiland from Escape from the Bloodkeep is a great example. He's this mighty warrior who's second in command of the evil forces, but due to poor rolls just keeps failing in combat and in other areas, but Matt leans into that and ends up with a very interesting character who plays at the heart of the group dynamics and is eventually able to get some redemption and uplift at the end of the campaign in a few crucial moments.
This
Ah, Leiland 😂 Leiland "I keep fucking up, and when I finally succeed, NO ONE IS WATCHING" Kraz-Thun. Man, Bloodkeep had some great character moments.
In my experience min-maxing a character went hand in hand with passion for a character. I had an idea and found joy in working that out as well as possible and finding fun ways to get complimentary mechanics. So when I have a min-maxed character I will also role play better because I am excited.
However, I've had a character where whenever I did something that was effective, whenever I thought of an optimal strategy or clever trick I'd get a bunch of critique, sometimes just in the constant stream off "I need to check this, does that item say that because that's too strong and". Where I was getting a level of scrutiny that no other player was getting despite it always turning out that "yes, that does work like that". And it got to the point where I was just no longer enjoying the character because I was making sub-optimal plays or plays I didn't really want to do, simply because I didn't want another conversation about "whether that's too powerful, maybe we should nerf it, bla bla".
And as a result, instead of describing something cool I wanted to do, I fell into a rut of just going "yeah, I attack it, 8 damage, I end my turn", because the passion for playing my character, and therefore, playing the campaign, was gone.
I cannot think of a time when I’ve seen Renan look as frightened and excited at the same time as he does in this video. Bren and met his match and I’m here for it
He totally owns his loss. It is glorious!
Now I want a BBEG encounter where the party completely tears the minions apart, and the BBEG just looks around and says "- I lost .." with a resigned shrug
Watching Brennan admit that he lost was oddly satisfying. 😂
He is kinda a min maxer.
Sooo
@@brawlyaura5799its hard to debate on a side that you dont agree with, but especially when that side often uses illogical/unfair reasoning to support their claim. not deliberate, just expected.
I like optimization, I think it's so bloody fun. The biggest thing is knowing when to flaunt the power you give your PC. Keep up good RP and when the time calls for the optimized abilities we so carefully built, unless when the time is right.
This. Min-max, but hide the power level till the time is right.
Goddamn! This is currently the strongest argument I've seen for a side in Contested Roll. She just shut down any opportunity for counters and argument. Very well played!
Brennan had no where to go because she didn’t really attack his position as much as she attacked evidence that he didn’t believe his own position.
She min-maxxed the arguement holy moly
Afterwards they really got to the crux of the argument, the entire problem is just DMs not knowing how to handle a Min-Maxxer. Its a table issue, not a player issue.
@@seasnaill2589 I mean, I do think that if everyone else at the table comes in with unoptimized builds, and you the one min-maxer guy comes in with a build that does x2 the damage as anyone else while also having better skill checks than anyone else, then it does feel kind of bad to be that monk PC. You likely won't be better than everyone at everything, but you can definitely have a character that is better at everything than one specific other character, and then it kind of feels like you're shitting on that character a bit.
For real and she perfectly used his own points against him. GGWP
“Oh no the enemy laid a bunch of eggs and now there is more enemies!” Feeling a little called out here😂 I do this way too much.
I hate that shit.
"You killed the adult dragon very quickly. Unfortunately, it laid eggs, and now ancient dragons are hatching."
"Wait... how are they ancient if they're only hatching now?"
"Pay no mind to the stat block, just accept it and roll a new initiative!"
I like how they started with distance and somewhat guarded body language and around half way through they are facing each other and both leaning forward and the convo really starts rolling.
As a forever DM who enjoys coming up with interesting, theoretical characters, I really feel like there's a difference between "min-maxing" and optimizing. While creating a character, it's fun to figure out not only where their strength's lie, but how to feel truly powerful as that character. When my players are looking at their stats and character sheets, I want them to get the absolute most out of that character
I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of min-maxing because I've suggested optimizing things like giving yourself even stats when you're using point buy. A 12 is exactly the same as a 13 unless you're taking a +1 feat, so I try to avoid odd ones. All the time I see players with all odd stats and no dump stat, so they end up being disappointed that all their checks are +1 while everyone else specialized and have a +5 (or more) in something.
I watch all sorts of DnD optimisation content. And read all sorts of articles about broken builds and combos.
But I don't play broken characters. I just want to take the idea I have in my head and make it as mechanically functional as I can. Because with how DnD works, you can't effectively roleplay without your character being able to back it up mechanically.
Lie my current fighter is a spearfisher/whalehunter who fights by throwing harpoons. So I tried to find a build that could do that in a fun way. And doing no damage because your build sucks isn't fun.
@@KingBobbito Min-Maxxing is when you break the game by exploiting every little loophole and multiclass option imo. I agree with you, its very different from optimizing.
@@fazebooquifius3186 doing your research ain’t a crime just cause no one else did
@@KingBobbito exactly, if I want to make sure my character is effective at the kind of things I’m going for I’m going to do my homework. For example, I came up with an undead hunter recently inspired by Van Helsing and making sure to read up on the appropriate feats, race options, and ability bonuses is half the fun
Oh, and on the Counterspell issue, if you are like Jasmine as a DM, look to how much havoc you can cause by having your minions able to cast the simple cantrip of Chill Touch. It hurts you with Necro damage, and keep you from healing until THEIR next turn. I have driven a party nuts using this simple cantrip!
Counterspell got a huge nerf in the 5.5 anyways
@@regaleagle6533 Should have just removed it and kept normal spells for baddies.
Is it just me, or is counterspell a bit boring? Its too easy to just *turn off* someone else's spell, and then that person is just stuck without an action. It feels anticlimactic in a sense, regardless if it happens to a player or to a boss.
my table being both RP fanatics in-session and min-maxers out-of-session is actually so fun, because the DM knows we can mess some shit up so he can throw the crazy encounters at us, but we're also crazy immersed during the social encounters and out of combat
Once she reached for "did you or did you not play a min-maxed character and yet your roleplay was not lacking?!" Whoooff debate mastery!
The only problem I have with min-maxing is that I sometimes play in rounds with them where the DM goes "oh well this was clearly not a challenge for the group I gotta give you stronger enemies" and then that character is either caught or taken out with a trick or magic and all of us are in danger of one-hit-k.o. 😅
That just sounds like your dm makes the combat deadlier to equalize the min maxed character and then throwing a spell to incapacitate them anyways. That’s a dm issue and not on the min maxer
I agree. It can cause some challenges when half the party went the demigod route of good min max and the others are new, fledgling story filled pinatas. But I have just made it so these "bad asses" names have proceeded them and now they get focused a lot more due to their fame. Freeing up the new players to have more freedom in combat and at times find more success. It def is a balance to be found and grown by the table. DM and Players together
Starstruck Odyssey supposedly had all of the Intrepid Heroes make "the most busted characters I have ever seen" (Quote: Brennan Lee Mulligan) and their roleplay was never found lacking. Why does having a busted character mean you're a worse roleplayer?
When I found my players started becoming a bit strong for their level I started throwing bigger enemies at them, causing environmental challenges in the encounters and giving them in world consequences (Yes. If you use firebolt in the bar fight then the house will light on fire)
@@GamerGrovyle it's only an issue when the party balance is hard. Not impossible tho. There are lots of creative ways to handle things, so long as the min maxers at the table don't claim it's not fair if you balance things harder for them and easier for others on some level. Narrative choices help a lot here. Some min maxers play that way not because they like a challenge at all, but purely because they like feeling overpowered. So if you balance their power down you can make them salty for not letting them make the entire parties battle fast and easy with 2 round kills.
@@tash1201 honestly that's a really good idea I'm going to make note of
My old group had a party where one person chose a druid and made Wisdom his dump stat because he didn't realize that druids use Wisdom for spells and that his favourite ability, Flame Blade, used his Wisdom modifier instead of Dex. We of course helped him reorganize his stats after our group had cleared the first mission, but it just goes to show that some people just straight up don't read the PHB when making their characters.
Absolutely my favorite guest DM on D20, she rules, SO damn funny and a great story leader, can’t wait to watch more of her campaigns
Brennan also Roleplayed the shit out of Deadeye on NADDPOD season one, and he was straight min maxed to the gills. He practically transformed the rest of the NADDPOD crews skills just by them seeing what was possible when you really dive into your characters capabilities.
Fully agree on this one. The only time a min-maxer is really a problem is when the player themself is toxic and is using min-maxing as an excuse to abuse other players (the "OMG you're not playing your class in the specific meta way I think is best? What a noob!" type), at which point it's not min-maxing that's the problem, it's a toxic player. It's hardly limited to toxic min-maxers either, a hardcore role player can be just as toxic on the other end ("You're not using a special voice for your character and monologuing in ye olde speeke for every action that you do? Ugh! Don't you know this is a *roleplaying game*?"). Toxic people suck no matter what their preferred playstyle is.
I have a friend who I used to get into this with fairly often, and what we eventually realized is that the ways we approached the game were completely different, almost polar opposite, but we got to the same place - I'm a min-maxer, partly because I like numbers, but largely because I have rotten luck with dice; min-maxing is how I compensate for my inability to roll over a 7 for an entire session. (As a sidenote, this is why I like dice pool mechanics as they tend to simulate a bell curve better) As Brennan mentioned, it can feel really cruddy to have, on paper, a super cool character, but then have them be completely ineffective every time they're put into a combat situation.
What got us to meet in the middle after truly years of having the discussion was talking about how we went about making characters. He is very much a big-concept-first type of person, and often leaves the actual mechanical build questions to the end of his character creation. Meanwhile, I start in the weeds looking for mechanics I think will be fun to play with, build the character from numbers, and let the numbers inform me on what the character might be.
I think too that a lot of what the discourse around min-maxing misses is that a lot of min-maxers do the more absurd min-maxing as more of a thought exercise than anything else. There are some who will bring it to the table, and it's a problem if some characters at level 5 have problems with a group of a half dozen orcs while others can reliably deal enough damage to one-shot Asmodeus in a single round.
My advice to any min-maxers who want to make truly powerful characters and minimize at-table friction: Build your broken abilities to boost up your team mates. Not only is it (usually) more effective overall, but it also helps your broken builds not feel like they're taking up the spotlight. 'Cause yeah if your 3.5e Bard whose bard song adds +10 to hit and damage and provides 2d6 healing per round to friends and deals 2d6 damage per round to enemies is a bit overpowered, it helps *everyone in the group* have cool moments, and really feels like you're contributing.
Especially now that RPGs are becoming more seen as a story-telling medium and a collaborative endeavor, rather than a confrontation between GM and players, I think it's becoming more of a non-issue than it was in years past. The systems like FATE and Kids on Bikes/Brooms that give players some benefit when they fail in the form of fate/adversity/whatever tokens that can be used later to boost a roll or turn a situation in their favor somehow really helps take the sting out of failures, and makes it feel less bad to play flawed characters in games.
I'm less of a min-max-er and more of an optimizer. I narratively theme my characters and focus my build to make them the best at what I set them up for.
Same here!
I think we're just a particular breed of min-max. More theme-based, and we can hope that gives us a natural predisposition against powergaming.
@@terrencemedders1867 Most of the people i play with are the same breed!
Same. I first fall in love with an idea and then do my very best at making the character be powerful within that idea
That is how I play the game to a tee and I feel doing this sets up my characters for role play more because of how I themed and the tropes associated with the themes
I would love to see the 3e vs 5e debate
Do you like wargaming? 3e. Do you want as much roleplay with as little pesky rules as possible? 5e. There isn't really an argument there, but a very simple question of preference revolving around the different design philosophies of the two editions.
@@kylesmith7413 you could make more of an argument for PF vs 5e since PF takes the roleplaying and adds numbers and equations to it whereas 5e simply removes rules and allows the DM to custom make their games.
4E FOR LIFE!
To make a bad analogy, it's like watching 2 professional swimmers; 1 is swimming off into the distance, the other has drowned.
3rd Isn't sleeping with the fishes btw.
Does this mean that 3rd is perfect = nope, but 5th Ed just grates, it feels inferior, a childish version aimed at ppl with no attention span.
The poorly written rules, the pointless artwork spanning page after page of every book, the poor class balancing, the favored classes with their always-picked specializations.
I cannot take D&D seriously anymore, I moved to Starfinder a while ago (rather than Pathfinder) and I don't see any obvious opening for D&D in the near future...
Hasbro, or Wizard's, or whoever constitutes the thinkers in that organization need to be locked away in a cupboard somewhere I suspect. The idea that D&D will become a service model in the future may well be the death knell of D&D, and in it's current state that might not be a bad thing.
@Blackfox413 "Allows the DM's to custom make their games" is the most diplomatic way of saying "Never fully fleshed out their rules, and expect the DM to do half the work for them." I've ever heard.
FWIW, PF2e isn't the inviolable ruleset folks want to make it out to be, the primary difference between the two is that PF makes clear what the intent behind rules and systems are, while arming the GM with the tools to modify and add to those systems. A great example is the sheer amount of Variant Rules there are. You can look at that and say "Wow, they have rules for everything, I guess you aren't supposed to modify the base rules!" but really it's more "Wow, they expect you to modify the base rules, have thought of some common ways GM's might want to do that, and went out of their way to provide GM's with pre-altered rules. These are some GREAT examples of what I could do with the system."
I think a lot of it comes down to the reasons why someone is min-maxing. I recently had a player who only did it for the purpose of being the bad guy main character. But there already is a BBEG. He just wanted to be the main character of the party as an evil person just looking to be more evil in a group full of good characters.
That's Brennan's point though. The min-maxing itself isn't the problem, the problem is the player wanting to be the bad guy main character.
Hope everyone doing good and staying safe. If you need to talk to someone or need help, there are people who care. Sending support and hearts. ❤️❤️❤️❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I think I'm starting to see Brennan's POV now. I hate minmaxers because they often get so powerful and know so much about the game they take all the fun out of it by taking away my opportunities to do things. Like yeah I want to fight, but everytime I swing at an enemy that enemy is already blown up. If I wanted to get to that level of power I'd often have to devote more time/effort than I have, and it would be to a point where it breaks my enjoyment of the game because it just feels like homework. That's my problem with minmaxers, but that's a problem with the player moreso not letting anyone else play. It's the DnD equivalent of not letting anyone else get a turn on the swingset.@@UltimateChaos233
You both make very good points. If these people actually only cared about role-playing, then they wouldn't be upset at party members figuring out how to create a character that is stronger than theirs. A 100% role player wouldn't care at all. In fact, it would probably contribute to immersion because it doesn't really make sense for all members of a party to arbitrarily be equally strong.
And to be honest, a 100% roleplayer probably needs min maxers at their table since they likely have very little in ways of defense or damage abilities. I dunno, roleplay to me doesn't rely on ability scores too much. I mean yes if I'm a Bard, Warlock, Paladin, etc I"ll be a bit more charming or talkative than maybe my Wizard or Druid, but there's no reason you can't still attempt it. I picture it like real life, how many of us know that person who thinks they're really funny or charming and talks alot but is really annoying and dull? There you go, thats a character who likes to talk a lot and thinks they have high charisma, but ability score wise is low.
Same with INT, you could have a Barbarian whose super confident and talks about knowledge and what he knows all day long but is actually wrong in everything he says, but dang if he isn't confident in thinking he's right!
So I prefer playing those ways, so that my character scores are highest in what they should be for optimizing that class, but give a good background story to roleplay them however I want.
The worst person at a table is the min maxxer who whines endlessly about the choices made by the role players.
@@alphaamino Definitely, same with roleplayers who call out a person for "min maxing" for choosing the right abilities for the class they picked. Everyone should play how they want, as long as roleplayers don't also whine that the min maxer is destroying everything in combat because the roleplayer chose that route.
I think it’s more a frustration over a lack of roleplaying. I don’t mind roleplaying against a minmaxed character, as long as they have a personality and aren’t just a stack of big stats in a trenchcoat. My lifeweary old war veteran with a heart of gold and a bone to pick against authority doesn’t have much to interact with if his partner in the scene is “man who is very strong and fast and also good at magic”.
I sort of disagree. A 100% roleplayer might still want a character to succeed at combat because that fits the narrative of who their character is, and they would be willing to play a min-maxed build because they're fine with reflavouring as needed. I.e. I think a 100% roleplayer would be fine playing a fighter with a bow if they want to play a more combat effective ranger archetype. But someone who is actually interested in the unique mechanics of the ranger class, not just the roleplay, has to trade that off against being more combat effective. (Yes, I know there are ways to make the ranger work, it's just an example).
I also think combat isn't the only issue. Someone could hypothetically make an optimized bard that is great at social interactions and then dominate all of the social interactions without giving the other characters a chance to participate.
It's all about the fundamental design of the game. Some tabletop rpgs lend themselves better or worse to min-maxing based on their design. D&D is definitely a game that encourages min-maxing. I'm sure there are some smaller tabletop rpgs out there that thought of some creative solution that discourages min-maxing without making those who enjoy paying attention to the rules feel punished.
Or, Pathfinder 2e, where the difference between an "Optimized" and "Unoptimized" characters is like, a +1 *maybe* a +2 in a couple things.
It's noticeable, definitely, but not overwhelming.
@T. Estable Exactly, there is of course a difficult balance between trying to make everything viable and making everything feel the same. I think if someone wants to have a game that is less concerned with optimal play, then you should probably condition your players to not necessarily always fear failure. Showing them that a failed charisma check can lead to something interesting down the line etc.
A lot smaller tabletops tend to have more narrative focused mechanics as opposed to combat focused mechanics. Fate and PbtA games are great examples
@@BigmanDogs
Incomprables can help solve this problem. They're used in video games a lot but they're good in any boardgame or ttrpg too. For instance, being able to summon a dog companion to help you pick up loot vs summoning a eldritch abomination to tank damage for you. They're so different that you can't easily say which one is best (unless the balance is really off) because they do different things. If you don't use incomprables (looking at you stat based mmos) the choice between options is often just "guess I'll use the sword with more damage."
A common solution is to have scaling costs which tends to be point buy systems. The study of what is optimal to do in a game is called Game Theory, this does include studying how to manipulate what is optimal to get the behavior you want.
In the only session I've ever run as a DM, I had 3 players and all of them were minmaxers and it was it was incredible. I was literally able to throw an ogre, a bandit captain, and a mimic at them and they shredded them without even needing to take so much as a short rest. They were level 3.
When I was in high school I had a group of around 7 friends I would hang out with, but it was very rare that we were all in the same place at the same time. Each time "the group" would meet up it would be a different combination of friends, so we couldn't really have an ongoing campaign with any sort of reliability. We ended playing a long series of unrelated one-shots.
I had a lot of fun with this idea but I felt like I was missing out on the "progression" element of Tabletop RPGs, so I learned how to make stronger and stronger characters over time in the systems we played.
I once built a level 1 character in D&D 4e with the *technically possible* ability to 1-shot some dragons, (although to be fair, the odds were slim,) without ever having consulted the internet for builds.
It was a fun time.
This is my introduction to Jasmine Bhuller and she has my full support for life.
Literally same. I had no idea who she was before watching this video and now I'm in love with her.
You hit the nail on the head when it comes to "Min/Maxers are a mechanics issue, not a player issue." I can definitely point to times when it felt like I just didn't have ways to be useful to the party (even as an "OP" Paladin). Some of that was not understanding the mechanics of my class well, some was self-imposed RP decisions because I wanted to build characters with serious drawbacks to fuel more interesting narrative RP, but it definitely wasn't a great time. I think it has similar connective tissue to why it feels so bad when climactic roles
I'm glad you delved into "give them other unique challenges" as a solution, it reminds me of how Overly Sarcastic Productions has talked about the best writers handling the character of Superman: If he can steamroll any matched opponent, give him conflicts that aren't relying on matched opponents. Hostage rescue, natural disaster, etc. Places where his powerset is absolutely useful, but the outcome is not so predetermined. Great talk and glad you guys dispensed with the debate to enjoy the conversation!
When Brennan mentioned them being competitive debaters it became too serious for them both. Jasmine successfully winning and Brennan saving the “debate” by furthering the actual show
@@brawlyaura5799Cope.
I'm so here for this perspective, I always hate when people act like roleplay and following the rules are diametrically opposed to one another even though literally the only purpose of the rules is to facilitate drama and influence you into making more interesting choices. Roleplaying is more than just players reciting dialogue at each other during downtime, casting a healing spell is roleplaying, a barbarian drawing aggro with their high amounts of HP is roleplaying, rolling above 20 on a Deception check is roleplaying.
I had an argument with my best friend that running and escaping from a dragon's lair is in fact, roleplaying, despite the fact that we used every single expendable resource and spell slot to make it out alive.
This feels like a straw man to me. It's rare for me to find Roleplayers who dump the stat they're trying to RP. If they wanna wow people in speech they don't dump charisma (generally). What rubs them the wrong way is when they get denied their moment by "big numbers guy" who clearly isn't into it ("I rolled a 23, I convinced the king even though I didn't present an argument, too bad 'impassioned argument man' rolled a 1" -suddenly the RP player was denied both the success, and the failure, of their hard work.) Their moment was stolen by someone who wanted "all the moments." Bad min-maxers, and bad non-minmaxers, do this (barb rolls 20 on intelligence 5% of the time. But the novelty wears off when the "min-maxed" rogue/ranger/bard with 8 expertises continuously out-knowledges the 20 int wizard and out wisdoms the druid).
I wouldn't say min-maxing is equivalent to "following the rules". Many people follow the rules without min-maxing.
@@Xyronyte Well like they discussed in the video, a player trying to have too many "moments" isn't a problem with minmaxing it's a player problem, you can totally have that kind of player without them having the stats to necessarily back it up.
@@Tickerbee Very true. It's just, when they fail, we get to laugh at their hubris. The m/m doesn't usually fail (unless the whole party is balanced, or the dm is a biased arbiter and gives one player a higher DC than the others). Fail enough, and they may just learn something without intervention. Anakin resembles the bad min-maxer: everyone kept trying to rein him in so he didn't hurt himself or others, but he was just OP enough that things always went his way (and he never learned the needed lesson). I personally prefer to talk things out out-of-character, but some players/dms prefer to use natural consequences. Min-maxers are hard to "punish." (I'll be clear I don't agree with punishing players)
One of the things I always try to tell my "Role Play Focus Player" is to ask the "Min-Max Player", how they do what they do and how they can do it too. The inverse of this having the "Min-Max Player" be pulled into Role Playing cool or key moments by the "Role Play Focus Player". I agree these things are not mutually exclusive but when they are. Working together helps.
I've found its the best way to remove misunderstandings and overshadowing. Ya know, being collaborative in this collaborative game.
Great Video!
I've never played D&D, but I want to someday. I've been watching videos on how to play, learning the rules and vernacular used in games, and listening to horror stories. The conclusion that I've reached is that min-maxing, power gaming, or optimizing isn't inherently bad. The true problem is that it comes with a stigma of being associated with "that guy."
I have a min maxer at my table. I just throw harder stuff at the group.
@@DjG7979 how does the rest of the group feel about that? When you say "harder stuff," I'm assuming you mean combat encounters. Is the rest of the group able to contribute somehow, or does your min-maxer become the mc because they're the only one that can handle what you throw at them?
@meijinx9673 depending on what character he plays. I have run several campaigns with him. He also DMs at times. Usually, I will create encounters that exploit his weakness. I.e. if he tents to grapple things "too" effectively, I will throw monsters of a large or huge size every few encounters. It's not outside of the range of the other players, so they still have fun and contribute equally. And there are lots of combats where I he still dominates because I don't want anyone feeling targeted. Outside of combat, if his character is "too" observant, I'll get a bit nitpicky. (He will notice the lines in the sand no one else can see. Or he will smell the smoke in the air, but I will make him roll survival or nature to see if he understands what they mean. (I make the other payers do it as well, but since it is the observant one, it comes up more with him.
Communication being key we talk about this to make sure we are not ruining each others fun. After several years of playing together I think we have it down.
@@meijinx9673 Your powerful character becoming the anchor of the group isn't a bad thing, they can prop up the other characters and create a stronger identity for them. Like how Gandalf carried the fellowship of the ring.
@@punishedwhispers1218 while you may be right, from what I've heard in "that guy" stories, those guys usually don't give a fuck about propping up the others and being Gandalf. You should say it "isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing." I can think of plenty of ways that shit can go wrong if the right people aren't involved
This is a really interesting topic.
From what I've seen, usually when people complain about Min-maxers / optimizers what they're really complaining about is someone always hogging the spotlight.
So it's not really a problem with the min-maxing in and of itself, it's a problem player trying to make everyone else their sidekick.
Also, a video on how to handle or design for different types of players could be cool.
This is why turn order exists
@@tieflinglesbianyeah, so that everyone can sit and watch the min maxer do 7 things and murder 30 enemies, then the wizard can hit one guy with a firebolt and go back to ordering pizza
@@jamieadams2589 It's fair for the players who put more effort into combat to get more out of it
@@tieflinglesbian so is the min maxer just supposed to breeze through every encounter or should they be ramped up in such a way make the min maxing redundant and make the rest of the party feel more useless? Neither sound like good options to me but I don't really understand the appeal of murdering custom tailored encounters just as well as an unoptimised party except with less variety
@@jamieadams2589 Balancing encounters is a skill for DMs who are willing to put in the effort.
This conversation is almost entirely about the Min-Max Player and the DM, and mostly whiffs on the actual issue, which is the table dynamic
It is rare, especially when you have a table of relatively novice players, that you’ll have 4 or 5 players that are enthusiastic to role play as the sidekicks to one much more powerful player, especially if you’re in a game where the majority of the table is less concerned over the mechanical elements of the game, and more invested in the narrative
Moreover, one thing is playing with Min-Maxers like Brennan and Jasmine, or Erika Ishii, that study the mechanics, internalize them, and maybe even drill potential scenarios ahead of time (and then are also great actors on top of that)
It’s very different when you have a person at the table that’s taking 20-30 minutes consulting the manual (or worse still, passionately arguing with the DM about the META) just to decide what their “6 second” turn in combat is going to look like
A turn timer isn’t always an appropriate solution because a) it may only serve to discourage the player from participating entirely, rather than encouraging them to play looser b) it may be that another player at the table legitimately needs more time as an accommodation
Lastly, and this is less relevant, purely min-maxing can miss out on some of the more rewarding narratives
I consider myself to be a bit of a min-maxer myself, certainly in regards to how I approach combat
When designing a character however, I really like to intentionally give the characters I play a mechanical disadvantage to try and overcome in the campaign
This only works in longer games😅
One time, I played an Owlin that was afraid of flying, but the module the DM was working with wasn’t very long, so my character didn’t get over his fear before the game ended
His backstory was cool though, and the traumatic event that made him afraid to fly informed many of his decisions in the game in a way that I didn’t expect going in
All in all, I really enjoyed playing him
The “Git gud” attitude they conveyed really rubbed me the wrong way
A good DM can craft an asymmetrical challenge that doesn’t “feel” unjust, unfair, or cruelly and unusually punitive
A comprehensive session 0 can iron out these discrepancies before the game even starts
A group of strong players, be they narratively or mechanically proficient, wouldn’t be in this predicament to start… but the players that DO find themselves in this situation aren’t quite there yet
Saying “Git-Gud” is like saying “you don’t deserve to be having fun playing DND until you reach a certain level” which is the type of gatekeep-y BS rhetoric that keeps people from getting invested in this game
I think min-maxers can even be a fit within a role-playing group, depending on how adaptable the other players are. Imagine a min-maxer's character as something like a John Wick or Jason Bourne: someone who becomes precise and mechanical in battle situations (or any high-stress situation). Perhaps due to their training, or as a coping mechanism, or for any of a variety of other reasons: a cleric of a lawful deity might believe that violence must be precise, ordered, and dispassionate in its application, a warlock might have a patron which prefers its feast of blood unseasoned by the passions or preferences of the warlock who acts as the conduit for said tribute, a monk could enter a detached zen-like state while channeling their chi, or a wizard could return in their mind to the memory of their studious youth when they conjure forth their memorized spells.
Min-maxers who have no interest in meeting role-players halfway, or vice-versa, can be an issue. But sufficient imagination and a desire for everyone to enjoy the game in their own ways can create a very fertile middle ground.
I love how Jasmine rekt Brennan so badly that they had to pivot to actually share an actual conversation on the theme lol
I think that was best way for it to go. The points Jasmine was making were just incontestable. And Brennan making the point that it almost always comes back to a mechanical Issue. ... get good?
I have to agree. If you want to make a bad ass character min-max wise, but you don't know the rules that well. ask a Veteran player, or the GM. either most of the time will love nothing but to drop things and sit down and geek out on TTRPGs, not just D&D. But i've always like the balance that is there in the game. You want to be amazing warrior that is good with a weapon, and maybe tactics. Fighter. OMG Fighter to the max, but then you need a character that can handle the talking, and the social aspects. Bard, sorcerer, Cleric, and/or Paladin at times. Need that sneaky person that can get into the backlines, or into somewhere they should be? The Rogue, or a Ranger. But don't count out the Druid either. You need an specialist on the Arcane? Find the awkward, introverted Wizard that can recite Mordenkainen's laws of "Whatever" and can end an encounter with a spell, but guess what they can't take a hit. That is where the Fighter steps up and is like "I got this."
If you got a min-maxer that doesn't rp at much or at all. Its more often than not because they feel like they will just embarrass themselves. Start little with them, don't ask them to do a voice, just get little thing out of him, and be encouraging. You work with them and show them that your not going to berate them if you don't suddenly break out into Old English. Back in college I played with guys in 3.5 edition and we were all min-maxers. I mean we bending the rules till you could hear them start to scream and crack. BUT, so was our DM. He would put things infront of us that we had no business taking out and most of the time we would sqeak by. but even then we had our moments of role play.
all the while sitting back and meming before that was a thing, and laughing our asses off over some of the most stupid things. But it was fun. Most of us were in same martial arts club, so after the season, lol many times the session would become an imprompt sparring session. lol so much fun.
He's done that with some others too. And honestly as much as Brennan loves to debate, he knows when he is not winning/when to just discuss.
She didn't describe a min maxer at all. She described a player that doesn't really roleplay, which is fine.
@@ROYBGPWhat is your definition of a min-maxer?
@@ROYBGP She said Brennan was an example of a min maxer that also roleplays.
Pretty much all the issues with power gamers are other issues with the player that get exacerbated by the fact that they are more powerful than their allies. I'm a bit of a power gamer myself, and for years I've run games with a group consisting of a mix of power gamers, storytellers, and friends who just want to hang out with almost no drama, because everyone understood why everyone else was there, and wanted to help everyone have a good time.
Let's not forget she got to pick her position. Brennan is pro minmax, it is hard for him to argue against it as effectively, particularly when she starts using his tendency to minmax as an argument. It is a little like me saying "ballet is a good thing and you now have to argue against it" to a ballet dancer then I proceed to say "you are a ballet dancer so why are you arguing against this?".
Yeah, I've always hated that part of formal debate. You're *assigned* a position to argue, even if you don't believe in that position at all. At that point, you're not practicing debate anymore, you're practicing deception.
I guess you could say she min-maxed to create an advantage effectively, for an entertaining outcome.
That wasn't her argument. The standard minmaxer complaint is that they minmax instead of RPing, so she provided an example of a person and character that was able to do great RPing while still minmaxing. The fact that that person happened to be her opponent was just a bonus, not actually relevant to the argument.
@@IceMetalPunk Spitting cold facts out here, name checks out.
@@IceMetalPunk >> You're assigned a position to argue, even if you don't believe in that position at all. At that point, you're not practicing debate anymore, you're practicing deception.
The idea is to be able to consider different perspectives and understand their logical underpinnings well enough to use them in discourse. It can get a little goofy, but it can still be a useful mental exercise. And there are much worse problems with modern formal debate than the assignment of positions.
5:51 Brennan's got that face of "Oh, man, this wasn't supposed to be ACTUAL debate, we're just supposed to be messing around and now I have to make this work..."
Classically, as in 2e and earlier, Min-Maxing was more defined by use of the point buy system raising one stat to the highest available stat at the cost of putting one stat at the lowest possible. These types of characters were difficult to justify in terms of roleplay; min-max in those days was 3-18. We don't use that style of definition anymore because the standard point array is already min-maxed. There's a 15 (highest possible pre-racial stat) and an 8 (minimum). Everyone's min-maxing by 2e definitions.
On the story aspect of min-maxing my characters is that I love playing the min moments up for the comedic beat. So my barbarian is a Hulk and nothing can get past him, but intel and charisma checks are terrible-- and play up the failure. No one likes characters without flaws. This is the whole point of different classes with different +/- to each, and combining them is the soul at the center of share storytelling experience.
i play my arcane trickster's low wisdom and low strength for all the hilarity potential and play the high dex and int for all the coolness i can pull off
I think you're misunderstanding what the min in min-maxing means. It means to max your character out to to tiniest miniscule detail. But I whole heartedly agree with you. My favorite character I've ever made is my Wizard who dumped all of his physical stats for really high mental stats but still chooses to put himself in harms way to protect the rest of the party since he's sort of the big brother of the group.
I will preface this with saying I am relatively new to D&D, but I have learned as much about it as I can over the past few months. I have min-maxed my characters, *but* specifically with a narrative focus. For example, I have a goblin monk with a level in rogue with low intelligence, low strength, and particularly low charisma, but high constitution, and very high dexterity and wisdom. It makes sense from a character perspective, though: this character is never seen as intimidating, is seen as small, weak, not threatening, but whenever someone calls her weak or similar, she is just furious - like in Back to the Future when someone calls Marty chicken. Her skill proficiencies and expertise are all geared towards this furious character who is deceivingly weak on the surface. There isn't anything mechanically about the character which can't be easily explained narratively - I min-maxed her for that narrative specifically.
I really loved the bit at the end about DMs having a responsibility to meet powerful PCs where they're at and providing a real challenge
The only think that's truly hard to adapt to is if one player at a table of flawed low maximization characters is actually super min maxed, so a challenging battle for one is an impossible battle for others, and a reasonable battle for the group is a breeze for the powerhouse. But as a DM you can still find ways to accomodate this. But ways to do this both narratively and mechanically deserves its own discussion.
Yes this is the real issue with unbalanced characters - they make creating a challenge for both them and the rest of the party very difficult and volatile. In my game I had a ranger who did the most damage and was extremely hard to pin down (I think this happens often with ranged damage dealers, especially if they have decent defenses as well). In order to "challenge that player" I had to devise very specifically targeted mechanics that somehow did not threaten the rest of the party but threatened the ranger, or I had to use monsters so powerful they would mow through the rest of the party and be able to attack the ranger. Part of the problem is the lack of monster immunities and even effective resistances once magic weapons are in play - it would be easier if you could just throw in a monster that is highly resistant or immune to the shenanigans of the overpowered character.
That's why everyone needs to be on the same page. Have a better session zero.
@@nooooooooope3809 or you can make it narrative. Specifically tailored conditions and goals. Home brew like crazy. But it does tax the DM
I played a bloodhunter in a game, and went full in on the Witcher theme to the point of their job was a professional monster hunter before they became an adventurer. Literally EVERY check i made to figure out information on a monster was just absolutely beansed due to the dice just not working out. You had this person who was a pro monster hunter who literally never knew anything about monsters.
This actually blends into the conversation they were having. If the dice were "just not working out" for you, would you not then turn around and say "well now my character is just pretending like he was a professional monster hunter!"
The only time I’ve ever had a problem with a min/maxer was with a guy who liked to min/max because he hated any type of unsuccessful combat. His min/maxing was never an issue, the issue was that he was a sore loser and didn’t play well with others.
I had an awesome min/maxer in another game, his favourite part of DnD was strategizing and doing really impressive moves in combat and min/maxing was a fun part of that. He was so awesome to play with, the other players had a lot of fun setting him up for his big finishing moves or doing cool combos together. And one of our newbies loved playing with him because they felt less pressure in combat and were able to relax and have fun. He was a teammate, so it was really fun watching him kick butt on the battlefield and we’re all winners having fun!
Hot take: Characters that are optimized to some degree are the most realistic characters to roleplay. Most people in real life are drawn towards pursuits that they possess at least some skill in, because consistently failing at even the most basic tasks of a certain job sucks and feels bad, while doing well at something because you are either naturally talented or well practiced feels good.
I think the difference between optimized and min/maxed is that optimized characters are less likely to be completely useless in something that isn't part of their optimization. They understand that at least a bit of well roundedness is kinda useful. Min/maxed characters only specialize in a narrow area and have to hope that someone else can carry them in things outside that area.
Player Characters are exceptional, by default. If you survive past level 2, you're an anomaly as an adventurer, and it gets deadlier from there
I'm decent at my job, but I'm a complete anxious and depressed mess overall. I also didn't start out the best at my job, I learned it over time.That's not min-maxing, it's specializing, and that's the equivalent of picking a class and then slowly getting better as you level up.
@@JMcMillen Would you not say that leaving room for other characters to be good at the things you aren't is better roleplaying than trying to solve every problem yourself?
@@tieflinglesbian I never said that an optimized character would try to solve everything themselves. Just that if they did something outside their normal role they probably wouldn't completely suck at it. From a 5e perspective, an optimized character used the standard distribution while a min/maxed character used the point buy to start with 3 15's and 3 8's. That means that while the OC doesn't quite have the attribute bonuses the M/MC would have, they have a lot few penalties for stuff outside their focus. Because you never know when you might have to step outside your focus to try and do something, because either the PC that would normally do it is unavailable OR it's something everyone in the party is having to do as individuals.
Believe me, I did an extremely min/maxed character for Living Greyhawk 3.5 and it wasn't as fun as you might think. Because if the adventure doesn't give you opportunities to do those things you focused on, you're pretty much doing nothing except following the rest of the party around.
DnD is one of the few games where playing a well developed character and having mechanical strength aren't the same thing. A min maxed Masks character is just a very good and interesting character.
Honestly thank you both for this, I as a player always got so much shit from other players about my characters being min/max and overpowered when in reality I was just the only one that read the whole handbook and really enjoyed making characters. So I made a lot of them, and helped most of my fellow players make their characters. I always followed all restrictions any of my dms made when it came to starting stats and feats etc. Watching this was amazing I 100% Stan the git gud response to this
I have been in a game where one player was doing so much damage that it felt like the rest of us weren't relevant in combat. Part of that was actually him role playing the character as so crazy it was hard to tell if he was actually getting hurt so the fights were closer than they looked. While I actually had a lot of fun in that campaign, I could see where people could be frustrated in a campaign where the fights are either no challenge to one super character or incredibly deadly to everyone else. If everyone is min-maxed or no one is you're good to go, but when you get a mix it can generate some issues.
While I agree that it can be a problem, I disagree that the problem is min maxing, but rather a player problem.
I will call min-maxer optimizers from here on out. Just as an optimizer can be an excellent roleplayers, so can they be aware and emphathetic of their fellow players. In the same vein other players can also be bad roleplayers, or not socially aware or emphathetic to their fellow players.
Is optimising the problem, or is the problem that they are stepping on other characters toes, or hogging the spotlight too much?
I think some people just want to be better than everyone else, which is deeply problematic in a game like DnD. However, I would urge people to not mistake power tripping egoistic players from optimisers. Often the former is the latter, but the latter is far from always the former.
Many optimisers care about character concept, and about sharing spotlight, and lifting fellow players up. Many optimisers may choose harder concepts to optimise well to lower their power potential when playing with weaker groups. They are still optimising though. It is just that they are aware, emphathetic of their fellow players, and therefore choose a smart concept for their character which creates an optimising challenge for them.
There is nothing inherently wrong with min-maxing and optimizing your character. There is nothing inherently wrong with building to a theme and selecting abilities that seem fun or fitting to the roleplay instead of absolutely maximizing combat potential. What's important is to KNOW YOUR GROUP.
If you're sitting down at a table with a gang of people who aren't here for cranking out the biggest numbers, maybe leave Chad Peak Performance's character sheet at home. Conversely, if you're settling in with a group who are all about extremely high performance combat and difficult encounters, Sheldon the Bumbling Chef probably shouldn't be your go-to.
Yep thats definitely fair, hopefully that is all well and clear at session zero vs finding out a few lvls in that something isn't quite meshing lol.
I feel like the issue here is that kinda ignores that a person could simply want both? We talk a lot about roleplay and Chad Performance like they're always separate things but they don't need to be.
If you want to play a prodigy swordsman who's only spent time in isolation with their master and solely studying the blade in order to be the best at it then you've created the opportunity to roleplay someone who is constantly astounded and flummoxed by the outside world, or someone who discovers new passions, or someone who realizes their upbringing was a detriment to their ability to develop meaningful friendships.
Separating the two kinda ignores the real problem that people can just be honest about what they want out of a game and what makes them feel bad during the game. It's impossible to be good at everything, and people are always gonna shine in different areas. Sometimes people don't like that and how it shifts things but if that cant be solved with a conversation it wasn't gonna be a good table fit.
@@Xjr555kid Definitely agree. In one of my groups I play in i'd say I am the most "min maxed" or optimized build but i'm also the one who leans the most into roleplay. Definitely not reason not to do both, I prefer doing both, so I am able to do things well with my character and use their backstory and personality to drive the roleplay.
@@Xjr555kid True. The issue occurs when it becomes fun at other's expense. For example, consider a character who is consistently expert at all aspects of the game (think min-maxed fey wanderer who has +10 in every skill check, and pumps out 50 damage a round). Is that a problem on its own? No. What if they don't roleplay? Still not a problem. If the rest of the party plays similar characters, I don't see an issue.
I do see an issue if they hog the spotlight and develop main character symptom (e.g., P1 OHKO's the man who killed P2's father, before P2 gets a chance to think, talk, or strike a measly, pathetic blow, followed by that same player insisting on talking to P3's father, the king, and thereby sidelining P3's big moment to defy their father because "well, I have the better stats."
The problem isn't min-maxing, but min-maxing can empower the problem player if they lack EQ
@Xyronite But the problem player is gonna be a problem no matter what. Even a player who is really into roleplaying and doesn't think about the numbers can still be a problem player.
My broader point about all this is that Minmaxing isn't the problem. The problem is always just a bad player. If someone feels outshined and insecure, usually that only takes a conversation, and the min maxer doesn't even need to change their build. They can just pick their moments better.
Minmaxing isn't the problem, bad players are the problem. Minmaxing may enable bad players to be bad in a different way, but you could say the same about roleplayers, rules lawyers, and everything else.
This video actually did show the danger of min maxing.
Jasmine picked a strategy that was so optimized Brennan really didn't even get to play.
If all the players are Spikes and there is an opportunity to later counter that strategy than that's fine. But Johnny's will be frustrated because they wouldn't have time to get their strategy up and running. And Timmy's will be frustrated because one sided fights feel bad.
Love this discussion, the takeaway isn’t “everyone/no one should min-max”, it’s “let people play how they want, if it’s upsetting the party, maybe you should find a more fitting party to your play style”
You do realize that goes for min-maxing
If the min-maxer upsets the party with their min maxing they should find a more fitting group
@@TerryAVanguard yeah, that’s what I was saying. If your min-maxing is upsetting the party, find a party more fitting to your play style.
@@dasiasaur I misunderstood
@@TerryAVanguard you’re all good, I must not have said it clear enough
@@TerryAVanguard that also goes for non min-maxing
I guess you could say that they are "Master-Debaters"
And they lasted for more than 2 minutes!
I thought the same thing haha
They both do seem like cunning linguists.
This is why I always say create your character and then make a character sheet to match. It can be kind of tricky due to the class limitations, especially at early levels, but I find it far more enjoyable to use a character with a decent backstory and abilities to match than to build out the sheet first and figure out how to make a backstory fit.
I recently wanted to create a genie warlock and was struggling to create a backstory for him because I felt hampered by the restrictions of the mechanics. It was like forcing my ideas to fit inside a box and I had to throw out things that wouldn't work with the theme.
As a player who enjoys learning the rules and fine-tuning my characters to function exactly the way I imagined them, it's really great to hear such influential gamers making the points I've been arguing for decades.
My brother had a peculiar motto.....he didn't care if your build is op, he can always create an evil mentor with that same build and higher level XD
Brennan has found his match and her name is Jasmine
Edit: When it comes to DnD of course.
For me as a DM, I do agree largely with what was said here. However, there is one situation that they didn't address that I wish they would have. It's no fun to be the only player at the table who isn't min/maxed. I'm talking your first time players getting thrown in with a bunch of veterans. Players in that situation (I've found) are the ones who end up leaving the game because they feel like they just don't get it, and let me be clear, THIS IS FOR THE DM TO FIX. You should help players build the character they want to play. Make them effective at the things they want to be effective at. Throw them the situations their character was designed for! If you have four players, and three of them are combat gods, make sure that you provide situations for the fourth character to shine.
Great video, there is just one thing that is bothering me.
Changing the encounter on the fly is an easy but very dangerous solution if you play a long term campaign.
If your players ever lose their trust in you as a DM, it will be very very difficult to regain it.
If you start adding HP to the monster to counterbalance the high damage output of the players, they will stop trying to do high damage.
If you start adding more enemies to the encounter when you players kill every minion too fast, they will stop trying to kill multiple ennemies in their turn.
Let you players be awesome, reward them for their strategies instead of punishing them.
I think it's more of a problem when the reverse happens:
"And my character was kicked out of his barbarian tribe for being too puny."
"So what class is he then?"
"A barbarian."
"So his goal as an adventurer is too prove them wrong?"
"Oh no they were completely right about him. Strength is his dump stat."
Dex Based barbs are completely viable you know (more so 5e than other editions, but they can work)
If you mean players making joke characters to real games, then those players don't get invited back lol
@@ethancaron9259 i would not say "completely viable", but they can be playable - you throw away tons of strong sides of class and change them to nothing after all. But you can make kind of good Ancestral Guardian with bow.
@@Michael-bn1oito me that “joke character” can absolutely be played in a way that can be exciting, engaging, and fun. Narratively having a character with the caveat that they’re not great at what they’re supposed to do raises lots of interesting questions, and could lead down so many different paths. Do they find redemption and grow into their original role? Do they go through a journey of self-discovery and re-class/multi class? Do they find a way to make their strengths work within their class and find success?
Shutting that down and saying “That’s dumb we can’t work with that don’t play with us” seems harsher than is fair to me, and it’s kind of where I disagree with the argument of “get good or build better”.
Obviously it comes down to the individual and there’s always going to be differing opinions but that’s where we get these sorts of discussions.
The shot at 5:26 is 12 seconds of Brennan brimming with pure joy.
I think the issue I've seen when a minmaxy person caused issues was because they over expressed how other people could be "more optimal" or really wanted to do a very effective thing that they wouldn't have known to do in character. Those technically aren't unique to minmaxing, but it seems to happen a lot more with mechanically obsessive players
Not all min-maxers are metagamers and not all metagamers are minmaxers. Also isn't the issue with a minmaxer trying to force other players to minmax the same as a roleplayer trying to force another player to speak in character or describe every attack in combat or write a fifteen page backstory. I think min-maxers get way more blame than they are due from other types of problem players.
@@EdsonR13 of course. My point is that minmaxers can get a bad name because of bad things that some minmaxers do as a result of toxic optimization. The same as how metagaming isn't inherently bad. (It's kind of necessary for most parties to actually decide to start adventuring together) but there are negative ways it can be done and often is done such that it gets a bad rep. The root problem isn't minmaxing your character. I just felt like the conversation missed some of the legitimate gripes people have when talking about it and how to distinguish between the two. (I'm admittedly biased because the behaviors I'm describing lead to the latest group drama I've been in)
I think the often overlooked thing about Min/maxing is that it encourages role play. Your character has built in flaws reflected by your character sheet. If you’re a barbarian with 8s in all your mentals, so you can get three 16s with your Vuman +1s and a half-feat, you are roleplaying a dim witted bruiser. If your character has maxed charisma and a negative wisdom, they’re the life of the party but lack insight into the intentions of those around them.
I agree but also you can mix it up. Your Barbarian could believe their super smart and wise, try to but in at every moment with a wise thought or try to solve something only to fail horribly but still have that confidence that they're the smartest guy in the room. Could be a fun roleplay.
This is a lot of good advice that i inadvertently stumbled into because my table was wildly imbalanced, mechanically speaking. A power player, 2 min-maxers, 2 roleplayers, and 1 there for the chaos.
Desinging battles & challenges became a nightmare after the first year, until i realized- im the one telling the story, i can make up any situation i want (as long as it fit the rules of my world) and started giving world consequences to what the outcome of battle was.
They ended up jelling very well because the more the characters were out for themselves or didn't take care of other party members, the more the world would grow chaotic and unfriendly, but when they acted like a team or took unusual hooks/paths the world was more forgiving & lawful.
I think the main issue is not min-maxing, it's players that want to rules lawyer so they don't have a weakness (or outright cheat). That said there does need to be some kind of balance in the party to make sure we're not leaving players who didn't min-max for combat basically feeling pointless. I remember trying to make a rogue character for an evil campaign where one guy did some really shady stuff (with a newbie DM, most of us players had only played 1 campaign) and tried to mind-control the party. Saying "get good" to a new DM implies that players bear no responsibility to each other and the DM. This is why it's so hard to find people willing to DM. I got no problem if a player wants to min-max, just don't be an ass.
Honestly that's been my major position on it. Min/maxing isn't inherently bad.
But if the person doing so is doing it in a way that disrupts the table to a degree then that becomes an issue with that particular mentality of play.
Whether that's invalidating other players own play niches (making the perfect pc) , making it so the table has no combat challenges unless the dm hard focuses that one player which can adversely affect the other pcs or as you described it actively being hostile to other pcs using the mechanics as an excuse.
All these things can be perfectly fine at a table that plays that way. But at other tables that viewpoint or play style is a hinderence to others there players and dm alike
Tiberius Stormwind in a nutshell
I feel like typically the people who complain about a min-maxers are also min-maxxing. Just min-maxing for roleplay exploration/social encounters.
@@Synetik Most of my favorite characters are straight down the line dice rolled. My DM prefers that, we've been using a modified version of the Old School Ruleset (1e). I think it untethered me from the idea of creating an incredible backstory and roleplaying the rolls more than the stats. It's been great.
You're right that Min-maxing takes a lot of forms, and it usually exists as a way to overcome challenges, which is just designing to play the game. My only qualm with the general culture around min-maxing is the plethora of build guides that try to rank the optimal build. That's just me though, so take it with a bag of salt
For me I'll rather be the one that finishes fights quickly so they can go back to roleplaying. Especially if they're trying to save spells so we don't have to short rest or worse retreat for a long rest. This is why I'm fine with running homebrew because there's interesting custom race/linage and class/subclass interactions that can make for good roleplay. Either it be players or NPCs.
I love that Brennan was so quick to admit defeat because he was already on board.
It is awesome to see that they point out that roleplay and min maxing aren't mutually exclusive.
For me there is a world of difference between someone that optimizes their character to work well, and someone that tries to exploit weirdly written mechanics to do some objectively OP things. Now it differs greatly per group, cause every table and campaign can function completely differently. Another big point in my opinion is how open any given player is to conversation. For example, I had the well-known Hexblade + Paladin combo in one of my longer running games. Quite early on it became clear that in combat especially he was able to solo many encounters cause of how high he could hit, whilst the others could not hope to keep up.
This was fine, right up until I as a GM struggled a bit to keep the encounters fun and engaging for everyone equally whilst not forcefully trying to just do things to counter any particular build. But after a quick talk, the Player agreed it is more fun for our table if everyone is able to fight together in those combats, so on future levels he took some more RP related choices whilst the others improved their combat abilities. He still hit much higher than the rest of the crew, but the encounters felt much more fun and engaging.
Good take, sometimes when there's someone that's so powerful compared to the others, as a GM you're in a pinch cause if that player gets hard counter, not only it may argue you're playing against them, or if the op character drops, now the rest of the party is very ill-suited for dealing with the challenged-up thing you did. sure you can buff the other players, but then again you'll have an even worse balacing to do. In a community where the ratio of DM/GM ratio is already bad, telling them to 'git gud' isn't in my opinion the best take, it's already not easy to compensate for some tabletop bad balance, giving a blanket blame on the DM/GM is cheap. And yeah, depends mostly on communication and group expectations/chemistry, as usual.
@@ProjectBarcodeError Sorry but I disagree. This isn't a good take. @UberGamerNL admits that they asked a player to nerf themselves in order to have a more balanced game. This is completely contrary to what this video is about. This video has a strong argument for why imbalance is baked into 5e and that uncreative GM's are the problem not the min-maxed player. So what if the player has a Hexadin? Throw a cleric on the enemy's side who heals the boss after the Hexadin crits. Hexadin's aren't great at splitting focus. Now the rest of the team needs to work together to take out the boss and the cleric. There are so many work arounds like this if you only think creatively.
I think one can both do their best while also role play well and often. They’re not mutually exclusive and you don’t need to make bad choices just for flavour
completely agree, and if you go too far to the roleplayer/non min maxer side you're now pretty useless in combat and weighing your group down for a falvourful character. I say invest in the abilities that makes sense for your class, and make a good backstory that you can lean into for your roleplaying. It can be fun to make a Barbarian who thinks they're really high in charism and charm but fail miserably at every attempt despite the confidence.
Part of this is about the type of game. In a dungeon crawl or hex crawl wilderness exploration, you want to be good at combat, and if you're not you're going to be bored during combat. While in a political campaign with few combat encounters, you want to have some way to do political maneuvering.
Yeah, but I had a friend who couldn't bear to pay the flavor text. It was a quibble over half orc vs vhuman because of one feat. It's how he enjoys the game, so that's fine; but I feel like he limits himself flavor-wise, for the sake of mechanics.
@@eyflfla tell him about custom lineage from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It has level 1 feat, ASI of +2 to one stat, and either one skill or darkvision. It also has the option of either medium or small size. The idea of it is that you can be any race while having options for what you start with. TCE also lets you pick where the level 1 ability score bonuses go for any race, so long as you don't stack them.