>From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
>
>It's a hard one to explain, easy to recognise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing
Which comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax
Which is part of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
Invented by the same guy who thought up how the modern computer should work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture
Who wrote the above Minimax theorem.
Basically it says that, given a game with certain parameters that players will, where possible, use the smallest amount of resources to gain the largest benefits.
In other words, the term "min-maxer" means "human being." That is, the game in question, if it has such potential strategies, is promoting the behavior in question. RPGs have long avoided this fact, labeling players who play to the strategies that the games promote as "power gamers." When, in fact, it's the game that's at fault. Asking them not to pursue the strategies presented, is largely asking them to ignore the system that's being used.
Complications from this fact are the largest issue in RPG play.
This is why all abilities have the same game effect in Hero Quest. It means that one cannot min-max by ability selection, outside of trying to predict what sort of contests he may be forced to compete in. If you allow players to direct the sort of contests that they compete in, then all abilties are the same in terms of strategy, and selection becomes only a matter of player interest (which seems to be the behavior sought by those criticizing others as "min-maxers").
(As Jane points out, there are still some small min-max potentials in terms of ability level selections due to "break points" as well as some other places. But generally HQ does a good job of not presenting strategies to players to pursue. Put another way, it's trying hard not to be a "game" at all, but a system for determining a narrative.)
Sorry, pet interest of mine.
Mike
Powered by hypermail