I can´t see why you want do something against MIn/maxers. I actually find these people very usefull cause their drive for the best mnechanical character and stats also helps in finding weaknesses of the game and than people an designers can come up with suitable fixes and rules to close the gaps the MIn/maxers found.
Doing something against them is actuall hurting the game cause yoiu than will protect the weak parts of the game.
The more I think about that, the less sense it makes.
Are you talking about the design and play-testing phase, or... what? Are you confusing min-max ing (the act) with min-max ers (the players engaging in said act)?
It seems like you're saying that publishing the rules in a form that discourages or reduces the act of min-max ing is bad for the game because it is the min-max ers who would find "weak parts of the game"... when it's those weak parts of the game that you've intentionally left in for them to find, because otherwise they won't find them, and that's bad?
Huh?
~~~~
Some select hardcore min-maxers are great to have around during the design and playtesting phases. At the actual gaming table, in a group that's just trying to play the game? Eh... I tend to say "not so much".
No I actually talk about the people who are playing the game after it hit the market. The MIn/maxers which want to build the optimal character(statwise) for the area they want to play him in. Like if I want to play a sniper I go and doa min Max run on this topic looking what
the system provides me to make it most efficient.
This often leads to the fact that these players find ways to exploit the game cause they find the weaknesses the rules provide. For example that somehow nobody cared to say thta you cann´t do sneaking with a No Dachi. Or the classic sneak attack with a ballista (before it was fixed).
Finding these weaknesses helps the game to get better cause when they are found they can be fixed.
So if you implement mechnics to dicourge playerf from striving for a maximum of efficiency it will keep the system from evoling and getting better cause a system with less inconsitent rules is defiently better than before.
So in other words, yes, you do want to leave the system vulnerable to min-maxing, because it's the min-maxers who will find the "exploits" and thus somehow make the game better...
...after it's been published.
We aren't talking about an MMO that can be patched every time someone stumbles on an unintended synergy or exponential return. Once a pen-and-paper game is published, it's too **** late to go back and fix these things, unless you're going to publish a revised edition a year after putting out the original. (And that's just a recipe for pissing off your customers...)
Actually a RPg can be patched very easily with a offical errate pdf.Look hod D&D is doing it. Many RPGs have no problem with this and could easily go for a Erattra. Only when these weaknesses are not getting fixed problems arise.
Also I don´t say you are not trying to make a game without flaws or use min /maxer as excuse to publish a game with many weaknesses.,
I say doiing somehting againt the act of MI)n/maxing is a bad Idea cause they help to find the remaining weaknesses.