There's plenty of anecdotal evidence being presented here to suggest that optimization was a thing from the beginnings of D&D, and while online communities weren't as much of a thing before 3.X, I really feel like it was that system, which was built to appeal to both types of playstyles, that you really began to see that big shift, where the optimizers really began to run with their mathematical models and tier lists and class guides.
It's not clear what playstyle you're contrasting with optimizing, here - I assume old-school 'skilled play?'
But 3.x certainly favored system mastery very heavily.
If anything, I feel like 4e
diminished that particular conversation because its design was so heavily focused towards combat and balance[/quote] ... that optimized and non-optimized characters didn't experience such a huge gulf in effectiveness, so the two could co-exist without the former dominating. To the extent that the system masters could be satisfied with such modest 'rewards,' anyway - a lot of them /did/ stay with 3.5 and go to PF - sunk system-mastery investment, and greater intentionally built-in rewards for it, afterall.
Though the 'focus on combat' is also a thing that has always been with D&D, and one that 4e shifted away from in un-D&D-like manner, with Skill Challenges & Rituals. (Heck, 5e even retained rituals, sorta).
But we're not really talking about edition warring here
Meh, if, in a general discussion of editions, you keep seeing 4e coming up more than all the others combined, primarily in the form of baseless criticism and pushing back against same, yeah, it's at least contaminated by lingering edition warring.
; we're talking about the seeming domination of optimizer style/opinion/thought in online conversations regarding tabletop RPGs, and that's something that existed long before 4e was a gleam in anyone's eye, and it's something that still exists in communities that wouldn't touch 4e with a 10 foot pole.
It's probably as much to do with the nature of the on-line medium as anything.
Even 4e, even if that conversation tended to center more around complaining about the relative dearth of non-combat character options.
:sigh: See, that's edition warring, right there. There was no such dearth /relative/ to other editions of the game. 4e Skill Challenges, alone, integrated and mechanically supported non-combat more than other editions before or since.
What was missing? Formerly game-breaking spells were absent or nerfed. Non-adventuring skills were not given mechanical weight. (You want your character to be a blacksmith or a sailor or whatever, fine, take a background, and get a perk with a related adventuring skill.)
Of course, we talk about optimizer/roleplayer as if it's a binary dichotomy but it's really not; it's not even a spectrum with the two on opposite ends; they're two separate spectrums,
A rare and astute observation. Not only that, but they often correlate. Optimizing to a strong/interesting RP concept combines both. Go to an optimization forum and ask a question, and you'll immediate get OP mavins asking you 'what are you going for? 'what's the concept?'