Optimizers, oh my!

[CroBob]

I've noticed some people complain about "optimizers", as though they're some kind of sub-human who refuses to role-play. In my experience, the people who optimize the best are also really good role-players. The line of thought is generally something like; A character whome is not optimized is better for role-playing than a character who is optimized... and I just plain don't follow. Indeed, a certain degree of optimization is unavoidable if you like your character and try to improve his performance. I've played the oddly stated character here or there, and it is fun sometimes, but to proclaim that someone who doesn't do so is nothing more than a munchkin? I don't get it.

 

[pemerton]

I don't get it either.

A lot of my group are mechanically strong players - over the years I've had two Australasian M:tG champions in my group, as well as boardgamers, strong PbM gamers, etc. Some of these players like to build mechanically effective PCs. On the other hand, one is notorious for building wacky PCs which are not as effective as they could be (in Rolemaster, his samurai PC was also a master blacksmith; in the current 4e campaign his invoker has the Linguist feat and multiple skill training feats, and will be taking the Sage of Ages Epic Destiny).

I've never found any correlation between these approaches to build, and depth of PC background and/or readiness to participate in the story aspects of play. Also, one thing that is pretty constant in my group is that we like transparency of rules - so if you are making your PC mechanically stronger, or instead mechanically a bit quirky, you can tell what you're doing (so the blacksmith/invoker player didn't build his PCs by accident - he knew the choices he was making). Also, if something is just broken, we happily nerf it. (Happily not that big a deal in 4e.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My only problem with optimizers has been those who get in my face about how my PCs aren't optimized.

Being helpful is fine, but ultimately, my PC's design is between me and the DM.

 

[Loonook]

My only problem with optimizers has been those who get in my face about how my PCs aren't optimized.

Being helpful is fine, but ultimately, my PC's design is between me and the DM.

DA has my number one pet peeve. The only truly bad optimizer is one who attempts to push optimization onto other players, uses their specific optimization as a detriment to players or the game, or who cannot accept any circumstances that would leave them suboptimal for any length of time.

Yes, I understand that optimization is your type of fun. But if you push it onto others or get upset when something happens and your specific brand of awesome gets sidelined for a session it gets irritating.

Having a player storm off during a gritty game because he had to use a 'lesser weapon' to fight creatures after he suffered a crippling injury is always upsetting... But it is the way of the world.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[delericho]

I've noticed some people complain about "optimizers", as though they're some kind of sub-human who refuses to role-play. In my experience, the people who optimize the best are also really good role-players.

They're two different axes that measure two different things. You can have optimisers who roleplay well, optimisers who roleplay poorly, non-optimisers who roleplay well, and non-optimisers who roleplay poorly. The one appears to have very little correlation with the other either way.

My objection to the obsessive optimisers is this:

3e is my favourite edition to date by a long way (the jury is still out on 5e). It's also the only edition I am willing to run, or that I really have any interest in playing - the idiosyncrasies of the older editions would quickly drive me insane, while my opinion of 4e is not favourable (to put it mildly). (And other games have their own issues; they're just not so widely publicised.)

However, 3e has some fundamental and systematic problems - issues that go so deep that they can't be fixed just by patching the system. For the most part, that's fine; I'm content to just get on and play, avoid the troublesome areas as much as I can, and have fun with that.

For the optimisers, though, the entire goal is to eke out as much from the system as they possibly can. That means pushing the system to its limits - they're deliberately going for those areas of the system that are problematic. Effectively, they take a huge spotlight, and shine it brightly on the bits of the game are broken.

The consequence of their actions is that I end up ever more disillusioned with the game, and with no better alternative available. Their fun essentially depends on poisoning the well for me.

 

[CroBob]

Hence the difference in term, though. Optimizers simply attempt to optimize their character, not break the game. Hell, a visit to the CharOp boards show that, while people have designed utterly broken optimizations, they also don't play them, and suggest that nobody else does. It's more like simply toying with the system because they find it fun. They also, though, optimize their characters that they do play. I see no problem with this unless it detracts from the game somehow, in which case they're just jerks.

Either way, your very first point is my confusion on the topic. Yes, two axis... so why say "optimizers" instead of specifying the specific kind of optimizers?

 

[Empirate]

For those who don't know it yet: the assertion that 'good optimization = bad roleplaying', and 'bad optimization = good roleplaying' is known as the Stormwind Fallacy. Tempest Stormwind's early insight has been a staple of discussions such as this for a while, and for good reason.

Statements such as this, [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION], are a huge problem if you want a serious take on optimization and its potential problems:
"For the optimisers, though, the entire goal is to eke out as much from the system as they possibly can. That means pushing the system to its limits - they're deliberately going for those areas of the system that are problematic. Effectively, they take a huge spotlight, and shine it brightly on the bits of the game are broken."

First off, there is no "the optimizers". You let it sound as if there's optimizers, and non-optimizers, which is not the case. You're playing a fighter with good Str? You're already optimizing. And you're doing it to achieve an honorable goal: to be better able to fill your self-assigned role in the party (tactical and character role, btw).

Optimization is completely neutral where breaking the game is concerned. If a player chooses to gimp himself by playing a horribly ineffective character that the DM has to go out of his way to keep in his story (or even alive), then that breaks the game just as surely as somebody abusing infinite Wish loops.
Optimization just helps to see how you can build a character that fulfills your vision. You can optimize a Gnome Sorcerer who specializes in mounted archery. If you don't optimize, this character concept is next to unplayable. But with a bit of system knowledge and the right combination of feats and spells, you might pull it off so your character is not a wild, way out there laughing-stock, but makes a memorable and lasting impression.

 

[CroBob]

^ Yes. optimizing isn't about making the super most powerfulzorz character you can, it's about making a character who's good at what they do... and you may have an outlandish idea for what you want them to do!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If a player chooses to gimp himself by playing a horribly ineffective character that the DM has to go out of his way to keep in his story (or even alive), then that breaks the game just as surely as somebody abusing infinite Wish loops.

(Emphasis mine.)

OTOH, language like this is also unhelpful & needlessly inflammatory.

When I design a PC, I strive to model his essence as best the mechanics allow me to match the concept in my head: what you see as "horribly ineffective" may be exactly what I was aiming for, and thus, 100% optimized at modeling the concept, such as a mute arcanist.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have several players who are seriously optimized. Of the three that come to mind, all have very well developed characters as well. They're also good roleplayers and they while they do enjoy how OP they are, they're not making other players feel bad about it. They also help other players optimize, but don't force it on them.

I agree that there are two main thoughts to optimization and the "bad" kind of optimization is that in which a player simply builds a number monster, while the "good" kind is when a player builds a very focused character.