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.