overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
To prevent the topic from consuming another thread, here's a dedicated thread for this topic.
Optimization and optimizers...
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
@overgeeked Your definition of "optimizer" from the previous thread is both ridiculous and insulting, frankly. You're straight-up confusing "munchkin" and "optimizer". Here's what you said:
Optimizing is optimizing. Words have meaning. Optimizing means choosing the right stats, weapons, looking at your abilities and picking ones that actually make sense mechanically and so on. If you do that consistently, and I know most of us are, you are, in fact, optimizing, and you are thus "an optimizer". Period. Fact of the English language. Fact of TTRPGs. Not really up for debate.
There's no bad faith at all in doing that, either. RPGs are games, and you look at the rules and see what actually works - especially as a lot of RPGs are quite questionably designed games (albeit this is far less true in 2025 than 2005 or 1995) is completely a good-faith and sensible behaviour.
There's a big difference between making a PC that's well-constructed, intentionally avoids taking any trap or weak or poorly-designed options, and is, functionally, definitionally, "well-optimized" and seeking out a "broken" build. These are different things. One is not the other. Broken builds tend to rely either on exploits/rules loopholes, avoiding obvious RAI in favour of obviously-wrong RAW, which are not mere optimization - they're exploiting, in general, and quite reliant on DMs to basically go along with them. They're likely to be also optimized (though not in all cases, oddly enough - sometimes one broken thing means you can ignore normal optimization), but saying they're same thing as mere optimization without exploits/ignoring RAI is laughable.
I basically haven't made an "un-optimized" PC outside of some horror or PtbA/FitD TTRPGs since the 1990s. The idea that I'm thus the same as some munchkin who intentionally breaking them game is frankly beyond the pale. It's not a reasonable position to hold. Nor is it reasonable to suggest I don't "optimize" merely because I don't break the game! That's like saying someone who jogs regularly "isn't a jogger" merely because they're not also abusing steroids!
I think the distinction you need to learn to make is simply between bad faith and good faith. You're assuming it's not optimization unless there is bad faith. That's obviously not what those words mean or imply in English. It's not reasonable, in English, to try and claim only people who are out to break the game are "optimizers". It's just abusing the language and causing confusion and dismay - use a more specific term, like munchkin, if you mean someone actively out to break the game! English has huge numbers of words for a reason!
Otherwise it's like It's exactly like saying/assuming anyone who is "hungry" is in fact a cannibal lusting for human flesh, not a guy who is about to go make a green smoothie or eat a biscuit!
Optimizing is optimizing. Words have meaning. Optimizing means choosing the right stats, weapons, looking at your abilities and picking ones that actually make sense mechanically and so on. If you do that consistently, and I know most of us are, you are, in fact, optimizing, and you are thus "an optimizer". Period. Fact of the English language. Fact of TTRPGs. Not really up for debate.
There's no bad faith at all in doing that, either. RPGs are games, and you look at the rules and see what actually works - especially as a lot of RPGs are quite questionably designed games (albeit this is far less true in 2025 than 2005 or 1995) is completely a good-faith and sensible behaviour.
There's a big difference between making a PC that's well-constructed, intentionally avoids taking any trap or weak or poorly-designed options, and is, functionally, definitionally, "well-optimized" and seeking out a "broken" build. These are different things. One is not the other. Broken builds tend to rely either on exploits/rules loopholes, avoiding obvious RAI in favour of obviously-wrong RAW, which are not mere optimization - they're exploiting, in general, and quite reliant on DMs to basically go along with them. They're likely to be also optimized (though not in all cases, oddly enough - sometimes one broken thing means you can ignore normal optimization), but saying they're same thing as mere optimization without exploits/ignoring RAI is laughable.
I basically haven't made an "un-optimized" PC outside of some horror or PtbA/FitD TTRPGs since the 1990s. The idea that I'm thus the same as some munchkin who intentionally breaking them game is frankly beyond the pale. It's not a reasonable position to hold. Nor is it reasonable to suggest I don't "optimize" merely because I don't break the game! That's like saying someone who jogs regularly "isn't a jogger" merely because they're not also abusing steroids!
I think the distinction you need to learn to make is simply between bad faith and good faith. You're assuming it's not optimization unless there is bad faith. That's obviously not what those words mean or imply in English. It's not reasonable, in English, to try and claim only people who are out to break the game are "optimizers". It's just abusing the language and causing confusion and dismay - use a more specific term, like munchkin, if you mean someone actively out to break the game! English has huge numbers of words for a reason!
Otherwise it's like It's exactly like saying/assuming anyone who is "hungry" is in fact a cannibal lusting for human flesh, not a guy who is about to go make a green smoothie or eat a biscuit!
Last edited:
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
Not sure what this is about, but I have had thoughts on this for some time. I decided long ago that it is not worth my energy or effort to try and deal with these alleged culprits because, frankly, most of these games are designed with the expectation that players will (and should) optimise to produce the most favorable outcome at every possible opportunity.
Most game systems don't actively reward players for making poor or less optimal choices. A wizard class always assumes the character will have a high Intelligence score, for example. Thus, most related mechanics and abilities of a wizard ties directly to that one stat. Does the game offer a consolation or adjustment for having mediochre INT? Almost never. So why shame others for making the better choices that the game expects players to make in order to have an effective character?
In other words: "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
Most game systems don't actively reward players for making poor or less optimal choices. A wizard class always assumes the character will have a high Intelligence score, for example. Thus, most related mechanics and abilities of a wizard ties directly to that one stat. Does the game offer a consolation or adjustment for having mediochre INT? Almost never. So why shame others for making the better choices that the game expects players to make in order to have an effective character?
In other words: "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
Bae'zel
Hero
I was having a discussion about this elsewhere.
Basically we have a player at the table who is giving lots of advice to other players on what equipment their characters SHOULD be using to maximize damage output.
Even if the chosen weapons go against their character's theme or style.
You know the kind; who will insist that Jedi should only use blaster rifles and grenades with the Force or something. Not as a one off quirky character, but as a golden standard.
It can get a bit annoying, but I'm finding ways to encourage "flavor" over "statistical efficiency".
Basically we have a player at the table who is giving lots of advice to other players on what equipment their characters SHOULD be using to maximize damage output.
Even if the chosen weapons go against their character's theme or style.
You know the kind; who will insist that Jedi should only use blaster rifles and grenades with the Force or something. Not as a one off quirky character, but as a golden standard.
It can get a bit annoying, but I'm finding ways to encourage "flavor" over "statistical efficiency".
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
If you say so. One player takes an option that provides one attack, another player takes an option that provides six. The first says the second is breaking the game, the second says that the first doesn't know how to optimize. You are somehow saying one is right, the other, wrong.
I'm hoping this is less true than you think. Numenera awards XP for allowing the GM to "intrude." I think it was Rifts that gives more character points for giving your character Flaws. Maybe Savage Worlds too. Modos RPG rewards self-sabotage with Hero Points.
I'd agree with " D&D-like systems don't reward players . . . "
Last edited:
This thread will go well ....
Let me start with a story. In American law schools, there's an archetype called a "gunner." It's ... not a positive term. It's the type of student who is eager to impress and a little too competitive- because they are okay with not just winning, but having other lose to make sure that they win. They are known for their "helium hands" (always raising their hands ... often before the lecturer even asks a question) and have been known (back when books were used) to rip out pages of books after they read them to make sure others didn't get to read those pages. Anyway, the saying for first year law students was to look around your section. If you didn't know who the gunners were ... you were the gunner.
I've noticed something similar when it comes to rules lawyers (see what I did there?). Any person who has ever encountered a rules lawyer ... well, they know how much they bring the game down. It's so true, it's not even worth arguing about. It's been true since the game started (and they were called barracks lawyers). There are articles in the 1970s calling them out, and parodies in Dragon Magazine. The afterword of the 1e DMG stated that you should never "allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you." (1e DMG p. 230). But here's the thing- whenever the topic comes up, there will be someone who defends rules lawyering- arguing that it's a good thing. That they are, in fact, defending liberty, or the other people at the table, or parsing words carefully to state that they aren't, in fact, rules lawyers. They are willing to argue, endlessly and forever, about any and every point, to show that while they aren't a rules lawyer and there really isn't any such thing, if there was such a thing, it would be totally awesome and good. Yep.
So it goes with optimization. When people decry "optimization," they aren't talking about choosing an option that gives you d8 as opposed to d6. Just like when people talk about a gunner, they aren't talking about someone who wants to do well in law school. And when people talk about rules lawyers, they aren't talking about someone who want to know the rules. Intuitively, we should know this.
So what are people talking about? Well, there are times when I see some people post here. And they make these builds- ones that combine rules to wring every last advantage that they can find. That rely on mismatches in different wordings from different areas. Or try to mix and match 5e14 and 24 rules where they don't fully jibe together. Or misunderstand the action economy... always in a way that benefits them. Or carries a specific game-word ruling to an absurd extent that it obliterates any fiction.
No one is saying to make a "bad" character. But if your intent is to win D&D, well, you should recognize that not everyone plays that way. Because as some people note... D&D is a game. But it's not a videogame that you win. Unless that's how you want to play it- but if it is, understand that others do not.
Let me start with a story. In American law schools, there's an archetype called a "gunner." It's ... not a positive term. It's the type of student who is eager to impress and a little too competitive- because they are okay with not just winning, but having other lose to make sure that they win. They are known for their "helium hands" (always raising their hands ... often before the lecturer even asks a question) and have been known (back when books were used) to rip out pages of books after they read them to make sure others didn't get to read those pages. Anyway, the saying for first year law students was to look around your section. If you didn't know who the gunners were ... you were the gunner.
I've noticed something similar when it comes to rules lawyers (see what I did there?). Any person who has ever encountered a rules lawyer ... well, they know how much they bring the game down. It's so true, it's not even worth arguing about. It's been true since the game started (and they were called barracks lawyers). There are articles in the 1970s calling them out, and parodies in Dragon Magazine. The afterword of the 1e DMG stated that you should never "allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you." (1e DMG p. 230). But here's the thing- whenever the topic comes up, there will be someone who defends rules lawyering- arguing that it's a good thing. That they are, in fact, defending liberty, or the other people at the table, or parsing words carefully to state that they aren't, in fact, rules lawyers. They are willing to argue, endlessly and forever, about any and every point, to show that while they aren't a rules lawyer and there really isn't any such thing, if there was such a thing, it would be totally awesome and good. Yep.
So it goes with optimization. When people decry "optimization," they aren't talking about choosing an option that gives you d8 as opposed to d6. Just like when people talk about a gunner, they aren't talking about someone who wants to do well in law school. And when people talk about rules lawyers, they aren't talking about someone who want to know the rules. Intuitively, we should know this.
So what are people talking about? Well, there are times when I see some people post here. And they make these builds- ones that combine rules to wring every last advantage that they can find. That rely on mismatches in different wordings from different areas. Or try to mix and match 5e14 and 24 rules where they don't fully jibe together. Or misunderstand the action economy... always in a way that benefits them. Or carries a specific game-word ruling to an absurd extent that it obliterates any fiction.
No one is saying to make a "bad" character. But if your intent is to win D&D, well, you should recognize that not everyone plays that way. Because as some people note... D&D is a game. But it's not a videogame that you win. Unless that's how you want to play it- but if it is, understand that others do not.
Vael
Legend
I have to second @Ruin Explorer here, this is conflating optimizers with munchkins.
There's also a difference between theory-crafting and table experience. I know a lot of gamers that know about Pun-Pun and other cheesy character builds, but would never bring one to the table unless that was specifically the objective of the campaign.
I'm also an MTG player, and mainly play Commander/EDH. And ... part of the social contract and challenge of the format is that it is a format that players could build the most optimized combo decks that win on turn one, but don't because it's against the spirit of the game.
There's also a difference between theory-crafting and table experience. I know a lot of gamers that know about Pun-Pun and other cheesy character builds, but would never bring one to the table unless that was specifically the objective of the campaign.
I'm also an MTG player, and mainly play Commander/EDH. And ... part of the social contract and challenge of the format is that it is a format that players could build the most optimized combo decks that win on turn one, but don't because it's against the spirit of the game.
This was pointed out by an illustration on page 10 of the AD&D PHB. A dunce wizard vs one with brains. On the page describing Intelligence. The next page has a drawing of someone tripping over a banana peel on the page describing Dexterity.
A fair number of the illustrations in the AD&D books were rather educational instead of being just pretty art.
When the books themselves are suggesting wise choices on ability allocation, hard to complain when a player follows that advice.
One way a GM can discourage the "Too Helpful" player is to create scenarios where the less then optimal character is in fact, the correct choice. A mission where you are in a 'no weapons zone' might favor that character that can conceal a dagger or two on her person coupled with the knowledge on how to really use a dagger may well shut up the player that insists that Long Sword is the best weapon ever. The dagger you have with you is far better then the long sword you checked at the door.
Similar Threads
