Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8538116" data-attributes="member: 6790260">A huge part of the problem here is that there are two meanings of "optimize(d)" and, as a result, two meanings of its negation, and unfortunately most critics, be they the "ew, optimizers" crowd or the "your character is bad and you should feel bad" crowd, use them interchangeably when they emphatically are not interchangeable. "Optimized," in the first sense, means "making informed and effective decisions." Example being, in 3e, a spellcaster actually must have a spellcasting ability score of 10+spell level to cast ANY spells of that level whatsoever, so anyone wishing to play a full caster should take as high a main stat as possible. Trying to play an Int 8 Wizard isn't going to be fun or funny unless you derive enjoyment from trolling your fellow players, because an Int 8 Wizard in 3rd edition cannot cast spells, and thus has exactly one functional class feature, a familiar. (Well, and I guess they can still learn new spells, but they cannot cast them nor make any magic items.) This is "soft" optimizing. I would actually say that most groups expect at least a very minimal amount of this kind of "optimizing," because literally useless hangers-on are not generally well-liked. I refer to this as the "optimization vs anti-optimization" dichotomy, where the negation means intentionally and severely weakening a character solely to make them inept, and the positive means making reasonable choices within the space of rules, not necessarily the best choices. (E.g., if an option is somewhat weaker than another but far more flavorful, especially if it can be compensated for elsewhere, then it is 100% valid to cal a character doing that "optimized" by this definition, even if it is not as good as it could be.)"Optimized," in the second sense, is much more strict. It requires always taking the mathematically most superior choice at absolutely every step. If you ever choose anything that is not mathematically best or indistinguishable from it, you are playing "wrong." By this definition, the negation of "optimized" is (more or less) "ordinary," or rather "un-optimized." A character that has no specific relation to the absolute bleeding-edge best options. This is "hard" optimizing. I refer to this dichotomy as "min-maxing vs un-optimizing."My problem is, I find 90%+ of critics who claim to dislike "optimizers" exclusively treat them as though they are in the "min-maxing" school of thought. That is, painting absolutely everyone they claim to disagree with as being the worst, most extreme, most judgmental version of "optimizing" there can be. I do not deny that such people exist, as any look at the travails of MMO designers will show you. But it sure as heck would be nice if I wasn't having to fight a constant battle to not be strawmanned as one of them.An issue I have is, frankly, a feeling of major bias and harsh judgment from people claiming to be defending against that very thing. That is, at least with a fair number of folks that claim to pursue what I prefer to call "un-optimized" ("well, X may not be best, but it sounds fun to me") rather than "anti-optimized" ("I traded away all of my combat ability for more underwater basketweaving, so don't expect me to fight"), I find them quick to forgive the latter when it appears. Yet they are also constantly hunting for the slightest whiff of min-maxing, even in the most benign and well-meaning approaches. That's incredibly frustrating. The frustration doubles down when personal concerns (e.g., not directed at anyone or anything other than the speaker's own self and own characters) are treated at best with extreme flippancy, and at worst with outright caustic contempt.I do some optimizing. As part of that, I make judgment calls. Sometimes, that means choosing, with knowledge and forethought, to take something weaker. When I do so, it is for a reason; as an example, I prefer to play Paladins in 4e that have lower "primary" stats (16 in both Str and Cha) so I can have higher other stats (low but decent stats in everything but Dex--itself an intentional suboptimal choice, sacrificing a little Initiative to have a good Int modifier because I prefer characters who are more cerebral.) I care about things like, "if I do X, I am accepting that I will have a 10 percentage point lower chance of success, possibly forever, but certainly for a long time. Am I getting something worth that price?" And, yes, when it comes to things like races, I do think it's a questionable price to pay, and am happy that WotC has taken the stance it has; for inclusivity, support of a player's preferred flavors, and (yes) optimization in either sense, this is an improvement. But as an optimizer, I can also see that this change, like all changes, has costs. I just don't see those costs as particularly onerous, and (more importantly) I see them as extremely easily mitigated without much effort.If someone has their heart set on an un-optimized effort or approach, more power to them. I do that plenty myself (e.g. my "ALL the skills, ALL of them"  half-elf Rogue 1/Cleric 1/Bard N character with an IMO reasonable, solid backstory as to why she does what she does and where her skills have come from). But if someone appears to be paying a price without knowing, being excessively cavalier about the price they're paying, or outright pursuing ineptitude (the aforementioned 3e Int 8 Wizard), I will likely comment. Similarly, I will speak out against options that I feel carry too great a price (be it a direct one or an opportunity cost) for their return, which is part of why I have so strongly criticized the Fighter/Wizard divide. I am firmly committed to the principle that for classes and races, a reasonably close approximation of equality and even-playing-field is best for BOTH those who wish to optimize AND those who do not.</blockquote>

Verification