Give yourself to Optimizing! It is the only way to save yourself, and your party. You'll win at everything forever! You'll win at WEDDINGS! SPORTS! DATING! ARSON! AND D&D!
Well, it looks like the Wheel of Time has just rebooted, which means that we have another in a series of debates between the armies of "Optimizers, they will break into your house and kill you in your sleep" versus, "Optimizers, they like puppies and ice cream, just like everyone else."
As usual, I think that this debate is best solved by the wisdom of Mama Snarf. I'll never forget the time she told me, "Snarf, quit blabbering about that third grade teacher failin' you again. First thing to remember in life is everybody else is wrong. All of 'em. Also, yer teacher has a side hustle at the biker's bar. Tryin' to muscle in on yer momma's turf. Now, quit yer whingin' and get yer momma a handle of some cookin' soju and a case of video head cleaner."
....where was I? Oh yes, optimizing. So I thought I'd write a few more expanded thoughts on why this topic keeps coming up.
A. There is a there, there. Why the debate keeps occurring.
I'm going to start with the most unpopular and controversial proposition (probably... well, until I get to the correlated issues below). I don't like to get bogged down in jargon or verbiage (HA!) but I strongly disagree with the people who, like Obi Wan, insist that there is nothing to see here. Let me provide an analogy that most of you will understand. No one would say that "knowing the rules" is a bad thing in D&D, right? I would wager that most DMs, in fact, would love for the players to know the rules better! And yet, since the first games of D&D in 1974, the game has recognized that there is a certain type of jerky behavior that we call being a "Rules Lawyer." And Rules Lawyers are universally disliked. It's a type of behavior that is observed and known to be disruptive at almost every table. I mean, I can't say every table. I am sure that there is some table, somewhere, where the participants enjoy debating rules endlessly like Talmudic scholars and have spent the last decade arguing over a rules interpretation that would apply in the combat that their first level characters just started ... but still.
It's a similar situation here. The nomenclature might change depending on the time and circumstances- powergamer, munchkin, min-maxer, optimizer. But the reason that the debate continues is that because people have seen a certain set of behaviors, repeatedly, that has disrupted their tables.
But that gets to the nuance; obviously, different choices within D&D, within a game, have different outcomes. And while we can talk about how bounded accuracy in 5e reduces the impact of a lot of different choices, and how different choices can be hard to measure using simple "DPR" measurements and so on ... they are still there. I don't think anyone believes it is disruptive to choose a weapon that does d8 instead of d6 damage. Or, if you're rolling stats, to have a character with a 15 Str and an 8 Int be a Fighter and not a Wizard. Right? Those seems like reasonable choices and not disruptive.
In my opinion, this is why we keep having the same pointless debate- both sides are correct from their point of view. This is how it works-
Team Anti-Optimizer: I know optimizers are disruptive, because I've seen them be disruptive repeatedly. Therefore, all optimization is bad.
Team Optimizer: I am make choices that are good and that aren't disruptive, therefore your experience is invalid. And optimization can't be bad, because people do optimize when making some choices and that's not bad, right?
See the problem? I hope you do. Team Anti knows that they are right, because they've seen it. Team Opti also know they are right, because "optimization" (broadly construed) is a normal part of playing. But instead of trying to understand the position of the other side, they argue against it- which isn't productive. Why?
Because Team Opti is telling Team Anti that their eyes are lying. It's generally not a good idea to tell someone that the things that they've seen and experienced are false ... because you'll never win an argument by calling someone a liar and their lived experience a lie.
And Team Anti is telling Team Opti that "optimization" is bad, which also flies in the face of a lot of normal and accepted choices and gameplay.
So what's really going on?
B. What people are really talking about when they decry optimization.
This is where things get a little more complicated, because we have to look into the nature of TTRPGs, and specifically D&D. Don't worry- we'll get into the types of people that play D&D next ... that will go over well.
First, I am going to put aside PvP campaigns (and I will place them in their own, small, circle of hell where they belong). D&D is a game of cooperation between the players. And it is a social game. The obstacles to be overcome are challenges that, generally, the party as a whole overcomes together. And the reason people play isn't for a championship, or individual glory, but to have fun as a group. Finally, there is no winning D&D. With that in mind, the following becomes evident-
1. The primary goal of getting together to play is to have fun as a group. For all the players to have a good time.
2. While it is a "game," there is no "winning."
3. Challenges can be changed dynamically to suit the party. This is most easily thought of in terms of levels- the DM will have different challenges for a party that is level 13 than a party that is level 1. But it also matters with how powerful the party is within a level- a group of super-optimized character chock full o' magic items at level 5 must have different challenges than the same, un-optimized characters with no magic items at level 5 in order for the same difficulty.
4. Large mismatches of power within a party can lead to frustrating play experiences and a loss of fun for most players. Whether it's the DMPC or the difference between the BMX Bandit and the Angel Summoner, if you have a party with Superman and four Jimmy Olsens, the Jimmies are going to get cranky.
Essentially, the "optimization" issue is when there is a player who views the social activity of D&D as a game to be won, and designs characters that allow them to powergame while everyone else twiddles their thumbs. The rest of the players resent it, and it adds stress to the DM because it quickly becomes impossible to design appropriate encounters for the party that also allow spotlight sharing. Further (and many of us have seen this), any attempt to design appropriate encounters that in any way diminishes the powergamers' advantages will lead to that powergamer complaining that they are being singled out .... because they put effort in to make the best character possible, and they resent attempts to corral it.
Now, here's the thing- if everyone is making similar choices, even if everyone is pun-punning the heck out of their characters, it doesn't matter. Because (see 3, supra) difficulty is adjusted dynamically. If everyone manages to minmax their characters so that their level 5 characters are actually as powerful as a level 15 character, you can just up the difficulty of the challenges (more and harder monsters, for example). In a certain way, so long as people are generally playing on the same level, optimization isn't bad, but it's just a treadmill. But if that's true ... why optimize? Well ....
C. The rub... why certain types of optimization rub a lot of people the wrong way,
I think that there are some people (myself, sometimes, included) that love looking at the rules, and the numbers, and try to find ... solutions. We are always looking at problems and finding solutions. Or how to do things efficiently. Or ... the optimal way to do something. When we play games against other people to win, we play to win. Which is fine, but may also explain why we aren't invited to family board game night anymore.
In a lot of areas of life, that works. Heck, if you are playing a videogame, it makes sense to find out how to beat that videogame. But D&D isn't a videogame. You don't win it. You play it to have fun with friends.
So let's talk about optimizing. If you enjoy squeezing every possible advantage (bag of rats etc.) out of the rules and playing with those who do the same, more power to you! But ask yourself- are you being challenged? Is the DM dynamically adjusting the challenges to ensure the same adequate level of difficulty? If so, you're on the treadmill. Which is also fine- you're scratching your optimization itch, and having fun. But if not ... if everyone is just on easy mode ... well, that's also fine because everyone is having fun. But you're just having an enable power fantasy.
The trouble is when the second type of person* (the one that enjoys easy mode and optimizes the heck out of the character) enters a group that isn't all optimizers. Because not only are they powergaming their own character, they are ruining the challenge (and fun) for everyone else.
Which should be enough, but again, there's more. As a general rule, when people decry "optimizers" they are talking about a specific subset of behavior. Because it's certainly true that there are people that love optimizing and are great at table interactions. Or just love optimizing as a theoretical practice. However, there can be a mindset ... after all, optimizing means you are seeking ... optimal solutions. Optimal outcomes. Always trying to find the single "best" solution. People that are very focused on rules and/or pushing interpretations of the rules regardless of the outcomes.
Which means that when people talk about "optimizers," they mean the people that are demanding that a certain rule interaction (that may or may not be correct) must be followed even if the DM and the rest of the table do not want it. That will throw shade on other players' choices for their character because they aren't optimal. That will spam the same boring thing for every problem once they find it works. That ... in a word, optimize for their own fun, not realizing that social group dynamics are about everyone's fun.
Is that jerky behavior? YES! But it's a certain type of jerky behavior- the type of jerky behavior we've all seen that is tied into trying to "win" D&D by making the best, usually rules-exploitiest character possible without concern for what the group does or wants. It's not just about making some good choices.
*In my experience, the first type isn't a problem because they are looking for a challenge, and will adjust their play and level of optimization on their own.
D. Taking it down a notch- reflections on my personal experience.
Look, I get the love of optimization- when I get to make characters (sadly, it's mostly for PbP since I DM/GM almost exclusively in RL) I make effective characters. I agree that the rules of D&D in 5e don't require full optimization, but that they are also geared to making smart choices; I have no desire to make a Wizard with an 8 intelligence. ...but, I always start with an idea for an interesting concept, and then try and see how I can make it under the rules. To me, making my RP concept within the rules as an effective character is much more fun than making a fully optimized character. Tp give two examples- my most recent characters include an unarmored Paladin that fights with two weapons and a Ranger that fights with a shillelagh. Both are perfect character concepts for me, both are effective, and both lag behind a character that is fully optimized. And that's okay!
When I DM, the way I enable most cool character concepts while keeping the rules requirements in place is to allow liberal reskinning. As an easy example- if someone wants to roleplay as a human, but there is some character concept that could use a gnome's abilities, they just use the gnome rules and call it a human. Done! And the social compact of the table is pretty easy as well- I will allow all reasonable requests, but if there is some unforeseen consequence of my allowing something ... or even if a player combines things lawfully and it is just too much in play... I can ask that it be toned down. And it will.
I've had the "tone down" rule in place for ... oh ... a very long time now ... and the two times it has been a problem, it was because a player was deliberately trying to optimize in order to powergame to the detriment of the game, and the rest of the table. It's why we use it as a litmus test for new players. And I think it's a great question for people to ask themselves (IMO)- if you were asked to tone something down in play, would you? Or would you argue that you have the right to push as hard and as far as the rules allow, because that's the optimal way to play?
