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:
Similar Threads
