Optimization and optimizers...

[Blue]

Optimisation isn't the problem. We all do that. It's over-optimisation when no one else at the table plays that way. I had this problem years ago during 3rd edition D&D. We had a player who over-optimised to the point that he was leaving everyone else behind and refused when asked by the other players to back it down to the level that they were comfortable with and preferred. The GM either caters to that player/s to the detriment of everyone else or they don't, and the player/s in question dominant and spoil the game for everyone.

In my experience, if everyone at the table is on the same page where optimisation is concerned, then it's all good. It's when one or more overtakes and then you have a problem.

I agree, and I'll take it a step further.

When a player intentionally builds a character significantly more or less powerful than the rest of the group, they are introducing a problem.

(Caveats: this is about games like D&D where character balance is an issue, which is not true in all RPGs. Look at Marvel Heroic Roleplay. Also "problem" means just that -- something you need to workaround or fix, not something that you can't overcome. So please "but a good DM can handle that" is just reinforcing that it's a problem that needs to be handled.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Optimisation isn't the problem. We all do that. It's over-optimisation when no one else at the table plays that way.

The same thing is true for roleplaying though. "Over-roleplaying" is what leads to party griefing because "that's what my character would do."

In fact all the arguments about optimization, good and bad, apply equally and symmetrically to roleplaying. It's a spectrum, with extreme roll-playing on one end and extreme role-playing on the other. Taken too far, especially if the rest of the table doesn't play the way you do, is obnoxious. On the other hand, if somebody is not being obnoxious about it, don't get all pissy just because they don't play the game the way you do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The obnoxious personality and optimization go hand in hand for nearly all players.

Wow. Just...wow.

 

[Blue]

For everyone talking about players who are optimizers who are also not upholding the community/social contract aspects. I challenge you to show that is inherent in optimization, not just correlated with it, or perhaps not even correlated but just more noticeable. (Much like how there are a lot more people admitting they are left handed now that it's not stigmatized -- just a matter of factual tracking as opposed to biased noticing when someone was "sinister".)

Because unless those anti-community traits must come with optimizing (hint: they don't), then they can't be considered part of optimizing itself.

Please be intellectually honest and only talk about optimization, not about jerk players who happen to wield optimization but the root cause is their anti-group behavior.

 

[Blue]

I tend to find that the designers make the game one way and the optimizer players find the loopholes to use or exploit depending on your interpretation.

So a wizard putting their highest ability score into INT, and later picking up feats that help their spellcasting or INT, are loopholes or exploits? Because those are definitely making optimal choices, which is what an optimizer does.

Each class is designed to compete with the other classes and not some weird multiclassed (MC) hybrid. Some of it is more cheesy than trying to skirt things to dominate, but they are just levels of optimization.

Luckily, this isn't the definition of optimization since there is provable so much optimization that can happen below this level. This is the highest end which as discussed to death in this thread is often addressed by another term such as munchkin or powergamer, or even just an adjective to distinguish, such as extreme optimization.

 

[Blue]

The same thing is true for roleplaying though. "Over-roleplaying" is what leads to party griefing because "that's what my character would do."

In fact all the arguments about optimization, good and bad, apply equally and symmetrically to roleplaying. It's a spectrum, with extreme roll-playing on one end and extreme role-playing on the other. Taken too far, especially if the rest of the table doesn't play the way you do, is obnoxious. On the other hand, if somebody is not being obnoxious about it, don't get all pissy just because they don't play the game the way you do.

I'll reiterate my challenge from before: either show that anti-group behavior is inherent to optimization, or separate what jerk players might do from the discussion of optimization.

That a tool can be abused isn't on the tool.

 

[overgeeked]

I think a step back from the word itself, quibbling over definitions, and looking at the behavior might help people actually talk to each other instead of talking past each other.

There's a style of play or character creation called XYZ. Like most things, XYZ exists on a spectrum.

You have the anti-XYZ people who make choices that are diametrically opposed to the ethos of XYZ. Let's say these people are on the negative side of this spectrum/number line.

You have the neutral to XYZ people who make choices regardless of the ethos of XYZ. Replace regardless here with orthagonal to or that don't interact with, etc. Let's say these people are at the zero mark on this spectrum/number line.

You then have the pro-XYZ people who make choices that follow the XYZ ethos. Let's say these people are on the positive side of this spectrum/number line.

But, given that this is a spectrum, there are levels of XYZ to consider. The minimum XYZ would be something minor and basic like picking stats and skills that complement your class in a class-based game, e.g. a wizard with high INT. Let's say these people are at the +1 mark on this spectrum/number line. And it would go up from there. The more intense the XYZ, the further along that spectrum/number line you get.

While some might quibble with the idea, I think most could agree that the extreme end of this spectrum/number line (let's say +5) is the wildly game-breaking stuff like Pun-Pun, etc. Trying to slap a different name or label on it only confuses matters. It's only different by extremity not category or kind.

When most people in this thread say they dislike XYZ, they're talking about stuff in the +4 or +5 range. Likewise, when most people in this thread defend XYZ, they're talking about stuff in the +1 or +2 range.

It's also worth remembering this is about what shows up at the actual table, not white-room theorycrafted characters. People aren't complaining that XYZ exists in the abstract, they're complaining when something in the +4 or +5 range shows up at their table.

 

[prabe]

But, given that this is a spectrum, there are levels of XYZ to consider. The minimum XYZ would be something minor and basic like picking stats and skills that complement your class in a class-based game, e.g. a wizard with high INT. Let's say these people are at the +1 mark on this spectrum/number line. And it would go up from there. The more intense the XYZ, the further along that spectrum/number line you get.

While some might quibble with the idea, I think most could agree that the extreme end of this spectrum/number line (let's say +5) is the wildly game-breaking stuff like Pun-Pun, etc. Trying to slap a different name or label on it only confuses matters. It's only different by extremity not category or kind.

When most people in this thread say they dislike XYZ, they're talking about stuff in the +4 or +5 range. Likewise, when most people in this thread defend XYZ, they're talking about stuff in the +1 or +2 range.

It's also worth remembering this is about what shows up at the actual table, not white-room theorycrafted characters. People aren't complaining that XYZ exists in the abstract, they're complaining when something in the +4 or +5 range shows up at their table.

I think it's worth considering that if everyone else at the table is sitting around -2 on this axis (using your numbers) then someone showing up at +1 or +2 is going to fit in as well as Pun-Pun would at a table that was more centered on this axis. The issue is failure--in some cases refusal--to fit in with the rest of the table. This seems to me more like a personality/behavior thing than an axial one: Someone looking to join a table that's sitting around +1 or +2 when their own preferences are like -3 is going to seem to everyone else at the table as though they aren't 'pulling their weight" as far as character effectiveness goes; my position (and I don't seem unique in this) is that that player is at least as big as problem as the player in my first sentence.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I used to push back hard against players who made choices purely for numerical advantage, especially when those choices ignored any narrative reflection. As a GM, I spent too much effort trying to “balance out” their behavior—usually by escalating threats, adjusting encounters, or trying to make their advantages feel less impactful. But in doing so, I ended up hurting the rest of the group more than helping.

Eventually, I realized: players optimize when the system encourages them to. That’s not bad behavior. That’s rational play. If a game presents clear winners and losers among its options—some feats, classes, powers, or choices being objectively better—then players are going to take the better ones. And why shouldn’t they?

The real problem is that the system often includes those imbalanced options without supporting them with context, trade-offs, or narrative framing. And designers rarely take responsibility for that. It gets offloaded onto GMs, who are expected to adjust things on the fly or ban legal options to protect the experience. That’s not game mastery—that’s compensating for poor system design.

These days, I want players to win. I expect them to win. If they optimize, fine. If they cheat? I could cheat better. I sit behind the screen. What matters is that everyone’s engaged, the story moves forward, and the game does what it promised to do.

But let’s not pretend optimization is the issue when it’s the system that made those choices necessary, desirable, or disproportionately impactful in the first place. If we want healthier tables, we need more honest conversations about design, not just player behavior.

 

[overgeeked]

I think it's worth considering that if everyone else at the table is sitting around -2 on this axis (using your numbers) then someone showing up at +1 or +2 is going to fit in as well as Pun-Pun would at a table that was more centered on this axis. The issue is failure--in some cases refusal--to fit in with the rest of the table. This seems to me more like a personality/behavior thing than an axial one: Someone looking to join a table that's sitting around +1 or +2 when their own preferences are like -3 is going to seem to everyone else at the table as though they aren't 'pulling their weight" as far as character effectiveness goes; my position (and I don't seem unique in this) is that that player is at least as big as problem as the player in my first sentence.

Absolutely. The only spot on the spectrum that seems inherently problematic is the +5 Pun-Pun range. Unless that’s the point of a given game. Playtests and “break the game” sessions are a thing. But those are almost universally flagged as such.

As you say, it’s mostly down to a mismatch of expectations combined with a lack of communication and an unwillingness to bend.

But, in my experience, these are connected*. You can see it in some of the framing in this discussion. Optimization is framed as the smart way to play, which necessarily implies not optimizing is stupid. People who think their preferred style is smart and not playing that way is stupid tend not to want to bend*. In about 40 years of playing RPGs, I have yet to meet a single optimizer who when asked to tone it down has responded in anything close to polite or amicable terms. It always results in someone leaving the table. Willingly or not.

Again, not every table is going to be a good fit for every player or playstyle.

* Yes, yes. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.