Optimization and optimizers...

[prabe]

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.

Serious question: Have you ever seen a player who was the lone non-optimizer at the table, and how did they react to being asked to optimize more?

Another: How far does a player have to go in the way of engaging with the mechanics before you define them as an "optimizer?" Is it in starting build? Advancement? (Obviously different games will have different answers, there.) Does it come at the point of knowing the game's rules well enough that the player can easily bend the rules to their will? Is it always disruptive, every single time? They never make someone optimized to make the whole party better? (Or is that just as much a problem?"

 

[Blue]

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.

op·ti·mize
/ˈäptəˌmīz/
https://www.google.com/search?clien...2ahUKEwiMvvfL9pSOAxV0mokEHUESHYMQ3eEDegQIPhAO
verb
verb: optimize; 3rd person present: optimizes; past tense: optimized; past participle: optimized; gerund or present participle: optimizing; verb: optimise; 3rd person present: optimises; past tense: optimised; past participle: optimised; gerund or present participle: optimising

1. make the best or most effective use of (a situation, opportunity, or resource).

Yes, by definition, making poor use of resources and opportunities is not being smart. It's not being framed that way by D&D players, it's is that way by the English language and the meaning of the word. As in, using things well/optimizing is making smart choices. So making poor choices is the opposite of that.

Mind you, this doesn't say what you are optimizing for. You could be optimizing for a specific character feel or theme. So taking things that don't fit your theme is, in your words, "stupid". Yeah, we'll agree.

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.

I'm sorry the only people whom make effective uses of resources and opportunities that you've gamed with are jerks. That is what you just said, since that's the meaning of the word optimize, right? Or are you trying to use it in another way that includes being a jerk? If so, since that's not the meaning of the word, can I suggest munchkin instead?

I optimize and find that I have the most fun when the party is all about the same power level. I have groups of friends from back in AD&D days who are all optimizers, and they are good at matching the table.

I'm sorry, your anecdote that it is impossible to optimize unless you are a jerk player is not a supportable statement. That's not inherent in making effective choices.

 

[Laurefindel]

Serious question: Have you ever seen a player who was the lone non-optimizer at the table, and how did they react to being asked to optimize more?

I know the question wasn’t for me, but from what I’ve seen, nobody is asked to optimize more. Their friends will give them advice instead, often unsolicited, but not always unwelcome.

And if the person says ‘no thanks’ and the others keep pushing for optimisation and are being jerks about it; these guys are not optimizers being optimizers - they’re just jerks being jerks.

 

[Blue]

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.

This is thoughtful, let me try to respond in kind.

Let me talk about poker for a second. A big facet of poker is probability. But another big facet is psychology - reading opponents, bluffing them that your hand is stronger or your hand is weaker, convincing them to bet more when you will win, convincing them to fold when you aren't sure you can.

However, if you've ever played poker for fake stakes, like chips with no value outside the game, you might have encountered the player that's not there to win. Regardless if they are just listless, or chaotic, or whatever, they play in such a way that invalidates that second facet of the game. Which ruins it for other players.

Now, we all know the G in RPG stands for game. Some games like D&D are very much about character success because the most common stakes for overcoming challenges is death, which isn't fun when it's the characters dying. Other games may not be like that, let me stick to D&D-type games for a moment since that's where this discussion seems most centered. We wouldn't have having this discussion in a game like Marvel Heroic Roleplay where characters are not expected to be balanced against each other and the system handles it just fine.

To optimize is to make effective use of resources, situation, and opportunities. I just quoted the definition from a dictionary in my last post.

To be on the "dislike-XYZ" axis, that means that they actively do not want to do those things. They actively want their characters to fail.

And much like the poker example, that ruins the fun for the other players as well.

So what we have left is people who have no passion for play or are just here for the chaos -- neutral XYZ in your terms -- and people who want their characters to succeed. And here we have the spectrum from mild to extreme.

Frankly, I try not to play with those who don't care about the outcome, but I understand that's not always everyone's preference, like a friend or family member or significant other who needs be included for non-game reasons.

So the question is "is everyone close enough to each other on the spectrum of wanting to play well mechanically that everyone has fun"?

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

In about 25 years of roleplaying I have never seen anyone try to play anything in the +5 Pun-Pun range unless that's the point.

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.

Well yes. In most tabletop roleplaying games from D&D to Call of Cthulhu I am playing someone fighting for survival in a world with the darkest power. If I am not trying to optimise my in character choices (including equipment and spell selection) it means I am not taking the premise of the game seriously.

This doesn't mean that characters have to be "abstractly optimised". Characters are not responsible for their own stats or aptitudes (and sorcerers or warlocks may not be responsible for their own spells).

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.

I'm not surprised that when you tell people to stop roleplaying in a roleplaying game and to take the situation less seriously when it is supposed to be a matter of life and death for the character you get a bad reaction. "Tone it down a little" does not give anything remotely actionable. All you are saying is "I don't like the way you play so do it less, including less roleplaying." What do you expect people to do when you make such an unspecific whine about them and claim it's their fault?

On the other hand when the request is clear and actionable I've seldom seen a bad result. "Suggestion is a broken spell so let's nerf it" is something that has been universally agreed at the table where I'm currently a player. None of the three optimisers at the table have a problem with this and I've never seen a problem arise with equivalent requests.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Serious question: Have you ever seen a player who was the lone non-optimizer at the table, and how did they react to being asked to optimize more?

It depends. Is the non-optimiser playing within the limits of their character and are they happy to do so? And how much practical danger are they in? And how much of everyone's time are they wasting by not having the common courtesy to learn how to play their character so having to faff around instead of taking their turns on time and knowing what they are going to do?

And what is showing that a character is unoptimised? And how are they responding - are they trying to play within their limits? Is their character trying to write checks their build can't cash (and is this an in character or out of character thing)? Have they not learned to play their character? Are they trying to make it all about them because they are the liability?

But I have never in the history of ever heard someone asked to "optimise more".

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let me talk about poker for a second. A big facet of poker is probability. But another big facet is psychology - reading opponents, bluffing them that your hand is stronger or your hand is weaker, convincing them to bet more when you will win, convincing them to fold when you aren't sure you can.

However, if you've ever played poker for fake stakes, like chips with no value outside the game, you might have encountered the player that's not there to win. Regardless if they are just listless, or chaotic, or whatever, they play in such a way that invalidates that second facet of the game. Which ruins it for other players.

There are two things I'd like to add to this

• I don't mind the players not here to win but here to have a good time with their friends - who will play with a vague imitation of good play
• Playing with Chaos Gremlins is fun - and there are many games that really work well with chaos gremlins. D&D works very badly with Chaos Gremlins - indeed any game where optimisation is a serious thing is bad for Chaos Gremlins.

The thing that should be brought up here is that there are plenty of RPGs that are very good to play with Chaos Gremlins

To optimize is to make effective use of resources, situation, and opportunities. I just quoted the definition from a dictionary in my last post.

To be on the "dislike-XYZ" axis, that means that they actively do not want to do those things. They actively want their characters to fail.

Or they want their characters to have success be handed to them despite their actions.

And much like the poker example, that ruins the fun for the other players as well.

So what we have left is people who have no passion for play or are just here for the chaos -- neutral XYZ in your terms -- and people who want their characters to succeed. And here we have the spectrum from mild to extreme.

Frankly, I try not to play with those who don't care about the outcome, but I understand that's not always everyone's preference, like a friend or family member or significant other who needs be included for non-game reasons.

So the question is "is everyone close enough to each other on the spectrum of wanting to play well mechanically that everyone has fun"?

The other thing is "are the game expectations sufficiently well communicated that everyone has fun"? For example the same people can have fun playing both Gran Turismo and Mario Kart but don't play one as if it is the other.

If I'm playing with Chaos Gremlins D&D is a bad game for them. I want something Powered By the Apocalypse, Forged in the Dark, Cortex Plus, or by Grant Howitt. Or some older games like Kobolds Ate My Baby or Diana Warrior Princess. Something fast, light, and chaotic. D&D is none of these things.

 

[Greg K]

One thing that I have not seen mentioned is that, if someone is optimizing to hyper-focus on one thing, they are going to leave themselves vulnerable elsewhere. GMs can take advantage and split the group. Put the character(s) in situations where the group is either split up by external forces or, to succeed, has to split up into smaller groups or as individuals. Then, place characters in situations for which they are not optimized, but still have some chance of success.

 

[prabe]

It depends. Is the non-optimiser playing within the limits of their character and are they happy to do so? And how much practical danger are they in? And how much of everyone's time are they wasting by not having the common courtesy to learn how to play their character so having to faff around instead of taking their turns on time and knowing what they are going to do?

And what is showing that a character is unoptimised? And how are they responding - are they trying to play within their limits? Is their character trying to write checks their build can't cash (and is this an in character or out of character thing)? Have they not learned to play their character? Are they trying to make it all about them because they are the liability?

But I have never in the history of ever heard someone asked to "optimise more".

I was presuming this was someone competent--knowing how to play their character, maybe knowing the rules more broadly, just choosing not to optimize as hard as the other people at the table. It does say something about the attitude of a lot of self-professed optimizers, I guess, that you jumped to the conclusion they were less competent.

I, too, have never seen (or heard of) anyone ever being asked to optimize more, for what's that's worth.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was presuming this was someone competent--knowing how to play their character, maybe knowing the rules more broadly, just choosing not to optimize as hard as the other people at the table.

But you didn't state that. I can only go with what you've actually been explicit about here. The single most common reason someone has a poorly optimised character in my experience is that they are a newbie who doesn't actually know what works.

It does say something about the attitude of a lot of self-professed optimizers, I guess, that you jumped to the conclusion they were less competent.

What it says is that optimisers prefer to assume that people are playing in good faith and not deliberately causing problems in games. Because clearly for it to be notable there is a problem - and a problem that is leading to problems with group cohesion. And optimisation is a skill. Also as has already been mentioned some significant degree of in character optimisation is a part of treating lethal situations seriously. So if someone is playing an unoptimised character to the point they are causing problems for the group why are they doing that?

Lacking in skill is not a moral issue. Deliberately dragging down your friends is.

It says quite a lot about the attitude of anti-optimisers that assuming good faith and being respectful of newbies and beginners is something they criticise.