Optimization and optimizers...

[prabe]

You mean like Treant Monk's god-wizard? Or similar with buffs, etc? Never seen it in play.

I've seen--and done--that sort of thing in Supers play, though point-buy Supers TRPGs are their own various fishkettles. I have a druid character in in a campaign I'm running who's doing much more in the way of control/set-up stuff than direct damage; he's not being any kind of purist about it, but he's not the (or even a) primary damage dealer.

 

[Greg K]

I am this type a DM. And I do love breaking Optimizers and send them crying from the game.

I was not saying break them and send them running. I am saying to mix things up. In my experience, If players know that they can't always rely on hyper-focusing their optimization on one thing and then rely on the other party members to always cover everything else, they are less likely to do so. This doesn't mean that there won't be any optimization (as I started in a prior post, optimization is not binary, but is on a continuum)- it just means it is less likely to be as extreme (in my experience). Of course, I also recommend giving characters a heads up prior to character generation.

Plus, I find that, on occasion, taking individual characters out of their element and requiring them to face issues outside their main focus makes things more interesting. I just focused my post on optimization, because it is the topic of the thread.

 

[aramis erak]

I've run plenty of games where optimization pretty much required breaking the rules... amongst them, Traveller (Classic), Starships & Spacemen, T&T 5e, BX D&D...
... All are roll atts in order, then do the best with what you have.

I've also run a bunch where it was quite doable to optimize highly: GURPS, Reichstar, Hero System, Rolemaster/Spacemaster.

I'll not that not only does Stan Long expect optimization, he even put guidelines and breakpoints in the Hero System Rules 4e and 5e rules.

Any game with choices in CGen or Advancement has optimization space.

I don't see minor optimization as an issue. But I've played with too many who will sacrifice concept for maximizing some aspect... Sometimes even an aspect the rest of the group said "no" to.

 

[Theory of Games]

Powergaming (optimizers, munchkins, ect.) is a recognized playstyle and there's nothing wrong with it. The players in a group aren't competing with each other in most ttrpgs, so having proficient PCs in the party makes perfect sense.

A problem that arises is "show-offs", players who attempt to dominate every scene. That isn't a playstyle issue - it's a personal issue some players have and should be addressed by the GM in private.

 

[Laurefindel]

I've run plenty of games where optimization pretty much required breaking the rules... amongst them, Traveller (Classic), Starships & Spacemen, T&T 5e, BX D&D...
... All are roll atts in order, then do the best with what you have.

I've also run a bunch where it was quite doable to optimize highly: GURPS, Reichstar, Hero System, Rolemaster/Spacemaster.

I'll not that not only does Stan Long expect optimization, he even put guidelines and breakpoints in the Hero System Rules 4e and 5e rules.

Any game with choices in CGen or Advancement has optimization space.

I don't see minor optimization as an issue. But I've played with too many who will sacrifice concept for maximizing some aspect... Sometimes even an aspect the rest of the group said "no" to.

I mostly agree with you, with the caveat that between “minor optimisation” and “optimisation before concept” there is a large number of people who optimize “majorly” on wholesome character concepts. I know many (and me among them) that take great pleasure in optimizing concepts that are not optimal to start with, as paradoxal as it sounds.

 

[Blue]

Other then the few good ones, all optimizers are doing it to disrupt or even wreck a game. It seems obvious, as the whole reason optimizers even have a bad name is that they are always jerks at the table. They bully players, belittle players, hog the spotlight and worse.

Nearly all optimizers go out of their way to be jerks.

I do love optimization, and I'm an optimizer myself. Though as a Forever DM I am a homebrew optimizer: To be clear I don't play the silly Magic Card sub game of "who has better game master using the official rules". I make my own homebrew far outside the rules.

When you're talking being an optimizer, and when you're a DM about making 'homebrew far outside the rules', it sounds like you are the type of optimizer that you were calling out -- looking to disrupt or wreck a game.

Are you sure your stance about optimizers isn't just projection?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah. I'm kind of stunned that I seem to fall into the disruptive ego-driven jerk camp because I put my highest score in the class appropriate stat and chose spells that seem best for the job at hand.

You...you...monster!

 

[SteveC]

I play RPGs to have fun and be creative. If I were ever playing with players or a GM who were out to break things or people, and not just enjoy themselves, I would get out of that situation. And I think that's why you hear of people optimizing characters as a bad thing: it removes the fun element for the entire experience with the group.

 

[DragonLancer]

Meanwhile anti-optimizers in my experience and based on this thread seem almost mortally offended by two things

1. People having badwrongfun
2. The concept that some people can be more skilled than others with a ruleset (or possibly the concept they themselves aren't the best)

Respectfully disagree, It isn't about badwrongfun or that some people are very skilled with the system/character rules in an RPG. Speaking from experience, it comes down to having a player in a group, especially if they join a pre-existing group, who wants to do the +3 to +5 on the optimization when everyone else at the table prefers 0 to +1 (using the scale discussed earlier). If that group is happy with that basic level of optimisation but the other player ruins the experience at the table, then it causes problems. In my experience, that optimising player won't come down to their level but expects the other players to up their game to theirs. It isn't badwrongfun but it does breach the unwritten (but hopefully spoken) social contract of the gaming group.

I play RPGs to have fun and be creative. If I were ever playing with players or a GM who were out to break things or people, and not just enjoy themselves, I would get out of that situation. And I think that's why you hear of people optimizing characters as a bad thing: it removes the fun element for the entire experience with the group.

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[prabe]

Respectfully disagree, It isn't about badwrongfun or that some people are very skilled with the system/character rules in an RPG. Speaking from experience, it comes down to having a player in a group, especially if they join a pre-existing group, who wants to do the +3 to +5 on the optimization when everyone else at the table prefers 0 to +1 (using the scale discussed earlier). If that group is happy with that basic level of optimisation but the other player ruins the experience at the table, then it causes problems. In my experience, that optimising player won't come down to their level but expects the other players to up their game to theirs. It isn't badwrongfun but it does breach the unwritten (but hopefully spoken) social contract of the gaming group.

That seems like a matter of personality or behavior, and not strictly about optimizing. I mean, it's at least as much a failure to fit with the table as someone wanting strong character-focused narrative/s when the rest of the table is there for a dungeoncrawl. (Which isn't snarking on dungeoncrawls, or character-focused narrative.)