Optimization and optimizers...

[aramis erak]

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.

The moment it's a minority of 1 trying to dictate their preferences over those of the majority of the group, or even the whole, It's beyond badwrongfun... it's being a full–blown «bleep»ing jerk.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Equally in my experience when strangers meet the default optimisation level at an open table is +3ish ("smart naive choices" such as maxing your primary stat) - and +4 in a +3 game isn't a problem (and neither is +2). On the other hand +0 or more rarely a +1 can get the character killed - and can even lead to a TPK as other people either rely on the screw-up to do what is supposed to be their job or try to rescue them unless the DM drops the difficulty right down.

In my experience an optimiser might not fit a table of anti-optimisers but an anti-optimiser outside of a table of anti-optimisers is just another species of "I'm just playing my character".

Of course the big problem comes with a badly balanced game like D&D 3.5 where someone optimising a wizard, cleric or druid even to a +3 level of effort will break the game. "I'm a bear druid who turns into a bear, has a bear companion, and summons bears" is a pretty obvious concept from the PHB but is going to make a fighter or monk feel pointless.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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...

There's something I don't understand here: if the table is "happy with that basic level of optimization" it means they aren't emphasizing being mechanically powerful, right?

So why should it bother them if one character is relatively more powerful? Haven't they already established that being powerful isn't important to them?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also, I have never experienced a session 0 where players asked around to establish, "Hey, how much are we optimizing here?" My groups are always a mix of optimizers and total non-optimizers, and a few who vary.

 

[Joanna Geist]

If you can "break" the game by making good decisions instead of bad ones, the game is bad, and you should play something else.

It isn't the job of the players to avoid good options. It is the job of the designers who are being paid to produce a functional product to create a game that still functions when the players make good decisions.

If there exists an option or subset of options such that if picked, they trivialize some part of the game - well then, why did the designer write those rules, instead of not writing them, or writing different ones? they certainly had the choice.

if the excuse is a lack of play testing, too bad. if you are unable or unwilling to test your product sufficiently before releasing it, then don't create a product.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Also, I have never experienced a session 0 where players asked around to establish, "Hey, how much are we optimizing here?" My groups are always a mix of optimizers and total non-optimizers, and a few who vary.

Session Zero is a surprisingly new thing in the history of RPGs, in part because fighting over or waiting for the rulebook leads to a bad introduction to a game. To the point the term barely existed before the 2010s and even indie games from the late 00s/early 10s you'd expect to talk about session zero because one is almost part of the structure of the game like Apocalypse World, Spirit of the Century, Dresden Files, and Smallville don't use the term.

For that matter Apocalypse World is the first game I can think of with significant mechanical weight that solved the inherent rule zero problem (with the printable character sheets that then fill easily by picking options) without making an entire game and 90% of the campaign about session zero the way Smallville does. And Daggerheart is the only game I've seen that's a serious advance on this, with cards for everything included with the box.

I expect the sort of player complaining about optimizers (or the White Wolf "roll players not role players" excuse for their poor design) to have picked up their attitude from badly balanced games of the 00s and earlier and to not use session zeros.

 

[aramis erak]

There's something I don't understand here: if the table is "happy with that basic level of optimization" it means they aren't emphasizing being mechanically powerful, right?

So why should it bother them if one character is relatively more powerful? Haven't they already established that being powerful isn't important to them?

because it's extremely common for the +4-+5 level and -4 to -5 level to be preachy as hell about the -2 to +2 level players "not carrying their weight."

Note that in my experience, the -4 to -5 level are looking to see out of the box, don't care what the rules bring because they expect the GM to override the rules for story at EVERY turn; rule of cool trumps mechanics.

I'll also note, as a player, I tend to be a +0 to +1... I take easy and obvious mechanical optimzations as long as they don't compromise concept. I don't actively seek, ignore, nor avoid them. As a GM, I will optimize a bit more (+2 I'd say) if needed to meet player expectations, used to be more.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Degenerate optimisation is a system matters problem, specifically it's either a user error by the group/GM in selecting the wrong system for the experience they want, or it's a user error by the publisher in printing the wrong system for the experience they want. There are lots of RPGs that allow for little or no optimisation.

I'd argue that's only true with systems that permit few or no meaningful choices during character generation. Otherwise there's pretty much always the possibility to optimize toward an intended result instead of just going up the middle.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Methinks you have a definition of "optimizer" that nobody else on the planet is using. Or understands.

Forget it, Jake, its Bloodtide.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's something I don't understand here: if the table is "happy with that basic level of optimization" it means they aren't emphasizing being mechanically powerful, right?

So why should it bother them if one character is relatively more powerful? Haven't they already established that being powerful isn't important to them?

The problem is they also don't expect to just be spear carriers. Water finds its own level, but when one player essentially grabs limelight with their capability (and I'm assuming it still in practice matters to some extent or the game system isn't really relevant at all) its still annoying.