Optimization and optimizers...

[Ruin Explorer]

What's the point of the thread? Do you need advice with a problem at the table?

Specifically it was to break out a conversation which was essentially:

"All optimizers are depraved monsters who seek nothing more than the destruction of your game!" vs "No they aren't"

If you say so. One player takes an option that provides one attack, another player takes an option that provides six. The first says the second is breaking the game, the second says that the first doesn't know how to optimize. You are somehow saying one is right, the other, wrong.

If that's even possible, without any exploits or rules-loopholes (and the six attacks are each as effective as the one, not far less effective), then the game you're describing has absolutely trash design. Like it's genuinely so bad no-one should be playing it!

At some point we have to admit the designers have screwed up and not blame the players, if things are remotely as bad as you're describing.

I'm trying to think of any game as badly balanced as you're describing, and I think the only one I can come up with is Rifts, and essentially says, even back when it came out "Yeah this game isn't remotely balanced, some PCs will be insanely more powerful than others, we leave resolving this as an exercise for the DM!". So that's a caveat emptor I think. But the idea that someone selecting a Glitterboy or w/e is a horrible criminal out to destroy the game just because another PC selected I dunno, "Trash collector" is ridiculous. The players aren't the issue. The game balance is.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

If you say so. One player takes an option that provides one attack, another player takes an option that provides six. The first says the second is breaking the game, the second says that the first doesn't know how to optimize. You are somehow saying one is right, the other, wrong.

I've said no such thing. Players (and I mean people who play, run, do anything with the game) do it without prompt, and then get accused of their behaviors on both sides when the rules or the system is the one actually instigating things. Does anyone ever question why one option allows six attacks for the same price of another that only allows one? I know it's hyperbolic, but you brought it up, so I assume you're okay with using that for your arguments.

I'm hoping this is less true than you think. Numenera awards XP for allowing the GM to "intrude." I think it was Rifts that gives more character points for giving your character Flaws. Maybe Savage Worlds too. Modos RPG rewards self-sabotage with Hero Points.

I'd agree with " D&D-like systems don't rewards players . . . "

I did say "most", not "all". I just assume people will understand it's not an actual quantity, or even a measurable one. But if it gives people an inch to hold their ground, they'll make a point to draw distinctions no one was arguing about.

 

[Mannahnin]

But the idea that someone selecting a Glitterboy or w/e is a horrible criminal out to destroy the game just because another PC selected I dunno, "Trash collector" is ridiculous. The players aren't the issue. The game balance is.

'Struth.

"Vagabond".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This thread will go well ....

Let me start with a story. In American law schools, there's an archetype called a "gunner." It's ... not a positive term. It's the type of student who is eager to impress and a little too competitive- because they are okay with not just winning, but having other lose to make sure that they win. They are known for their "helium hands" (always raising their hands ... often before the lecturer even asks a question) and have been known (back when books were used) to rip out pages of books after they read them to make sure others didn't get to read those pages. Anyway, the saying for first year law students was to look around your section. If you didn't know who the gunners were ... you were the gunner.

I've noticed something similar when it comes to rules lawyers (see what I did there?). Any person who has ever encountered a rules lawyer ... well, they know how much they bring the game down. It's so true, it's not even worth arguing about. It's been true since the game started (and they were called barracks lawyers). There are articles in the 1970s calling them out, and parodies in Dragon Magazine. The afterword of the 1e DMG stated that you should never "allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you." (1e DMG p. 230). But here's the thing- whenever the topic comes up, there will be someone who defends rules lawyering- arguing that it's a good thing. That they are, in fact, defending liberty, or the other people at the table, or parsing words carefully to state that they aren't, in fact, rules lawyers. They are willing to argue, endlessly and forever, about any and every point, to show that while they aren't a rules lawyer and there really isn't any such thing, if there was such a thing, it would be totally awesome and good. Yep.

So it goes with optimization. When people decry "optimization," they aren't talking about choosing an option that gives you d8 as opposed to d6. Just like when people talk about a gunner, they aren't talking about someone who wants to do well in law school. And when people talk about rules lawyers, they aren't talking about someone who want to know the rules. Intuitively, we should know this.

So what are people talking about? Well, there are times when I see some people post here. And they make these builds- ones that combine rules to wring every last advantage that they can find. That rely on mismatches in different wordings from different areas. Or try to mix and match 5e14 and 24 rules where they don't fully jibe together. Or misunderstand the action economy... always in a way that benefits them. Or carries a specific game-word ruling to an absurd extent that it obliterates any fiction.

No one is saying to make a "bad" character. But if your intent is to win D&D, well, you should recognize that not everyone plays that way. Because as some people note... D&D is a game. But it's not a videogame that you win. Unless that's how you want to play it- but if it is, understand that others do not.

This is nice and all but words still have meaning, and optimizing means optimizing and optimizers means people who optimize their characters, not just people at the very most extreme edge of rules-exploits. So it's not really okay to decry "optimization" per se, I'm sorry, but it's not. At best you're causing confusion unintentionally. At worst, you are acting in bad faith knowing you're going to cause confusion and not caring. Find another word! Make a term up! That's how English works! People did already - like "gunner" with your lawyers. With RPGs we called them "munchkins". This was a perfectly fine term, conveying a fairly exact meaning, but somehow fell out of use. It should fall back into use rather than people mangling English and totally failing to communicate on a basic level because they can't be bothered to convey the information properly, and just want to try and redefine words idiosyncratically and on the spot!

Also, you're flatly wrong re: rules-lawyering. People do decry others as rules-lawyers when they're actually just getting the rules right, not trying to wheedle some dodgy advantage. You can't deny that happens, because it's happened on this very messageboard, and it's happened countless times IRL, including in front of me - one of my friends got accused of "rules-lawyering" simply because he knew the rules and the DM didn't about a couple of decades ago (we never played with those twats again, I can tell you that). Some people absolutely use that term as a club when they don't like the fact that they've got the rules wrong, or don't want to actually understand the rules (usually because they prefer the version they have in their head to what is actually written down).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

'Struth.

"Vagabond".

View attachment 409794

Correct, that is what I was thinking of!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is nice and all but words still have meaning, and optimizing means optimizing and optimizers means people who optimize their characters, not just people at the very most extreme edge of rules-exploits. So it's not really okay to decry "optimization" per se, I'm sorry, but it's not. At best your causing confusion. At worst, you are acting in bad faith knowing you're going to cause confusion and not caring. Find another word! Make a term up! People did already - like "gunner" with your lawyers. With RPGs called them "munchkins". This was a perfectly fine term, but somehow fell out of use. It should fall back into use rather than people mangling English and totally failing to communicate on a basic level because they can't be bothered to convey the information properly, and just want to try and define words idiosyncratically and on the spot!

Also, you're flatly wrong re: rules-lawyering. People do decry others as rules-lawyers when they're actually just getting the rules right, not trying to wheedle some dodgy advantage. You can't deny that happens, because it's happened on this very messageboard, and it's happened countless times IRL, including in front of me - one of my friends got accused of "rules-lawyering" simply because he knew the rules and the DM didn't about a decade ago. Some people absolutely use that term as a club when they don't like the fact that they've got the rules wrong, or don't want to actually understand the rules.

If you think it is important to demand that other people should use a specific term that "somehow fell out of use" then that's your call. I think I stated what was sufficient for my point.

I mean, I'm really a descriptivist. And you can be a prescriptivist. And we can leave it at that!

 

[Mannahnin]

This is nice and all but words still have meaning, and optimizing means optimizing and optimizers means people who optimize their characters, not just people at the very most extreme edge of rules-exploits. So it's not really okay to decry "optimization" per se, I'm sorry, but it's not. At best you're causing confusion unintentionally. At worst, you are acting in bad faith knowing you're going to cause confusion and not caring. Find another word! Make a term up!

I think this is leaning a bit into prescriptivism, to be fair.

I tend to agree that in my experience there is a difference between optimization and breaking the rules/munchkining, but I have to concede that these definitions are not universal.

The origin of Pun-Pun was the WotC 3E and 3.5 CharOp (Character Optimization) forum, was it not? So I can see where some folks would identify the word with shenanigans involving bending the rules until they scream to produce absurd outcomes.

Also, you're flatly wrong re: rules-lawyering. People do decry others as rules-lawyers when they're actually just getting the rules right, not trying to wheedle some dodgy advantage. You can't deny that happens, because it's happened on this very messageboard, and it's happened countless times IRL, including in front of me - one of my friends got accused of "rules-lawyering" simply because he knew the rules and the DM didn't about a couple of decades ago (we never played with those twats again, I can tell you that). Some people absolutely use that term as a club when they don't like the fact that they've got the rules wrong, or don't want to actually understand the rules (usually because they prefer the version they have in their head to what is actually written down).

I do think Snarf's right that the term is generally understood as a pejorative relating to an antisocial behavior pattern, though you're right that it's sometimes mis-applied as a cudgel in situations like the one you're describing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you think it is important to demand that other people should use a specific term that "somehow fell out of use" then that's your call. I think I stated what was sufficient for my point.

I mean, I'm really a descriptivist. And you can be a prescriptivist. And we can leave it at that!

I think if you intentionally use a term that has a relevant meaning that's not the way you're using it, you are probably either not a good communicator or acting in bad faith and trying to cause a problem. Specifically, trying to redefine "optimizer", a word which already has a clear and relevant English meaning to mean "guy out to destroy the game with extreme broken builds" is at best, a fool's errand and bound to end in trouble and strife, and at worst, trolling of a admittedly fairly effective and intentional kind.

Also, re: being a descriptivist, "optimizer" fails immediately on a descriptive basis, because it's simply too broad in meaning (again, hence "gunner" not just "lawyer"). It's like saying "gym bunny" when you actually mean only people psychotically obsessed with HGH and/or steroids to the point where it's clearly damaging to them, like Joe Rogan or worse. That's why I'm suggesting "munchkin". It's not prescriptive - I'm not saying it's the only choice, am I? But it means exactly what you're describing - people at the extreme edge of exploits and twisting rules trying to build characters that "win the game" rather than merely are effective or highly effective. There's already a word for that. If we need a new one for some reason, fine, let's make one up so we can actually understand each other, rather than having a select minority of people (and it is a minority) attempt redefine a word that already has a specific and relevant meaning.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Optimization is like Metagaming: if it seems like a problem it's not because those things exist, it's because you are playing with people who have difficult personalities. Changing the rules to prevent the symptom won't magically change those personalities.

EDIT: Note that the existence of a 'problem' doesn't necessarily mean that the optimizer is the one with the difficult personality. If other players always put their 16 into their prime stat, and always take the most mechanically effective feat, but they don't mind that you play unoptimized characters because you like the RP, and it still really bothers you...then, yeah, you're the proud owner of the difficult personality at the table.

 

[prabe]

@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!

This is as far as I got in the thread before feeling a need to respond. Anyone who I'm repeating, please accept my apologies. (Also, @Ruin Explorer , I'm not writing this directly at you, just using your post as a bouncing-off point.)

It seems to me the problem isn't optimization, as such--as the post I'm quoting points out, "not making stupid choices" is, well, optimizing. The problems with optimization (as a pure player-side thing, equipment/magic items aren't usually completely player choice in D&D and similar games) come to one of two most-likely issues:

A) Someone is optimizing at a different level, or to a different extent, or any other variant of "more or less than" the other non-GM people at the table (and it's worth pointing out that the GM's preferences about how much players optimize will likely be pretty close to the table's norms on the matter, whether that's explicitly because the GM set those norms or not). I'll point out that this means someone optimizing less than the table's norms/expectations is as likely to be a problem at the table as someone optimizing more than those same norms/expectations.

B) Someone has found something that breaks the game (and "breaks the game" might well have different meanings for different tables and/or different games). This could just be some weird synergy or unexpected efficiency or whatever, and it might be (or at least start as) something unintentional that arose from making choices that fit the character and just happened to go abruptly nonlinear.

Either of those problems can, in principle, be handled by actually talking at and around the table. If someone is optimizing differently from everyone else by choice, the people around the table can figure out how much of a problem that needs to be (knowing it's intentional might matter, especially if the player isn't aiming to be disruptive). If someone has found a way to break the game, they can be asked to please not do that. Refusal to alter one's approach seems to me to indicate an issue of someone fitting in with/at the table, which plausibly means someone needs to leave the table. (I'm willing to go with someone intentionally running a less-optimized character being able to fit in, if the rest of the table is OK with that--that seems like the least-toxic instance to me.)