Optimization and optimizers...

[prabe]

I think that's part of the same issue, but a sort of narrower and more specific take, so I wouldn't use it that way myself without clarifying. As an example, I'd point to the way "optimized the fun out of" is typically used with online videogames, where it is part usually a specific singular solution that's "just better" than other ones (which seems to relate to what you're saying), and in part people getting bored of playing that solution out. Sometimes the solution is so inherently fun that even there's a "best" way to build Class X in Game Y, then people keep enjoying that "best" way - but sometimes the solution is either drab/boring, or more commonly, tediously overcomplex and fiddly, and people just get terribly bored of it quite quickly. It can also be very frustrating if the designers have kind of screwed up and not only there is there a clear "best" way to play a character, but that way is not in line with the "class fantasy". That's a relatively rare problem (especially in the last decade), and not quite the same thing as "optimizing the fun out of", but worth mentioning in this context I think. In the end, this is a problem you can generally solve via good game design.

(To be clear most of this applies only to online videogames, not really TTRPGs where you neither "win" nor "farm", so for the most part optimized the fun out of tends to relate to boring-to-play characters, not just "solved" ones)

Yeah, I was thinking there were probably aspects more relevant to video games, but I don't play video games. Better to be thought ignorant than to remove all doubt.

 

[aiouh]

I mean, I accept that may be how you choose to use the word, but if you interpret other people as meaning that, you're just intentionally confusing yourself. And if you use "optimized" without any clarification, to mean that, you're just confusing others.

It's anti-communication. I mean, it's not totally uncommon for people to do something like this (especially within fan subcultures), but who does it help? Why not use the term in the way it's vastly more widely used, especially given that wider meaning is itself relevant?

I am very sorry if it came across as disruptive, but I think the term optimization is exactly unclear, maybe I am not in the RPG scene long enough, but for me there are two different kind of optimizations.

I play what is best for maximum utility. (e.g. picking the best class/race options regardless of any personal values)

In magic terms, "I play Monored Aggro because it is not a playstyle I enjoy, but gives the highest chance of winning."

Within the class or race that I chose (not necessarily for utility maximization reasons) I play the best build possible.

"I play Gifts Ungiven Storm because I personally like it, even though I know it won't maximize my chances of winning, but I aim to build the best list possible."

And I think there's a big difference between the two. I consider Option 1 on a more extreme end of the spectrum (cheese builds), whereas 2 is the happy medium and does involve roleplaying.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not disagreeing, here, but I've come to the conclusion that often when people say something on the lines of "the players have optimized the fun out of the game" what they mean is that the players have solved a specific problem, or set of problems, and aren't interested in the same old solution/s. Once you've solved (or "solved") melee fighter, you're done with it.

I know you're not disagreeing, but I've definitely seen the other though; when we started playing D&D 4e, my wife wanted to build an effective ranger-archer, and took advice from our most notorious local power gamer. It worked (it was a somewhat notorious power build in the 4e community), but it was built around one particular ability that was so good, there was rarely a reason to ever do anything else, which got pretty dull for her.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And I think there's a big difference between the two.

The only real difference is mindset.

The actual characters at the table may well be identical, mechanically - they'll just be played very differently!

Someone who plays something they don't even like, simply because it's powerful and that's all that matters to them, not even having actual fun, is, frankly, at best a rather immature/childish individual, because TTRPGs aren't about winning/losing (c.f. the thread discussing this). That's kind of the true munchkin spirit - so into "winning", that they'll do anything, even playing a PC they hate!

When I was a teenager I actually saw that in action - one of the players, who was going through some stuff at that point in his life (not that we were wise enough to realize it), had become a total munchkin, and ended up playing some kind of ludicrous character who he just didn't even like at all, I think in SLA Industries.

What was really sad was his character wasn't even that good - he'd messed up because he didn't understand the mechanics as well as he thought, and he ended up playing a character who he both hated because he didn't want to be a skinned-horse-looking dude (I remember this so it has to be SLA Industries I think unless there were similar races in other gun-oriented games), but who was also not as good at killing people as the other PCs were (and wasn't good at anything else, either).

That's part of what this discussion is missing, because most people are operating in 5E D&D in 2025 mindset and thinking "Oh well you can just look up OP builds online!", but that's not true for 99% of RPGs out there, and it's not true historically either. People assume "breaking the game" is successful, but the very people most prone to try and make "broken" builds are often not successful, in my experience (or are one DM ruling - not even a "house rule", just a decision on an unclear point - away from being un-broken), and I think that factors in and helps also to identify people who are going to be an issue.

The real problem, when we zoom out, isn't "optimization", it's just players with bad attitudes. The relevant subset of that problem here is "players who think TTRPGs are about winning and losing". The subset that subset that causes most of this grief and annoyance is what I'd call "munchkins" (other people may have other terms, it's petty nonsense to pretend I'm demanding that one, but we should avoid vagueness like "optimizer" for this) - i.e. players who:

A) Think you can "win" TTRPGs

And

B) Think they should do absolutely everything they can in order to do so!

But they're not the only subset of that "players who think TTRPGs are about winning and losing" group - hell one of the others is "people who continually obsess about the power of other PCs and fulminate about it", which I've seen from actively anti-optimization people (as well as pro-optimization ones). Bad attitudes are the problem and they're definitely not limited to "optimizers".

TLDR ("you" is directed at munchkins here, not people in the thread):

 

[Gradine]

Absolutely, but I've seen this enough to have what seems at least adequate evidence it isn't just me, either. I mean, just look at a number of other posts in this thread.

I suppose you have a point there. Far be it for me to badwrongfun somebody else. It's an approach to TTRPGs that is, frankly alien to me, and runs counter to the spirit what I feel the potential of the genre, but I also can't deny that it has a major role in the history of the genre

 

[Bill Zebub]

Someone who plays something they don't even like, simply because it's powerful and that's all that matters to them, not even having actual fun, is, frankly, at best a rather immature/childish individual, because TTRPGs aren't about winning/losing (c.f. the thread discussing this). That's kind of the true munchkin spirit - so into "winning", that they'll do anything, even playing a PC they hate!

Eh, you're free to believe that but it's just opinion, and not a very generous one. Don't get me wrong: I'm not drawn to that playstyle either. But, as I said upthread, I don't see the point in trying to ascribe negative personality characteristics to, or otherwise psychoanalyze, groups of people who don't share our preferences.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Eh, you're free to believe that but it's just opinion, and not a very generous one. Don't get me wrong: I'm not drawn to that playstyle either. But, as I said upthread, I don't see the point in trying to ascribe negative personality characteristics to, or otherwise psychoanalyze, groups of people who don't share our preferences.

What are you talking about?

I'm not psychoanalyzing anyone. I'm talking about people who have actively made that decision. They exist - some of them actively admit it, for god's sake. They're rare, but they're a thing.

And if someone is intentionally trying to "win" at an RPG, that is an actual problem for literally everyone else at the table - even if they all are, because they come into conflict! Winning and optimizing are not remotely the same thing, note, even if people try and use the latter as a vector to achieve the former.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What are you talking about?

I'm not psychoanalyzing anyone. I'm talking about people who have actively made that decision. They exist - some of them actively admit it, for god's sake. They're rare, but they're a thing.

And if someone is intentionally trying to "win" at an RPG, that is an actual problem for literally everyone else at the table - even if they all are, because they come into conflict! Winning and optimizing are not remotely the same thing, note, even if people try and use the latter as a vector to achieve the former.

I was referring to the "childish/immature" bit.

And even the "so into winning that they'll do anything".

You're not them. And you've only encountered a tiny, tiny % of them. You don't know why they are making the choices they do.

What does it add to the conversation to denigrate anonymous people who don't share your preferences?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There has never been and will likely never be a D&D game that reaches above "poorly balanced".

Really?

I would say 5E reaches far above that.

Assuming you put your highest stat as your primary, and increase that from time to time, D&D's worst combination of race/class/subclass is probably like, a 5.5/10 where the best is probably a 10/10 (excluding multiclassing for now). And that's abnormal. If you only include likely/PHB races/classes/subclasses it's more like between 6.5/10 and 10/10, or even 7/10 and 10/10 if you're being generous.

And I don't even like 5E all that much. I preferred 4E, but it was nowhere near as balanced, even with constant balance updates. Worst was easily 3.XE, where you could make a totally legit sensible lore-appropriate, right stats in right place character and they'd be like 2/10 on a good day, and someone else could do the same, and be like 10/10 easy by comparison or like 12/10 if PrCs got involved.

I mean, you're necessarily making a relative comparison by talking about "poorly balanced", so what's your point of reference? I'd say "mainstream traditional RPGs over the last 30 years" is mine, and by that reference point, D&D 5E is one of the most balanced RPGs on the market, and thus cannot, for me, be defined as "poorly balanced".

If, however, I was comparing D&D to like, big, successful MMORPGs, D&D would not be particularly well-balanced, sure. But that seems to a questionable comparison to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was referring to the "childish/immature" bit.

And even the "so into winning that they'll do anything".

You're not them. And you've only encountered a tiny, tiny % of them. You don't know why they are making the choices they do.

What does it add to the conversation to denigrate anonymous people who don't share your preferences?

I'm intrigued by this.

What positive motivations could you even conceive for someone actively trying to "win" D&D, at the cost of the fun of both other players, and themselves (because we've already established they're not even having fun in any conventional sense as part of the premise)?

Unless you can answer that, you're just doing the reverse of making someone up to be mad at - which is to say, defending objectively bad behaviour on the basis that there might be some explanation that even you can't come up with.

What are you going with? Like TTRPGs are inherently bourgeois and ruining TTRPG sessions is class struggle or something? That's about as positive a motivation as I can come up with lol.

It's got nothing to do with "sharing preferences", has it? The only "preference" relevant to this specific point is:

"Do you prefer to actively ruin the fun of others (and yourself) in order to "win" at RPGs?" with a binary yes/no answer lol.

If you're not talking about TTRPGs and not talking about people trying to "win" at all costs, then you're just getting mad at something no-one even said, least of all me.

EDIT - The best I can say is that people doing this - playing when they're not even having fun, trying to "win" the game in the sense of completely dominating it and ruining it for others are usually acting out from emotional issues not related to the game. The one player in my main group who went through a "munchkin" phase was dealing with a ton of stuff with his family (which he minimized at that age), and was essentially "acting out" in game, where he had more power. That doesn't mean his behaviour wasn't childish or immature - on the contrary it was. Like, when I was a young teen or maybe 12 I once punched my poor brother in the face, quite intentionally, but the real reason I did it was because I was mad about stuff nothing to do with him (he was just being mildly annoying). There were reasons, but it was still childish, immature, and destructive, and I felt very guilty for it as an adult (or indeed by about 15). So I'm struggling to come up with any possible reasons which don't eventually come back "dealing with some stuff" and "acting out" due to "emotional immaturity". And that's kind of the best case. The worst case is more like being a genuinely nasty person who enjoys seeing others suffer and games ruined.