Optimization and optimizers...

[Bill Zebub]

That's why I'm suggesting "munchkin".

I always thought "munchkin" referred to a gonzo playstyle that requires the participation of the DM. Its hallmarks are things like stats "fudged" to the breaking point, powerful magic items falling like rain, everybody somehow getting an 01 on their psionics roll, monsters making terrible decisions that allow them to be easily defeated, etc. etc. etc.

It goes way way beyond "optimization," which I think of as something that occurs within both RAW and RAI, and which often annoys people who think it's fun to play non-optimized characters.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Sure, but that's ahistorical. Munchkin and the like were terms still in use in that era, and absolutely no-one old enough to remember 3.5E CharOp is under the illusion that optimization or optimizer means the same thing as whatever was happening with Pun Pun. So let's not start revising history Stalin-style, eh?

At best using optimizer as a pejorative meaning a specific and very extreme group is an incompetent and failing attempt at communication. At worst it's intentional trolling. After this thread, I'd tend to see it as the latter because people can't pretend they don't know or that they think everyone uses that way.

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.

I agree that it's "generally understood" one way - but that doesn't stop it being misused and misapplied intentionally and unintentionally surprisingly often. Even "kids today" are misusing it, in part because of bad examples set by our generation(s)! Like, on one of the RPG subreddits some months ago I saw someone slapping the term "rules-lawyer" around to mean anyone who even wanted to discuss what the rules actually were (I forget for which game, possibly Mothership). I don't think this was malicious, I think from the poster's posts in general, it was that they were about seventeen and had seen this term slung around so liberally that they didn't grasp the "generally understood" meaning and thought your were socially supposed to abuse/demean people who tried to discuss rules specifics as "rules lawyers".

 

[Bae'zel]

OF COURSE most people don't have an issue with people who optimize their characters. That's not the issue.

I know that when I make a complaint about "optimizers who are ruing the game experience", I'm actually referring to min-maxing munchkins and difficult people.

Language does evolve and meanings change. But what's true is that when a playstyle becomes so extreme that it gets called out or complained about, it's usually because of those extreme cases. We don't really notice plain old regular optimizers.

In the same way that I have issues with EXTREME roleplayers who deliberately max-min to make inept fools "for a better story", causing all sorts of issues at the table, rules-wise or inter-personality conflicts.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I always thought "munchkin" referred to a gonzo playstyle that requires the participation of the DM. Its hallmarks are things like stats "fudged" to the breaking point, powerful magic items falling like rain, everybody somehow getting an 01 on their psionics roll, monsters making terrible decisions that allow them to be easily defeated, etc. etc. etc.

It goes way way beyond "optimization," which I think of as something that occurs within both RAW and RAI, and which often annoys people who think it's fun to play non-optimized characters.

No, that's Monty Haul you're describing. And it's a pretty precise description of Monty Haul too! Literally you've nailed all the major elements of "Monty Haul DMing", going beyond the original meaning of "giving out too much XP and too many magic items" into what it actually tended to turn into.

Both begin with M and have a similar vibe so I guess I can see the confusion.

Munchkin has always, as far as I've known, meant players who essentially think that they can "win the game", and are willing to do anything/everything to make the game be about their character "winning". Usually this means extreme exploits, loopholes, broken builds/synergies, etc.

This is often combined with antisocial play where they do everything to direct the game towards being about them. For example, if the party is trying to stealth into a place, but the munchkin player has built a combat monster (and most munchkins are combat monsters - not all though, especially not in VtM), he'll immediately do something to shatter the stealth and force them into combat so he can make the game about him.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

I always thought "munchkin" referred to a gonzo playstyle that requires the participation of the DM. Its hallmarks are things like stats "fudged" to the breaking point, powerful magic items falling like rain, everybody somehow getting an 01 on their psionics roll, monsters making terrible decisions that allow them to be easily defeated, etc. etc. etc.

It goes way way beyond "optimization," which I think of as something that occurs within both RAW and RAI, and which often annoys people who think it's fun to play non-optimized characters.

It may help to note that historically (to my recollection), "munchkin" originated in the early 80s as a pejorative nickname to refer specifically to young players who had no experience in grown-up wargaming/sci-fi/RPG culture and this had not acculturated to its norms and were frequently annoying to the older players. Munchkin was the term because kids are short.

The classic "Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins" categorization quiz apocryphally dates back to Pacificon in San Mateo around 1983, and is helpful in understanding how gamers of the time thought about munchkinism. I'm sure the term has had plenty of regional drift.

Real Men, Real Rôle-Players, Loonies and Munchkins

Favorite Animal to use as a Familiar:
Real Men have Black Cats
Real Roleplayers have Owls
Loonies have Slugs
Munchkins have Ancient Red Dragons

Favorite Kind of Elf:
Real Men like the Pinis' elves
Real Roleplayers like Tolkien's elves
Loonies like Santa's elves
Munchkins like Storm Giants with pointed ears

Favorite Kind of Dwarf:
Real Men like Tolkien's Dwarfs
Real Roleplayers like Glorantha's Dwarfs
Loonies like the Seven Dwarfs
Munchkins like Earth Elementals with beards

Favorite Food to take on Expeditions:
Real Men bring along iron rations
Real Roleplayers cast create food and drink
Loonies bring along aluminum rations
Munchkins no longer need food to live

Favorite Fantasy Author:
Real Men read J.R.R. Tolkien ``Lord of the Rings''
Real Roleplayers read Robert Asprin's ``Thieves' World'' series
Loonies read Robert Asprin's ``Myth'' series
Munchkins read E. Gary Gygax

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Yes. This is why games where optimization is barely a viable thing (like default CoC) or where the range of potential optimization is quite constrained (especially if multiclassing is disallowed) like D&D 5E are quite helpful, because it stops people going into spaces where they're going to cause a problem, and does so without anyone having to have "a discussion" or the like. I think it helps contribute to their popularity, and I think the vast range of power in some games helps limit their popularity, especially if there isn't an easy/obvious way to build a "solid" PC.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Sure, but that's ahistorical. Munchkin and the like were terms still in use in that era, and absolutely no-one old enough to remember 3.5E CharOp is under the illusion that optimization or optimizer means the same thing as whatever was happening with Pun Pun. So let's not start revising history Stalin-style, eh?

At best using optimizer as a pejorative meaning a specific and very extreme group is an incompetent and failing attempt at communication. At worst it's intentional trolling. After this thread, I'd tend to see it as the latter because people can't pretend they don't know or that they think everyone uses that way.

Wut?

I'm revising history, Stalin-style, if I suggest that people who think "optimizer" is a pejorative might be doing so due to associations with the "Character Optimization" forum which spawned Pun-Pun?

I didn't spend a lot of time in those forums specifically because the average level of rules-parsing I encountered when I visited was beyond my own interest or comfort level. Pun-Pun was the ultimate extreme, but speaking as someone who optimizes a bit and has lawyered a few rules in my day ( ), my experience of that forum was broadly negative. Beyond my personal tolerance/interest level. So I can totally get how people who are less interested in optimization than I am could have negative associations with the term.

Your assertions in this discussion have repeatedly surprised me with their broadness and universality.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, that's Monty Haul you're describing. And it's a pretty precise description of Monty Haul too! Literally you've nailed all the major elements of "Monty Haul DMing", going beyond the original meaning of "giving out too much XP and too many magic items" into what it actually tended to turn into.

Both begin with M and have a similar vibe so I guess I can see the confusion.

Munchkin has always, as far as I've known, meant players who essentially think that they can "win the game", and are willing to do anything/everything to make the game be about their character "winning". Usually this means extreme exploits, loopholes, broken builds/synergies, etc.

This is often combined with antisocial play where they do everything to direct the game towards being about them. For example, if the party is trying to stealth into a place, but the munchkin player has built a combat monster (and most munchkins are combat monsters - not all though, especially not in VtM), he'll immediately do something to shatter the stealth and force them into combat so he can make the game about him.

Ok, that's fair, that is Monty Haul. I guess I've always thought of Munchkins as the players in a Monty Haul game. But maybe that's not the canonical meaning.

 

[prabe]

Yes. This is why games where optimization is barely a viable thing (like default CoC) or where the range of potential optimization is quite constrained (especially if multiclassing is disallowed) like D&D 5E are quite helpful, because it stops people going into spaces where they're going to cause a problem, and does so without anyone having to have "a discussion" or the like. I think it helps contribute to their popularity, and I think the vast range of power in some games helps limit their popularity, especially if there isn't an easy/obvious way to build a "solid" PC.

(Again, bouncing off what you said ...) One of the things about (though not exclusive to) most versions of D&D that's kinda optimization-adjacent is the ability to choose how complex a character you want to play. There's a general tendency for more-complex characters to have a higher ceiling, power-wise (again, not a thing exclusive to D&D) and there's a case for that being a reasonable trade-off--though it probably still needs to be constrained somehow, whether that's by rule or by agreement.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wut?

I'm revising history, Stalin-style, if I suggest that people who think "optimizer" is a pejorative might be doing so due to associations with the "Character Optimization" forum which spawned Pun-Pun?

I didn't spend a lot of time in those forums specifically because the average level of rules-parsing I encountered when I visited was beyond my own interest or comfort level. Pun-Pun was the ultimate extreme, but speaking as someone who optimizes a bit and has lawyered a few rules in my day ( ), my experience of that forum was broadly negative. Beyond my personal tolerance/interest level. So I can totally get how people who are less interested in optimization than I am could have negative associations with the term.

Your assertions in this discussion have repeatedly surprised me with their broadness and universality.

No, but I think you're in danger of going that way if we say "Oh that's why people do it and it's totally legit to use optimizer as a generic pejorative because of that". You didn't reach that point AFAIK. That's why I said "Let's not" rather than "You are".

It would be ahistorical though to pretend* that at that time, "optimizer" meant the same thing as "munchkin" or that an "optimized PC" meant the same thing as a "broken or game-breaking PC", that's my point. Most of 3E and 4E's CharOp on various forums (including here!) wasn't even close to game-breaking. I do remember that particular forum as being obnoxious, but IIRC it also didn't last very long.

Also that's one forum from well over 20 years ago (sorry, it's been that long) - I don't think it really explains suddenly deciding, in 2025, to redefine "optimizer" as essentially the same as "munchkin". As I've said, at best it's unhelpful.

* = for clarity, I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm just saying it would be.

Ok, that's fair, that is Monty Haul. I guess I've always thought of Munchkins as the players in a Monty Haul game. But maybe that's not the canonical meaning.

Munchkins would probably enjoy playing in a Monty Haul game, though they would likely end up involved in PvP (which is certainly how a lot of Monty Haul games I heard about ended, to be sure!), but yeah the two concepts exist separately.