Optimization and optimizers...

[Bill Zebub]

Opinions aren't points, mate. You haven't pointed that out, you've expressed that opinion. Which is fine but different.

And I strongly disagree with your opinion, because it seems like shallow Californian-style "peace and love" to me rather than anything practical. It's important to recognise bad behaviour as bad behaviour, and you take a position where you don't even try and figure out why it's happening, you're doomed to a cycle of it continuing to happen, because you can't take reasonable preventative measures or attempt solutions.

The reality is, virtually all humans go through a period of childishness and emotional immaturity - usually as children and sometimes up into their 20s. Very occasionally it last longer or indefinitely (especially in people who have been wealthy since their 20s).

And people going through this are the main source of munchkins and "jerk optimizers" or however you want to name them. You can pretend this is some terrible condemnation, but we've all been immature, so that rings extremely false. It's about recognising and dealing with this. It's not about writing a list of "bad people" or w/e to "punish them", as seems to be your underlying concern, but until you understand how something works, you can't do anything meaningful about it, can you? It's hard to even avoid it!

Also "denigrating their behaviour" is bad when the behaviour we're discussing is "actively destroying the fun of others"? That is pretty next-level lol. What next, a guy squats and poops on your living room floor whilst making eye-contact and smirking at you, and you're like "Well, I'm sure he had his reasons, which I cannot fathom, who am I to judge him or consider why he did it!", rather than thinking "Perhaps there is a way to identify potential floor-poppers and intervene with them before they poop on my floor?"?

Ah, now I understand.

Well, now that you've identified the source of this scourge (which, in case you've forgotten, is people who play classes/builds they don't enjoy only because they are powerful) I wish you luck in eradicating it.

Carry on.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Gorgon Zee said:
Because the "bad" optimizer doesn't simply want to win big -- he wants the others to fail. They will be the ones who also point out to the GM that the other striker should actually do half damage because blah blah blah.

I don't think those people exist outside groups of bitter teenagers, who aren't really worth considering in these discussions because they grow up.

The simple fact is, if you were a "snitch" on other people's PCs like that regularly, you'd become persona non grata in most groups within a session or two.

I think you're either exaggerating something that happened once or twice ever, or you're making up a theoretical person to be mad at.

Well, in the last month it occurred in one online game at PaizoCon and in another game at Origins -- and this mirrors my experience in LG, LFR and LF campaigns. It's mostly confined to crunchy systems. I'm honestly surprised that you haven't encountered it -- maybe you don't play crunchy games outside your friend group? Or maybe you are imagining a very extreme form only?

It may come down to what you mean by "regularly" -- if it's every combat, multiple times, then yeah, sure, that would be overly irritating, but it usually goes something like this, a couple of times in a session.

GM: A, it's your turn
A: I move my conjuration to give flanking and roll a 18! That hits and since I have flanking I do an extra 2d6 + 3d8 for 54 damage
B: Actually conjurations don't give flanking, so it'll only be 25 damage

It's a variation of the already noted overlap between "bad" optimizers and rules lawyers -- they are quick to point out rules that make other players less awesome.

 

[Seramus]

I still snitch, I just do it discreetly after the game. "Hey, I noticed that Bob got flanking with his conjuration during that last battle. I double checked, and it looks like conjurations don't get flanking." Thus, the GM is informed and can make a ruling on it as they see fit.

I do the same thing as a GM. I err on the side of my players and let them do their awesome thing, then double check the rule after the game. I give the player a heads up on the actual rule, so they know what to expect in future games.

 

[Mannahnin]

I still snitch, I just do it discreetly after the game. "Hey, I noticed that Bob got flanking with his conjuration during that last battle. I double checked, and it looks like conjurations don't get flanking." Thus, the GM is informed and can make a ruling on it as they see fit.

I do the same thing as a GM. I err on the side of my players and let them do their awesome thing, then double check the rule after the game. I give the player a heads up on the actual rule, so they know what to expect in future games.

If I spot a rules mistake mid-stream I'll normally point it out right then, regardless of whose favor it's in. Unless the particular GM or table has asked otherwise. GMs I've played with have usually appreciated the help. They've got enough on their plate and reducing rules lookups or mistakes is in everyone's interest.

That's when I'm in the players' seat, of course. In the DM seat, agreed with your practice. I have gotten increasingly focused on pace of play over maximum rules fidelity, so I'm likely to do the same and just err on the side of the players and then check it later.

 

[TwoSix]

It might be because my tables are made up primarily of other DMs, but if we see someone make a rules mistake, we call it right out. The idea that it would be considered snitching or as something done as expressly antagonistic to another player isn't even something we would consider.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It might because my tables are made up primarily of other DMs, but if we see someone make a rules mistake, we call it right out. The idea that it would be considered snitching or as something done as expressly antagonistic to another player isn't even something we would consider.

Yeah. IME, most rules issues are not because people are cheating, but because they don't understand the rules (or because a rule isn't clear).

If someone is hostile to pointing out a rule, that's usually a bad sign.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I still snitch, I just do it discreetly after the game. "Hey, I noticed that Bob got flanking with his conjuration during that last battle. I double checked, and it looks like conjurations don't get flanking." Thus, the GM is informed and can make a ruling on it as they see fit.

I do the same thing as a GM. I err on the side of my players and let them do their awesome thing, then double check the rule after the game. I give the player a heads up on the actual rule, so they know what to expect in future games.

I tend to do it immediately because its too common for people to view it as precedent. Unless I just flat out miss it of course (I just found a rule I--and everyone else in the game--had missed in my 13th Age game that's I've probably been running every other week for a year now, and for half of that missing that rule was a deficit to my players. I of course fixed that right quick when it was brought to my attention).

 

[Kannik]

I enjoy playing tabletop tactical games. BattleTech, Renegade Legion, Car Wars, etc.

I enjoy making units in those games, with spreadsheets and design tables.

I also enjoy tactical map-based encounters in RPGs, whether D&D or otherwise.

I enjoy making strong character concepts. I enjoy looking through the rules and abilities in order to craft those characters so that they reflect and are able to solidly showcase that concept.

I enjoy having very competent characters. I dislike (unless that is the theme/tone of the campaign/world) having characters that are constantly or often incapable of achieving things.

I enjoy crafting rich characters. I enjoy crafting rich stories and narratives with all of the characters involved.

I enjoy game sessions where we don’t touch the dice at all, and it’s all RP. (As I recently shared in my recent “5 Word” post here.)

And for sure, this has confused some people.

Because I am what can be termed an optimizer – I can and do work to have my character be competent and successful in the fictional milieu. And I as the player like to use my character abilities well, including rich tactical thought. Including, as I like to call it, “We’re going to 1e this!” (Which is to set things up prior to an encounter – or to avoid the encounter altogether! – through clever character plans and action as to ensure we succeed.)

And, apparently and simultaneously, I am also a deep roleplayer. I have on occasion even asked the GM a game question in the manner my character speaks, because I can very much disappear into my character. (Call it method acting RP?) I love Cortex Prime, Mouse Guard, and love love love Wanderhome. I have written in-character journals/diaries after each session.

But this confusion can be quickly overcome (and to be clear, it’s only confusion on anyone’s part due to their previous experiences where these two might not have coexisted) by recognizing that not only are Optimizer and Roleplayer not a false dichotomy, and not only that are they not even on a gradient line between them, but that they are each on their own gradients between productive and unproductive. As Dan Olsen could note, while they may be in tension with each other they are not necessarily in opposition to or are destructive to each other.

I’d put it this way: “optimization” is only a problem when it becomes a problem. And that is going to vary greatly on the game/table with each’s unique combination of players, style, tone, campaign, etc. Someone who constantly steps on other players or causes disruption is, as others have noted, a social issue, not necessarily one of mechanics or optimization. Someone playing a totally ineffective character (whether intentionally built this way or not) can still disrupt or talk over others or try to hog the spotlight or tell others what to do, etc. Someone playing a super killer build character can be the most supportive character and help everyone else and be a total team player. Maybe everyone at the table is playing the equivalent of kobold-railgun type character builds – but if that’s their vibe, then it can be great for them with no issues. There are also players who, even if playing in a big optimized character type group, are totally fine being outshone and love contributing in their own ways. There are those who also may simply enjoy watching things unfold much like a novel or TV show.

So even though there may be “optimizers” in some groups, and/or wide gulfs between character builds, that isn’t necessarily a problem unless or until it becomes an issue. And then it’s a social matter to be worked out. Which could include the group splitting apart – unfortunate, but it does happen and can sometimes be the healthiest course of action.

And just to be clear: not saying that the first inkling should be to split up the group or let things go, or that it is the only possible outcome. There are conversations to be had, including on tone and playstyle and seeing if there is enough common ground. We can share what we love about other playstyles and invite them to give it a go, while also recognizing that people want different things out of different games at different times. (The great thing about sharing too is that they may never have been exposed to other options and they may get excited about it. )


(Brief aside here, but I also recognize and agree that game rules also can and do play a role in this, as ones that allow for vast differences in builds, and/or don’t take into account “power differences” between character concepts, and/or are more focused on certain aspects (like combat), all give more space for this kind of friction to arise. BattleTech and Renegade Legion (both FASA games, amusingly) have this as well, for once you delve into their construction rules you see just how ‘bad’ many of the default units in the game are. And so if you start introducing your own designed units against the standard you’ll likely have one heck of an advantage. The intent here was that the base units are designed and balanced via lore-driven ‘reasons’ which, fair… procurement and supply lines and preferences and grift and etc will keep things from being perfect all the time. But sometimes (often?) the designs go so far that it presses up against logic and against even in-universe would make sense. But that’s against the logic of what the design system allows – with different design rules it wouldn’t need to artificially rely on lore as much.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, now that you've identified the source of this scourge (which, in case you've forgotten, is people who play classes/builds they don't enjoy only because they are powerful) I wish you luck in eradicating it.

Even as you typed this you knew it was not what I said, so why even say that?

The problem is people burning down the game to "win". Playing builds you don't even enjoy is just a symptom.

 

[bloodtide]

No. Optimization is relative. If a well-rounded character is beneficial, that's the optimized PC.

Guess I would need to see a character sheet of this type of character.

What you're describing is a "jerk optimizer", or more specifically, a munchkin. Also your suggestion doesn't pick out "optimizers", it also picks out anyone who likes RPGs as opposed to pure RP, like people who enjoy combat, exploration, etc. etc. - basically the majority of D&D players aren't keep on pure "chat room RP" like you're describing as the SOLE method of play. You will however attract a huge number of people who want to pretend to be Goku, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc.!

Yes, there are good and bad optimizers, I've said so many times.

So...ok, the good ones exist.....nothing much to say about them.

Now the bad ones.....well, fill the thread