Optimization and optimizers...

[overgeeked]

Well, there's the real answer "They stop playing together" and then the adult answer, "They sit down and talk with this guy about it."

It takes two to tango. If the other person doesn't respond like an adult, it doesn't matter. That has been my overwhelming experience with this kind of thing. Someone brings some ridiculous OP monstrosity to the table, I say some version of "could you not?" or "we don't do that here," and suddenly I'm the donkey cave for not letting this player ruin other people's fun...including mine.

Not every gamer or gaming style is a good fit for every table. It's far better to filter out people or groups up front rather than run into problems at the table after everyone's invested time and money is a game that's about to fall apart.

Don't assume, ask well ahead of time. If you're told no, either accept it or walk.

 

[Laurefindel]

I like optimisation. I’d call myself an optimiser, and so are most of my friends in my group. We don’t use it pejoratively, but there might be a language barrier there (we play in French).

Step 1 sometimes starts from a (perceived) synergy between two abilities, or some game mechanics we find interesting. Sometimes it’s a concept we’ve been itching to play, or (more often that we’d like to admit it) from a single image that we want to translate into a full fledged character.

Step 2 is finding a character concept to fit.

Step 3, we look at how this can be made most efficiently in respect to the character concept and how we’d like to play it. There can be a bit of back and forth between step 2 and 3.

The point is not to make the most powerful character. The point is to draw the best out of that concept, which can have all sorts of restrictions. Perhaps a two-handed sword would deal more damage, but that image has a short sword. Ok, how do you make the most efficient short sword build then, etc.

 

[Seramus]

RPG Therapist would be a curious job.

"Alright group. I understand there's been some problems with spotlight sharing, feeling like your voice is not heard during the decision making process, feeling like your party niche is being intruded upon, and feeling overshadowed. I'd like to start with John. He's been hurt many times in the past and needs to voice his truth."

 

[Wolfram stout]

And that classic meme doesn't have optimizers as a separate category. Sure, sure... if you want to be... again, pedantic and nitpicky, then you can say that optimizer doesn't have the same stigma as munchkin, and that maybe there's a line somewhere on the spectrum between the two where you stop being one and start being the other. And of course, degree matters. Someone on the far munchkin end of the axis is going to be quite a bit more obnoxious than someone far to the other side. But no matter how you try to split those hairs, it's still the same activity.

If you don't mind, and this is not a gotcha question: if the difference between optimizer and munchkin is pedantic where is your preferred line?

For example I am making a character for your game or as a fellow player and I decided on a warlock. At what point is it going to bug you: I put my highest score in Charisma, I pick Eldritch blast cantrip, I chose that invocation that lets me add Chr modifier to damage.

Those seem standard to me so would be a good gauge on word usage.

Thanks

 

[bloodtide]

Optimizing your own character, so long as it doesn't break the game, is pretty much never a problem. Often it's not even detectable by people who don't understand optimization! But breaking games and making them about you, or starting to do a critique of everyone else's PC for being insufficiently optimized obviously is a problem.

There are some quarks here though:

The biggest problem is that in a lot of games, and even more D&D, that if the player just picks and plays an "average" character they will be super over powered at best, and a full munchkin at worse. All while not "really doing it". This is a game rule problem, and it is a big one.

And almost as bad are the DMs and players that refuse to do anything about the above problem. And most fixes are very easy. Yet many say "all hail the rules" and refuse to do anything.

Next is the huge problem of unintended consequences. The DM or players comes up with a wacky idea to change the rules for whatever reason. And that change makes for huge problems.....and they sit back and ignore the problem that they created.

And too many players are just bad or outright jerks. They know things are problems or worse, and still they take and use them and just say "I'm innocent".

 

[Greg K]

I have said the following in other threads.

There are several types of optimization and not all forms include power gaming or mini-maxing, I distinguish between the three and none of which need include cheating which is a separate issue.

Player motivations can play a role in the type of optimization, Robin Law identified several player motivations as did D&D 4e. I don't have my 5e DMG with me so I don't recall what it had to say. The categories Butt-Kicker (4e Slayer), Power Gamer, Method Actor (4e Actor), Specialist (no 4e equivalent), Storyteller, Tactitcan (4e Thinker), Casual (4e Watcher) while D&D 4e added the Explorer and Instigator These motivations can lead to different optimization goals, different beliefs about what type of optimization and/or degree of optimization is appropriate or inappropriate, and the purpose of playing the game. When one or more of these views are in opposition to those of others at table, conflict can arise. It is also important to realize that individual players tend to be a mix of the different motivations

These are my thoughts on optimization which I have shared in other threads

1. Optimization is a tool to meet a goal or goals related to one's character concept. The goal can be directed to combat, power, a focus on a particular skill, or to best mechanically reflects an overall character concept. Any time that a player assigns/allocates resources to meet a particular goal or concept they are engaging in optimization. The only way to avoid optimization would be to randomly generate the character or assign things haphazardly without thought of the character and how to represent it .

2. Optimization is not binary. There are degrees of optimization. It is a continuum on an axis. Someone randomly rolling the mechanical aspects without any choice in assignment or haphazardly assigning without thought would be 0 (or not engaging) on the axis. However, as soon as one begins prioritizing resources to a concept, they are participating in some degree of optimization. For instance, placing one's highest ability score in Dex, because it gives your rogue bonuses on their rogue related proficiencies is optimizing. Taking a skill or proficiency to mechanically reflect a character's training and gain the mechanical benefit is also engaging in a degree of optimization. Someone scouring every tome for every last point is going to be at the far end of the spectrum.

3. Optimization need not have the goal of focusing on a single area and getting the most efficiency or output possible in that area. First, as stated in #2 above, optimization is on a continuum. Second, it is possible to have multiple goals that need to be met. When this occurs, it is often necessary to trade off maximum possible efficency/output in one or more areas to meet established goals for other areas This is called Systems Optimization.

4. If the mechanical representation of a character is a goal involving at least some forethought in the allocation of resources to achieve that representation, I submit that what many people consider just "building a character" does involve a degree of optimization. One has a vision of their character and assigns resources (ability scores (and points if doing point buy), proficiencies (or skill points in some editions). Furthermore, since optimization is not binary, the degree of optimization is how much effort is spent by the player fine tuning the mechanical aspects and bonuses to best get close to the ideal vision he or she character at the point of beginning play.

The two primary players motivations that I see complaints about are the Butt-Kicker and Power Gamer. However, at their base, both are motivations and neither requires optimization. The Butt-Kicker's is focused on combat. The Power Gamer desires to play a powerful character (whatever that means in terms of the game).

Butt-Kickers tend to focus on combat. When they optimize, they tend to focus upon larger numbers related to hitting opponents and damage output, because combat is their emphasis for playing and around which they build their character .

The Power Gamer is often confused with the butt-kicker. However, If the campaign or system is not heavy in combat, an optimizing Power Gamer will optimize toward whatever is considered powerful for that campaign/system. More importantly, both Laws (in his book on good gaming) and D&D 4e defined the Power Gamer as being motivated by playing a powerful character and/or the accumulation of power. Thus, there are different types of Power Gamers. 1) A Power Gamer can simply be someone playing with an emphasis upon the cycle of leveling, gaining cool powers/equipment, and the accumulation of power (the standard play cycle of D&D) which needs no engagement in optimization; 2) Playing a powerful character can mean the player requires that a PC have a level minimum competence level (e.g. SWAT officer, Special Forces, or Olympic Athlete) or some other minimum above an average person for a character to be playable (this can be met by choice of game or in a game like D&D starting at a higher level; or 3) the player wants their character to outshine other PCs as wells as NPCs (which is an issue in and of itself for a cooperative game) Therefore, as with Butt-kickers, Power Gamers need not optimize, but it is a useful tool toward their goal

For both the Butt-Kicker and Power Gamer optimization is a useful tool, However, optimization by either type of player need not be a problem in and of itself, because optimization is a continuum on an axis. It is only when the player's degree of optimization crosses a certain threshold (dependent on the preference of the GM and/or other group members) that it becomes becomes a problem. This is a play style preference issue and can happen when a particular player's preference(s) (regardless of style/motivation) does not mesh with that of the GM and/or group of as a whole (e.g. a storyteller in a group of Butt-Kickers that rate low on the storytelling axis). The solution is talking out expectations before character generation and, if necessary, when expectations come into conflict to address the issue whether that means a compromise can be reached or it is decided that individual expectations are not a match and the player in question would be better off with a more compatible group.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

D&D is a game that can be lost, so... to the victory minded, staying on the non-losing side is a goal of play.

I tend to be a "Use the «bleep»ing rules" player, and I try to stick to them as a GM. i'm more interested in the effects of rules-based play in generating a story than the GM's story. By several orders of importance.

 

[Blue]

One group I'm with is die-hard 5e, with no Pathfinder experience whatsoever for any of the members. We switched to PF2 Remastered a year ago.

I have a head for rules, and a decent memory of them. The GM and players ask me for what's the right rule all the time. I often will interject during play, "Hey wait, that's how 5e did it, but Pathfinder does it like this...". Including to the GM.

We've been playing a year, we're not newbies anymore. But there's a lot of rules in PF, and a lot of unlearning D&D rules as well.

By correcting others, including the GM, with what's written in the books I obviously fit the classic definition of Rules Lawyer. And it's a welcome addition to the table.

I bring this up because of the push here about Optimizers and if they are welcome at tables, and if they are obnoxious, and points like that.

Obnoxious in presentation, fitting a particular DM's or tables style, and that sort of thing is orthogonal to optimizing a character. It's not inherent in optimization. So it can't be part of any honest definition of the word. Someone can be "obnoxious about optimization and pushing it on other players", but if you just say "they optimize" we see why it needs the extra terms in the quote, because it doesn't carry any of that natively.

(Side note about table style: I played at one table 3ed where the players and DM were all serious optimizers. We all had fun. A player would have not fit the table's style if they didn't multiclass, pick up prestige classes, and otherwise push the boundaries. Again, just showing how that's not part of the definition of 'optimizer'.)

So now we get to are optimizers and those who break the game the same? I think part of that lies in the definition of the low end of optimizer.

For instance say I definite optimizers in 2014!D&D as players who have would never take a mundane trident as the primary weapon for a martial character. The trident is generally inferior to the other martial weapons, so it is an optimal choice not to take it.

I think many would disagree with such a low bar. And it is ludicrously low, I did that on purpose. To show that making a viable character, such as reasonable choices for where to put ability scores, is already making choices that differentiate your character from a suboptimal character. If you have a higher CHR than DEX as a conman rogue but still have a reasonable DEX, that's a different choice then using DEX as your dump stat for the rogue. And optimization starts with that sort of thing -- evaluating your options to put together a playable character.

So we can see optimization has a spectrum from reasonable character creation up. It's inaccurate to use that word to only describe the highest levels of powergaming (oh, I'm probably going to get in trouble for that undefined term). Be it using another term like munchkin or powergamer, or even just separating out a portion of the speectrum with a phrase like "extreme optimization", we end up with clearer communication and also aren't unintentionally insulting to those who do consider themselves optimizers but not game breakers.

 

[Blue]

Not sure what this is about, but I have had thoughts on this for some time. I decided long ago that it is not worth my energy or effort to try and deal with these alleged culprits because, frankly, most of these games are designed with the expectation that players will (and should) optimise to produce the most favorable outcome at every possible opportunity.

Most game systems don't actively reward players for making poor or less optimal choices. A wizard class always assumes the character will have a high Intelligence score, for example. Thus, most related mechanics and abilities of a wizard ties directly to that one stat. Does the game offer a consolation or adjustment for having mediochre INT? Almost never. So why shame others for making the better choices that the game expects players to make in order to have an effective character?

In other words: "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

Have a question for curiosity. There are some systems like Fate that do explicitly reward playing character flaws. Fate as a matter of fact having them come up multiple times per session is part of the whole Fate Point economy that lets you shine at other times.

Other systems, like many PbtA grant advancement on failed rolls. Had one Masks: A New Generation game where one heroine had fantastic rolls for two sessions in a row, and was joking because the others were unlocking new moves and such and they weren't advancing.

So back to the question: if you make a character intentionally flawed because there are mechanical benefits to failure, is that also optimization?

 

[Laurefindel]

Have a question for curiosity. There are some systems like Fate that do explicitly reward playing character flaws. Fate as a matter of fact having them come up multiple times per session is part of the whole Fate Point economy that lets you shine at other times.

Other systems, like many PbtA grant advancement on failed rolls. Had one Masks: A New Generation game where one heroine had fantastic rolls for two sessions in a row, and was joking because the others were unlocking new moves and such and they weren't advancing.

So back to the question: if you make a character intentionally flawed because there are mechanical benefits to failure, is that also optimization?

Definitely, at least in my definition of optimization. It doesn’t have to be dishonest or against the spirit of the game, but choosing your flaws in order to gain the maximum efficiency of your “build” is part of optimization.