Optimization and optimizers...

[Ruin Explorer]

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

Unquestionably it's optimization, yeah, because you're intending to make a character overall function well mechanically within the context of the game - which is very different from "winning every roll" in many games.

Not optimizing is just ignoring the mechanics and focusing solely on concept/backstory and what would come from that. Often this can result in characters who are actually ineffective at realizing the concept, because a lot of RPGs absolutely are designed with a "build" element in mind, or just have flawed designs that you need to understand to work around - and working around flaws in the game system when setting up and advancing your character is absolutely optimization.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I mean, that's not true.

Being a munchkin isn't about power level, it's about attitude. Being a munchkin means you don't care about the other players, and you think you can "win" at TTRPGs (primarily by making the game 100% about you/your PC 100% of the time). The usual way they do this is by making broken characters but the power level isn't the defining factor.

Also, what do you mean by "super over powered"? Power exists in a context, it's relative - you seem to be saying the "average" 5E D&D character is "super over powered", but that's obviously nonsensical - if everyone is "super over powered", then no-one is "super over powered".

So you seem to be confusing and conflating a totally different issue here - what appears to be a personal dislike of games that aren't "street level" or "gritty". That's not got anything to do with "optimization".

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.

But what you're describing isn't an actual "problem".

The problem seems to be with you and your own choices.

You're apparently deciding to play RPGs that have tones and power levels you don't like, then you're apparently getting angry that other people aren't willing to house-rule those games to the power level you want, even though none of them signed up for that. I get that you may regard 5E D&D and the like as "super over powered" - presumably meaning that the PCs are "superheroes" in your view. Well - there's an easy fix for that - don't play those games. Go play something actually gritty like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Call of Cthulhu or DCC something! This is 100% on you. You cannot go around joining games you know don't like the rules/tone of, and then saying "Omg these awful jerks won't house-rule the game to my tastes!!!".

If you can't find a game locally that suits your more niche tastes, you can either run one, or you have to go online. Maybe that's not ideal but it's the way of the world for social games like TTRPGs - you need other people, so you need to find people who like the same things as you. You can't just get mad at people and make them change games to suit you.

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.

You're literally asking people to change the rules ("most fixes are very easy"), so you can't really complain about this lol. Yeah, house rules do often mess things up - but you're apparently literally advocating for them - no, sorry, apparently demanding people house-rule RPGs to make them not be about PCs who are "super over powered", so...?

And too many players are just bad or outright jerks.

That may or may not be true, but it's certainly not relevant beyond that it's clear that some minority of people want to use bad experiences with individuals to justify claiming all players who optimize are fiends. And we can do that to any group of people, as much as it might make some people uncomfortable to realize that, and realize the parallels.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

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?

An excellent question—and exactly the kind of discussion I hope to see more of. Thoughtful, objective, and genuinely curious. I appreciate that.

To me, optimization simply means making choices that yield the most benefit relative to your goals. It's not about min-maxing or overpowering the game; it's about choosing what you value most, given the available options.

Let me frame it with a simple analogy:

Say you're driving into town. You can take Route A—faster, more direct, but full of stoplights and traffic. Or Route B—slower, but more scenic and pleasant. The person who chooses Route A is optimizing for time and fuel. The one who chooses Route B is optimizing for experience. Both are making optimal choices—but for different priorities.

They're never in conflict unless they're in the same car, trying to agree on one route.

The same applies in RPGs. If a system like Fate or PbtA rewards dramatic flaws or failures, and a player leans into those mechanics to gain narrative or mechanical advantages, then yes—that is optimization. It’s just optimizing within a system that values tension, drama, and thematic richness over raw success.

To your final question: Is taking a flaw for mechanical benefit still optimization?

Absolutely. Because the motive is key. If a player wouldn’t take the flaw without the incentive attached, then the choice is being made strategically—not narratively. That’s not a bad thing, but it is optimization.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I don't know when I first heard the term but since I was never part of the larger RPG culture (e.g., I didn't go to cons or anything like that...I just played D&D with other kids my age in a small town in Maine) I probably tried to infer the meaning of the word based on the context.

Anyway, I Googled it and...yup, all these decades I had it wrong! I even thought SJG's "Munchkin" was a reference to the sheer number of items you end up with, not the cutthroat nature of the game.

Old dog, new trick.

EDIT: And...in retrospect...I guess we were Munchkins. I'll never forget the day Danny M. showed up late to a game, and we told him that his character had just died to PvP. He almost started crying. It was 1981, we were 13. :-/

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm less interested in specific terminology than I am just making it clear that MOST optimizers are decent people who share the spotlight and usually keep their friends enjoyment at the table in mind. We've all been burned by people who have been both optimizers AND jerks, but I've been burned a hundred times more often by people who insist "That's what my character would do". And even then I never conclude that the majority of heavy roleplayers will always sacrifice the good of the table on the altar of their personal adventure.

No, we're all just folks. Sometimes you get jerks in ANY area of the game: DMs, heavy roleplayers, disinterested roleplayers, optimizers, or any other avenue where jerks can naturally manifest. But most people are not jerks.

This is spot on, and a more eloquent version of what I was trying to say early in the thread.

More rules won't prevent jerks from being jerks, nor will they force other people to enjoy your preferred playstyle.

Don't play with jerks, and when non-jerks play their characters differently that you would...don't be a jerk yourself.

 

[billd91]

Anyway, I Googled it and...yup, all these decades I had it wrong! I even thought SJG's "Munchkin" was a reference to the sheer number of items you end up with, not the cutthroat nature of the game.

Item hoarding, cutthroat PvP, griefing, and breaking rules are all given due homage in the Munchkin card game. It really does skewer the player type brilliantly.

 

[Laurefindel]

Say you're driving into town. You can take Route A—faster, more direct, but full of stoplights and traffic. Or Route B—slower, but more scenic and pleasant. The person who chooses Route A is optimizing for time and fuel. The one who chooses Route B is optimizing for experience. Both are making optimal choices—but for different priorities.

This. I’m a big advocate of optimisation = efficiency in achieving X, where X does not have to be MOAR POWA!

Still, even for someone choosing route B for the scenic experience, there are probably many ways to optimise the vehicle for comfort vs gas consumption, meals/sleep stops vs travel time, driving schedule vs rush-hour traffic jams etc.

Once they know the rules and parameters of a game system, a good optimiser will find the best combination and balance of abilities for an efficient representation of the chosen concept.

 

[SteveC]

I think optimization (of fill in the blank for the name) sometimes gets a bad name. I've been in this hobby for a long time, and I've played characters, simple to complex, all the way from start to end of game. I've played that simple fighter, I've played the build-your-own-class abomination. So when I play a character now, I try and come up with something novel or just interesting. And when I do that, I make the character the best it can be at doing whatever I want to try to do. And I have the caveat that "what I want to do" needs to be something useful in the context of the game I'm playing. And once that's done, I make as enjoyable to play and work with my group. So that it's memorable and fun for everyone.

That's obviously not how everyone does optimized characters but it speaks to what the problem is: boring characters that take the spotlight inappropriately from other characters, or don't fit in with the rest of the group. I'd argue there's nothing wrong with making an effective character so long as it's within the context of RPGs being a team exercise.

 

[Laurefindel]

I'd argue there's nothing wrong with making an effective character so long as it's within the context of RPGs being a team exercise.

For sure. We had a few characters optimized for team playing, or for optimizing the party by basing concept on missing roles and skill sets, etc.

 

[DragonLancer]

Optimisation isn't the problem. We all do that. It's over-optimisation when no one else at the table plays that way. I had this problem years ago during 3rd edition D&D. We had a player who over-optimised to the point that he was leaving everyone else behind and refused when asked by the other players to back it down to the level that they were comfortable with and preferred. The GM either caters to that player/s to the detriment of everyone else or they don't, and the player/s in question dominant and spoil the game for everyone.

In my experience, if everyone at the table is on the same page where optimisation is concerned, then it's all good. It's when one or more overtakes and then you have a problem.