D&D General Playstyle Enjoyment: Build Optimization or Play Optimization?

[Lyxen]

Please show where anyone has said that the book has a rule requiring optimization. Because I certainly didn't say that. What I said is that the book supports optimization and assumes that the players will optimize, that it's an accepted game style, and that DMs should accommodate for it.

You did, here, and wrongly (as demonstrated in the class examples): "Obvious Intent: If you want to play a class, you should look at the associated stat, pick a race that gets a bonus to that stat, and max it out by putting your highest number in that stat."

And for me, it's really the very bad form of optimisation, the one that restricts the possibility of playing the game, in this case to specific race/class combinations, invalidating 90% of the possibilities of the game.

At this point, you are either deliberately or accidentally misunderstanding me--and probably deliberately misquoting me as well. Supposedly that's a no-no.

You are the one continuously misquoting me (where I, see above, provide exact quotes and references). Please stop.

Bards use Dex as a secondary stat (it's recommend you put your highest stat in Charisma and second-highest in Dex). Forest and deep gnomes get a +1 Dex. Clerics and druids use Wisdom as a primary stat. Wood elves get +1 Wisdom, and half-elves can put +1 into Wisdom, if they want.

So, I'm right again.

You are wrong, again. Gnomes get +2 to int, and that's it. The example does not precise which type of gnome, and the deep gnome is not even in the PH. But how about the elf paladin ? The Halfling Sorcerer ? This is getting ridiculous.

Show me what approach it does recommend. I've been waiting for you to show me some evidence. I've looked up several things for you. You could actually copypaste some sentences in return.

Once more: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game." Or "Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation. You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama.", it's not a game where you spend hours in your mother's basement optimising characters. You can, but it's not the intent of the game, the intent is playing it. How about "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery." It's literally the first sentence in the actual introduction to the PH. The intent is storytelling, amongst friends. Or how about "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."How about "We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players."

Rules, and the optimising upon these rules are not what the game is about, at its core. Nothing prevents you from playing that way, and all power to you if it's what you want to do, it's a recognised playstyle, but nothing more than that. In general, it's about collaborative storytelling, not about optimising characters.

You've never given me the quote. And I've read and reread the introduction. I see nothing that says that "don't bother to optimize."

"you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game ... None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

And how on earth are you jumping from "you don't have to read all the rules" to "don't optimize" or even "optimizing isn't what's intended"?

The intention is clear: collaborative storytelling. It's said many ways and in many forms.

So what? Is this bad or wrong? Does it alter your enjoyment if somebody in someone else's game gets their stats differently from you? Why do you even care?

Because it creates a power gap, for one (although 5e is careful, in particular in its extensions, to limit that as much as possible), but also because of the attitude that it engenders, in particular relying more on the technicalities on the game than on the story, and influencing the situations so that the specific technical power of the character shows, and in particular starting fights when advantageous for that character despite what all other characters are doing. But also looking down on other characters as being poorly designed, criticising them for being inefficient, giving orders to other players so that they can be more efficient, etc. All effects that we have seen at our tables, including in recent years, and all started by optimisers who thought that the game is only about winning fights.

As for the effect on other tables, there are all these new players who now only believe that some character types are valid, because otherwise their character will be inefficient and not fun to play, or even ridiculous if they speak about it. I want optimisers to stop shaming other players for not creating non-optimised characters. It's not a requirement, just as selecting a race that gives a bonus is not a requirement or even an advice of the game.

In particular YOU are the one wanting to dictate how people play the game, including forcing them to choose only specific class/race combinations when there is no reason for it in the game. The half-orc bard follower of Selune that we had was absolutely brilliant as a character. Stop trying to force people to optimise to play the game.

And honestly, this is just sad. It's like you're demanding that people get your approval before they're allowed to have fun with their character.

So after all that blustering with having dump stats, not even one character to show how you have below average stats overall ? Tss tsss. I think I don't need to say anything anymore on that subject.

You made an assumption that optimizing prevents you from enjoying the game.

Just to show you how you deform my sentences, here is what I wrote: "If that kind of optimisation prevents you from actually enjoying the game when you play it, I find it really really sad." Do I say that optimising mandatorily prevents you from enjoying the game ? No, once more you are lying and putting words in my mouth.

But yes, there have been cases of people optimising preventing other people from enjoying the game. How about shouting at other people for having non-optimised characters putting the party in danger ? How about ordering other players to do specific things because it benefitted the optimiser ?

Later, TwoSix said "One can "roleplay as your character" as well as optimize," to which you replied
Again, you made an assumption: that it's impossible for someone to both roleplay and optimize while building a character.

You are absolutely incredible about the way you put words in my mouth.

Presumably this means that you think it's impossible to optimize and have fun with your friends at the same time as well. You then go on to say
Which suggests to me that you have a very hostile DM v. PCs mentality at your table, where anyone who steps out of line is punished for it. (This is supported by you saying that you ban "explaining your action" at your table.)

Oh my my my... Aren't we going off track there ? First, there is nothing about DM vs. PC, since PC are imaginary. But yes, as a DM, I am adversarial to people who disrupt play at the table, like the examples just above, so sue me. And yes, the only person that was ever banned from our table was an optimiser. We actually banned him twice, because, being nice people we relented and let him back in, where he once more, after a few months, again shouted at other players for being inefficient.

So yes, when people are disruptive (and we only have cases like these in terms of disruption), we take action. Sue us or even tell us we are wrong. But stop inventing things about our playstyle that you obviously know extremely little about.

Likewise, you say to Umbran and others

With the implication that we--meaning every gamer--are supposed to follow the creators' intent.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT ? You are reading implications here, putting words in my mouth and making a fool of yourself, again. While, and it's funny, just showing that there is indeed an intent.

I specifically asked you why we're supposed to care about their intent. You didn't answer.

Again, a lie, since I also said: "Does it prevent the game from being played any other way ? Certainly not. Do I tell anyone that it's bad to play it another way ? Certainly not." Will you ever stop lying and misquoting me ?

Instead (to other people) played the victim and say that people are telling you that not-optimization is bad and they're so mean to you by treating you as inferior. I've asked you to show me where people have said that. You haven't answered that, either.

I have given you plenty of examples above. And I'm not saying that YOU have done it, although you have come very close by saying that you have to play certain race/classes combinations (otherwise what ? It's probably bad).

And again, I'm asking you to point it out. To me, specifically, not to someone else and then say that you already quoted it. The thread is moving fast enough it's hard to find individual responses when I don't know the keyword.


PHB, Choose a Race: "Your character's race grants particular racial traits, such as special senses, proficiency with certain weapons or tools, proficiency in one or more skills, or the ability to use minor spells. These traits sometimes dovetail with the capabilities of certain classes (see step 2). For example, the racial traits of lightfoot halflings make them exceptional rogues, and high elves tend to be powerful wizards. Sometimes playing against type can be fun, too. Halfling paladins and mountain dwarf wizards, for example, can be unusual but memorable characters."

Note the use of the word sometimes there, and calling out halfling paladins and mountain dwarf wizards as unusual characters. Not typical characters, but unusual ones. Definitely playable, but the intent is that typical adventurers pick a good race/class combo.

This is the most biased reading that I've seen in a long time. How about "Sometimes playing against type can be fun, too" ? How about the fact that they CAN be unusual, does this mean that they are always unusual ? How about "memorable" ? So no, there is absolutely ZERO intent here. Not only is playing against type mentioned as fun when fun is the intent of the game above everything else, but nowhere does it say that you have to do it. It does not even say that it's a good thing. It says ". These traits sometimes dovetail with the capabilities of certain classes". By the way, I'm not a native english speaker, but I very much suggest that you re-read that sentence about the "sometimes", you clearly get it wrong if you think that it refers to unusual characters. ON THE CONTRARY, it means that SOMETIMES, the race and class combine, as in the examples given just after "For example, the racial traits of lightfoot halflings make them exceptional rogues, and high elves tend to be powerful wizards".

So actually, that paragraph says EXACTLY the reverse of what you want it to say. SOMETIMES you have a lightfoot halfling rogue or a high elf wizard, because SOMETIMES the traits dovetail. SOMETIMES, they don't and you are playing against type. There is no intent one way or another.

Q.E.D. you are wrong again.

The intent is a holdover from AD&D, when races where limited to certain classes. That's why 3x had favored classes.

First, even in AD&D, we played against type because the restrictions were stupid. Were we wrong ? Are you going to sue me for playing an elf magic-use bard, or a troll paladin ? Second, while 3e had some favored things for optimisers, was there an intent to restrict this ? Are you going to sue those of use who took non-favoured classes ? Are you going to call us bad players, against the intent of the game ?

Lastly, and rightly, 4e and then 5e dropped all of that, but we still have people like you trying to tell us that it's bad to play anything else than the "dovetailing" race/class combinations because you (totally wrongly, as demonstrated above) try and tell us that this is against the intent of the game, that we are bad players...

See what I mean about people like you and how they look at non-optimisers ?

DMG Creating a New Race: "Here are our basic goals for the aasimar: Aasimar should make effective clerics and paladins." DMG aasimar get +2 Cha, +1 Wis, both of which are good for clerics and paladins. In other words, this race was built to play a certain class, and got ASIs to support that class.

NOOOO. You are drawing incredible conclusions there. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT A CHARACTER HAS TO BE EFFECTIVE ? Once more, you are showing the really, really bad attitude of the optimiser saying "if you are not effective, you are a bad player". This is discrimination of the highest order.

Likewise, tieflings had a Charisma penalty in 2e and 3e, but when warlocks became a core class in 4e, and it required Charisma, tieflings turned that -2 into a +2, so they could play devil-worshipers.

So you can only play tieflings as devil worshippers ? My fun-loving revolutionary Tiefling bard who wants nothing to do with devils would like to have a word with your discriminating person.

In fact, I called up the PHB and did a search on the word "rule." Of the 91 instances I found of that word, none of them were part of a sentence that said anything like "you don't have to read them all." Closest I found was "you don't have to memorize them," and that was in the DMG--which does say you should at least familiarize yourself with all of them.

So, once more, please learn to read (and to use a search engine, as a secondary skill ). Really. PH, page 4. Go and read the PH. Really, please, and stop discriminating, stop lying and misquoting me:

 

[Faolyn]

You did, here, and wrongly (as demonstrated in the class examples): "Obvious Intent: If you want to play a class, you should look at the associated stat, pick a race that gets a bonus to that stat, and max it out by putting your highest number in that stat."

That's not a rule. That's an intention, but not a rule. I never said there were rules that insisted on optimization. You're the one who keeps bringing that up.

Finding your spell save DC by adding 8 + your spellcasting ability mod + your proficiency bonus is a rule. Showing that you should play a high-Strength race if you want to play a fighter is a guideline.

And for me, it's really the very bad form of optimisation, the one that restricts the possibility of playing the game, in this case to specific race/class combinations, invalidating 90% of the possibilities of the game.

Sure. For you, that's a bad form of optimization because for whatever reason, your enjoyment of the game is hindered.

Do you understand that that's not the case for everyone else? Do you understand that many people can roleplay well and optimize and have fun at the same time?

You are wrong, again. Gnomes get +2 to int, and that's it. The example does not precise which type of gnome, and the deep gnome is not even in the PH. But how about the elf paladin ? The Halfling Sorcerer ? This is getting ridiculous.

You mean the flavor text? You understand that flavor text is neither rules nor guidelines, right?

Once more: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

Yes. And? That isn't a rule either. It's not even a guideline or intent. It's a reminder that you don't have to memorize every detail. It's a reminder that you don't have to optimize if you don't want to.

Or "Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation. You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama.", it's not a game where you spend hours in your mother's basement optimising characters. You can, but it's not the intent of the game, the intent is playing it. How about "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery." It's literally the first sentence in the actual introduction to the PH. The intent is storytelling, amongst friends. Or how about "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."How about "We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players."

Again, and? The DMG still lists optimizing as a perfectly valid gaming style.

Or hey: prove that people can't create exciting and epic collaborative stories if they optimize. Prove that people can't have fun with their friends if they optimize.

In other words, prove that the only way to have fun is to play it your preferred way.

Your problem is that you are conflating chargen with the actual game. They're incredibly different things. You create your character before you play, and then modify it each time you level up. Character creation is not roleplaying. It's what you do before you roleplay.

I've known people who've made very average, non-optimized characters and who do a crap job of roleplaying. I've known people who make very optimized characters and get very deep into roleplay.

Also: nice insult there, saying that anyone who doesn't game your way must be some sort of basement-dweller. I own my own home, thank you. Gygax famously gamed in his basement.

"you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game ... None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

The intention is clear: collaborative storytelling. It's said many ways and in many forms.

And again, it also says that optimization is a valid form of play.

You are not the God of Gaming. It's not up to you to decide who is gaming in a valid manner or not.

Because it creates a power gap, for one (although 5e is careful, in particular in its extensions, to limit that as much as possible),

If the game is all about the epic storytelling and being with friends as you say, then why does a power gap matter to you?

Or could it be that one of the problems here is you just don't other people to optimize because then they'd outshine you?

but also because of the attitude that it engenders, in particular relying more on the technicalities on the game than on the story, and influencing the situations so that the specific technical power of the character shows, and in particular starting fights when advantageous for that character despite what all other characters are doing.

Prove it.

But also looking down on other characters as being poorly designed, criticising them for being inefficient, giving orders to other players so that they can be more efficient, etc.

Have you considered the problem is actually caused by toxic players and not by optimization?

And looking down on other players--not even characters, but players--is what you have been doing this entire time. This thread started about whether people like build optimization or play optimization. Your first post in the thread was a hostile attack on the entire notion.

Why didn't you start a thread of your own talking about characters that weren't optimized at all, maybe posting tidbits from your game that showed how having a non-optimized character led to some fun, well-roleplayed moments? That would have been a great idea for a thread and hopefully it would have gone on for a long time.

Instead, the first thing you did was attack.

In particular YOU are the one wanting to dictate how people play the game, including forcing them to choose only specific class/race combinations when there is no reason for it in the game. The half-orc bard follower of Selune that we had was absolutely brilliant as a character. Stop trying to force people to optimise to play the game.

Where have I tried to dictate how people play the game? Show me what I said that tried to force a game style on anyone?

My kalashtar fighter (adoptive mother to two of the other PCs), tiefling rogue (with the Int dump-stat and no Investigation), and firbolg warlock (who keeps trying to talk to animals but always forgets they can't understand the animal's responses) are all fun characters. And those were built with racial ASIs, so I didn't even get to "optimize" by putting the +2 where I wanted to.

So after all that blustering with having dump stats, not even one character to show how you have below average stats overall ? Tss tsss. I think I don't need to say anything anymore on that subject.

Since all my character sheets are digital, there's no point in showing you a sheet: a brand new sheet and one that's been used for eight levels look exactly the same.

Just to show you how you deform my sentences, here is what I wrote: "If that kind of optimisation prevents you from actually enjoying the game when you play it, I find it really really sad." Do I say that optimising mandatorily prevents you from enjoying the game ? No, once more you are lying and putting words in my mouth.

Dude, I quoted the if. And here you are ignoring the first part of your sentence: "That's the kind of stupid restrictions bought about by rules which prevent fun when playing."

Way to deform your own sentences and lie about your own intent.

But yes, there have been cases of people optimising preventing other people from enjoying the game. How about shouting at other people for having non-optimised characters putting the party in danger ? How about ordering other players to do specific things because it benefitted the optimiser ?

Again: you have problems with toxicity players, not with the optimization yourself.

You are absolutely incredible about the way you put words in my mouth.

You mean when I actually quote you?

WHERE DID I SAY THAT ? You are reading implications here, putting words in my mouth and making a fool of yourself, again. While, and it's funny, just showing that there is indeed an intent.

Right here. Also, throughout this post.

Funny how when I quote you directly, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Maybe you need to reread what you write before you hit post; make sure you're actually writing what you mean to.

Again, a lie, since I also said: "Does it prevent the game from being played any other way ? Certainly not.

Are you now claiming that that you never said that the game was intended to be played in a certain way? Or are you just trying to gaslight me?

Do I tell anyone that it's bad to play it another way ? Certainly not."

Yes. Here, from a reply to Umbran:

Identifying the intent also helps you choose the best tool to do do the job, in this case, having fun. I was having less fun with some editions of the game, because they had been designed with an intent that did not correspond to the way I like playing it. You will not get as good a result using an improvised tool as when you are using a tool designed to do what you need to do.

"You will not get as good a result using an improvised tool as when you are using a tool designed to do what you need to do."

Or this one, a reply to McGibster:

I understand that some people like optimising, but this has never been the intent of the game, which is playing it with friends.

Unless you're trying to claim that playing the game the way it isn't intended to be played is good...?

BTW, which editions did you have less fun with? And what were you doing that went against its design intent? Because my friends and I have roleplayed while playing The Game of Life and had fun doing so. You can get a surprising amount of depth and character out of a little pink or blue peg.

And while I haven't actually played 1e or 4e, I've read tons of 1e stuff and a small amount of 4e stuff and haven't found anything there that would make it unfun to RP.

Will you ever stop lying and misquoting me ?

I haven't misquoted you once, nor have I ever lied.

I have given you plenty of examples above. And I'm not saying that YOU have done it, although you have come very close by saying that you have to play certain race/classes combinations (otherwise what ? It's probably bad).

Talking about lying and misquoting: please show where I said you have to have that. What I've said is that the books emphasize typical race/class combos, based on a long history of restricting races to being certain classes.

Go on. Quote me.

This is the most biased reading that I've seen in a long time.

Is it more or less biased that saying that the game "intends" people to not optimize?

First, even in AD&D, we played against type because the restrictions were stupid. Were we wrong ? Are you going to sue me for playing an elf magic-use bard, or a troll paladin ? Second, while 3e had some favored things for optimisers, was there an intent to restrict this ? Are you going to sue those of use who took non-favoured classes ? Are you going to call us bad players, against the intent of the game ?

Why would I? I have repeatedly said I don't care about the game's intent, or about the intent of any of the designers.

However, I do think it's odd that you would go so far away from the stated intent of both the game and the designers though. I guess you have no problem with ignoring the intent if it gets in the way of your fun, but don't want anyone else to do the same.

But a troll paladin? Hella powerful though. All those paladin powers and regeneration? If this was really a character of yours, then you have zero business criticizing anyone for optimizing, min-maxing, or powergaming ever again. You've lost that privilege.

NOOOO. You are drawing incredible conclusions there. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT A CHARACTER HAS TO BE EFFECTIVE ? Once more, you are showing the really, really bad attitude of the optimiser saying "if you are not effective, you are a bad player". This is discrimination of the highest order.

Um, the DMG specifically says that aasimars are to be effective clerics and paladins. I quoted it. You have the DMG. Look up aasimars and see for yourself.

Where did I say that you have to be effective or your a bad player? Or are you lying and misquoting me again? Funny, when I ask for you to prove the things you say about me, you refuse to show me the quotes.

So you can only play tieflings as devil worshippers ? My fun-loving revolutionary Tiefling bard who wants nothing to do with devils would like to have a word with your discriminating person.

That's what the game "intended": for tieflings to lean in to their new heritage as creations of Asmodeus. While I don't own the 4e core books, this 4e wiki shows that most of the 4e tiefling feats emphasized that devilish origin. So, if you care about the game's "intent," then yes, you should play up a devilish tiefling.

And since you talk so much about the game's intent, I have to assume that you do care about it.

But the fact that you have had a fun-loving tiefling bard and a troll paladin shows that you don't care about the game's intent. You just want to look down on people who play differently than you do.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Lyxen and @Faolyn, how do you two DO it!?!

I gained a level of exhaustion just reading your back-and-forth!

(j/k)

 

[Faolyn]

@Lyxen and @Faolyn, how do you two DO it!?!

I gained a level of exhaustion just reading your back-and-forth!

(j/k)

Hopefully I was at least a fun read.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hopefully I was at least a fun read.

In some ways, yes, to be honest, but also, to be honest, it is getting stale for me anyway...

But, hey, keep at it if you want, I can just skim them or skip them entirely.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
@Lyxen and @Faolyn

It is clearly time for the two of you to step away from each other. Please make it easy, by no longer replying to each other in this thread, or dragging this conflict into other threads. Thank you.

 

[Lanefan]

While I agree with a fair bit of what you say to get to this point I find myself in considerable disagreement with your conclusion:

The intention is clear: collaborative storytelling. It's said many ways and in many forms.

I don't think that's the intention in 5e any more than it's been in any other edition; that is to say, collaborative storytelling is but one way of many of playing the game.

Because it creates a power gap, for one (although 5e is careful, in particular in its extensions, to limit that as much as possible), but also because of the attitude that it engenders, in particular relying more on the technicalities on the game than on the story, and influencing the situations so that the specific technical power of the character shows, and in particular starting fights when advantageous for that character despite what all other characters are doing. But also looking down on other characters as being poorly designed, criticising them for being inefficient, giving orders to other players so that they can be more efficient, etc. All effects that we have seen at our tables, including in recent years, and all started by optimisers who thought that the game is only about winning fights.

Given that I fully endorse rolling for stats and suchlike, I'm not one to complain about in-party power gaps: they're a fact of life and can IME be overcome - see below.

I also fully endorse characters sometimes acting as individuals and doing their own thing rather than subjugating their personalities to the concept of always doing what's best for the party. Chaos for the win! Telling other people how to play their characters, however, is very bad form.

And while I'm not a fan of build-stage optimizing (truth be told, I'm not much of a fan of the char-build sub-game in general) I'm very much in favour of, once play begins, using what you've got to the fullest - yes it's a team but as in sports where there's nothing wrong with trying to be the best player on the team, there's similarly nothing wrong with trying to be the best character in the party.

So after all that blustering with having dump stats, not even one character to show how you have below average stats overall ? Tss tsss. I think I don't need to say anything anymore on that subject.

Best character I ever had started with something like 15-12-11-10-10-7 (so, total 65-ish) in a party where no other character had a starting total of less than about 73 and at least one was well into the mid-80s. This was in 3e, a less-forgiving system for such things than was 1e. And it's not like she was a one-hit wonder: by the time she died for good she had become the longest-serving member of the party.

 

[Lyxen]

While I agree with a fair bit of what you say to get to this point I find myself in considerable disagreement with your conclusion:
I don't think that's the intention in 5e any more than it's been in any other edition; that is to say, collaborative storytelling is but one way of many of playing the game.

While I agree that it's one way of playing the game amongst many, if you compare not only the text from the books but also the way the rules are presented, for me (and compared to 3e and 4e which have very different intent statements), it's fairly obvious that this edition was written with at least that objective clearly in mind.

Given that I fully endorse rolling for stats and suchlike, I'm not one to complain about in-party power gaps: they're a fact of life and can IME be overcome - see below.

Don't get me wrong, they happen naturally, and I know how to deal with them in general, my problem is with some players creating them intentionally and then doing everything they can to (ab)use them during play.

I also fully endorse characters sometimes acting as individuals and doing their own thing rather than subjugating their personalities to the concept of always doing what's best for the party.

Characters doing this are fine, as long as the players are not acting like wangrods, as this is exactly where I'm drawing the line. If the character create chaos and all the players are fine with it, I'm fine too, but if a player (ab)uses his freedom to create situations that are not fun for the other players (who are trying to construct something), then I have a problem with that attitude.

Chaos for the win! Telling other people how to play their characters, however, is very bad form.

Exactly, and this is where we kicked out our optimiser/powergamer.

And while I'm not a fan of build-stage optimizing (truth be told, I'm not much of a fan of the char-build sub-game in general) I'm very much in favour of, once play begins, using what you've got to the fullest - yes it's a team but as in sports where there's nothing wrong with trying to be the best player on the team, there's similarly nothing wrong with trying to be the best character in the party.

Again, it depends about what the players expect. If it's all what they are looking for, go for it, but if a majority just wants to enjoy/create the story together and one person is always derailing it to show their muscle, then again I have a problem. At our tables, most of the players are of the kind that want to create/enjoy a story together, and are happy to give each other turns in the spotlight. So people wanting just to flex their muscles for an imaginary competition are simply not fitting well.

Best character I ever had started with something like 15-12-11-10-10-7 (so, total 65-ish) in a party where no other character had a starting total of less than about 73 and at least one was well into the mid-80s. This was in 3e, a less-forgiving system for such things than was 1e. And it's not like she was a one-hit wonder: by the time she died for good she had become the longest-serving member of the party.

We have been using point buy for a long time now, in the name of fairness. We have now switched to rolling to avoid "builds" by our few remaining optimisers, and it works well, but as we don't want too much of a powergap due to bad luck, we have multiple rolls, which create characters which are a bit random (but not too much), but with higher stats, something that we can deal with as long as it's consistent. Some players love it, most are indifferent as long as it's relatively fair, so we don't have characters with really "under average" stats, they are mostly around average or slightly above.