I’ve seen it everywhere, to be completely honest. Someone (naming no names) says they don’t like multiclassing because it can be used for optimising. What is actually, inherently bad about optimisation? It’s not like you can’t RP an optimised character. I have done so successfully on numerous occasions. Not investing in your character’s backstory and personality is an entirely separate problem. If anything an optimiser who actually plays D&D regularly is more likely to invest in their characters’ backstories and personality, because they care about the game.
Optimising in a low-stakes game is a different story, obviously - if you’re deliberately making a character that outshines everyone else’s, that’s a problem. But it’s a problem you can just mention. In the session 0. Talk about the expected power level. And it’s not like this is a minmaxer problem, either. A controller wizard in a party of three martials and that wizard is going to feel a lot more powerful, but talking about improving martials often gets disagreed with by the same people who dislike minmaxing/optimisation on these forums. (as a general, not a universal. I’m aware that this is not always the case).
This is basically a poll without the poll because I can’t predict people’s opinions.
Some people think it detracts from the narrative, or from the emotional drama of roleplaying. (Of course, it could dovetail with those...) Some people aren't good at it (it can be pretty math-y), but resent being "outperformed."
Some games are poorly designed, where the mechanics incentivize things that the writers didn't want to incentivize. Optimization brings that out into the open, causing conflict between players and DMs who want to "game" and players and DMs who want to enjoy some particular pre-concieved notion of what the game "should" be.
It is not bad. Most of the real life celebrities have min-maxed themselves. Actors take dancing and singing lessons just in case. People planning to become politicians often take jobs in the military and/or as a prosecutor before they apply. Business people take up golf to make contacts.
The problem is if you min-max and the other players in the game do not. That can make for a massive problem for the DM.
For this reason some DM's outlaw it, allowing for a more balanced game.
The big issue with optimization itself stems from encounter balance - it is not easy to balance encounters when one player vastly outstrips the others. A good encounter should leave everyone feeling accomplished, which can be hard if an encounter which would be hard for players A and B is made trivial by optimizing players C and D; or if an encounter which might be hard for C and D is lethal to A and B.
This is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a problem. Encounter balance in a relatively even party is already more augury than science and can be extremely difficult for many DMs - having some optimizers and some who do not adds another layer of difficulty to an already complicated aspect of the game.
The other problems stem less from optimization and more from the optimizing player themselves.
Trying to force things that do not narratively make sense for roleplay reasons is a big one - though, this can often be solved with the DM and player working out something that makes sense roleplay wise.
There are a series of issues which can arise if the person is a jerk - mocking “underperforming” players, lecturing others on how they “should” be building their character, bragging about their superiority, etc. This is a problem best addressed the same way one would address any jerk player.
There can also be a host of other issues - the needy optimizer who constantly is asking the DM questions about rules, the story, etc. to try and squeeze out something to help with their optimization; the slow optimizer who second guesses their every choice and this takes forever to do any action (either during building, leveling, or the game itself), the internet optimizer who plays a build others designed, but does not know how to play it themselves, the regretful optimizer who complains that they should have taken another choice (and might constantly ask for mulligans), etc. Lots of other ways someone obsessed with optimizing can be a bit annoying to play with.
On the other side of this coin are the other players who feel inferior to an optimized character - which can often be addressed by helping that player improve their character or reminding them aspects of the game where they excel.
All told, I can completely see why someone might be annoyed with optimizers - there are a lot of ways things can go wrong, particularly if the optimizer is a jerk, insensitive, or just does not realize they are kind of annoying. A bad experience or two could turn someone off of that entire style of play and of optimizing players generally.
Nothing - in a game - is inherently bad, except maybe bad game design.
Now, some parts of 'optimization' are really just about exploiting bad game design. Hence, some parts of optimization are actually, inherently bad. But if we toss aside the coffeelock side of the discussion, and concentrate on the intended part of optimization, then there's a problem - but nothing inherently bad.
Here's the problem: Out of a standard party of say five people, one is a newbie, one is a jaded veteran, one is a truly devout player of roles, one is a big 'ol jokester, and the last guy is our optimizer. This group will never work. Not because of the optimizer - nor because of the jokester, or the role player, or any one player individually, but because the group dynamic just isn't there.
What you want is a group of players with enough common ground to make the game work. Part of that is a relatively even power level within the group. You could play with five optimizers - but you can't really play with just one, and four others.
And being the type of GM that I am, I cannot play with optimizers at all. Cause I'm good at narrative, but I fairly suck at encounter design, so if I have to deal with a truly strong character - I'll eventually randomly kill someone. I mean ... some character. To my mind, optimization leads to rocket tag. And that's fine, but it's just not .. how I enjoy playing, or what I'm good at.
As an aside, you can optimized for things other than damage. I'm well aware. But in the above example, I've used damage, because that's the simplest way to illustrate the problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
As an aside, you can optimized for things other than damage. I'm well aware. But in the above example, I've used damage, because that's the simplest way to illustrate the problem.
In my experience, optimizers for damage are the most problematic - it is the most noticeable form of optimization (hey, that guy’s numbers are always bigger) and, in my experience, attracts the worst kind of optimizers (the kind of player who just crunches the numbers, but doesn’t understand that D&D is not just a numbers game and there are far, far more debilitating things you can do than just hurt someone).
Optimizing something like a support role (tanking, healing, etc.) on the other hand hardly ever causes party problems - after all, the optimization exists to let them shine, as your effectiveness is dependent on their taking advantage of the booms offered. That is personally why I tend toward support characters - I like reading all the rules and options to optimize… but fully acknowledge that me optimizing damage is not fun for anyone.
As others have been saying, it’s not bad. It’s simply a choice of playstyle, and no playstyle is inherently good or bad. You like what you like. Some people may not be a fit for some groups, but that doesn’t mean either of them are wrong. Really, the only bad thing is saying that one way or another is bad. None of us should be judging what’s fun for someone else.
@Redpelt I suppose optimization is just fine, if that's what a player wants most from their gaming experience. Just understand that some folks, myself included, don't care about having the mechanically best possible character for the gaming adventure at hand. That in itself can create friction, often initiated by the Optimizer, as that person grouses about the lesser abilities of their fellow PCs, "You know, if you only took this feat, and boosted this score, your character would work better in this setting."
As both player and DM, over many years, I've noticed that the Optimizers/Minmaxers/etc. spend more active play time arguing their case, and consulting the books, than those at the table who build characters with 'character' in mind, and let the game flow from there.
Socially speaking, the Masters of the Mechanical are most often the ones who kill the magic of the moment during gaming sessions, by regularly pulling the groups' attention from the adventure, back up to that player's concerns and arguments over their character's stats. Perhaps they don't immerse themselves in the magic like I do, their focus being where it is. Just supposition on my part. As one of those players who love story building, and immersing myself in the adventure, I enjoy keeping my character's set of mechanics simpler but well understood, so discussion of my character's mechanics take up less table time during play.
I have successfully played in groups with many different players. That said, the Minmaxers of a group seem to dominate the play, and tend to use up more of the time allotted to the session, likely because of a competitive desire to be the best, whatever that may mean. Not everyone at the table wants to compete that way, with them or against them.
I don't see it as good or bad, it is just another play style. Like many play styles it may not be a good fit at every table or every game.
Myself, I tend to play optimized characters as I enjoy it. I do know at times and with other playstyles in the group some things can cause the DM issues so I check with the DM and give them a rough outline of where I plan to take my optimized characters so they can plan too. I also have no issue with the DM nerfing my build a little to keep the game fun for everyone.
As a DM I will nerf or disallow certain things in a build due mainly to my short comings as a DM, and occasionally because it is not a good fit with the rest of the party. It is always discussed, explained and often a workable compromise is found. On the occasions it isn't they either play a different character, or we use it as an excuse to put another game together if we can get enough players interested.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
First, I think there needs to be more discipline in how the term "optimization" is used. There are several strategies that meet the goal of optimizing a character; therefore the concept of "optimization" is not what should fall under scrutiny but rather the method a player is using and how it can impact the table overall:
I’ve seen it everywhere, to be completely honest. Someone (naming no names) says they don’t like multiclassing because it can be used for optimising. What is actually, inherently bad about optimisation?
Your comments imply that optimizing is equated to the multiclassing. This is not entirely true; multiclassing is just one strategy to optimize a character. But the point I believe you are referencing is that optimizing through multiclassing is an issue in this one example. Based on the scenario of optimizing through multiclassing, here are some reasons why players may have issues:
1) Often the intention here is to find builds to circumvent limitations or hinderances to a character. This takes away an element of the game where the player needs to strategize how to optimize their performance through tactics and interactions with their party.
2) Players optimize so that they can increase the number of game areas they excel at. This can really become problematic as the rate at which characters' feature scale might result in a player's character gaining comparable abilities to another player's character at a later level up, and resulting in a player feeling like their role in the party is being diminished or taken away. Whether intentional or not; optimizing a character this way could result in players developing the "The Lead Character" syndrome as they can point out they have the higher ability scores or a feature that increases the probability of success.
3) When a build is deemed to powerful the proposed solution tends not to impact only multiclass builds but the general game classes as a whole. Examples could be barring spells or modifying game mechanics.
4) The above can result in obsoleting (sub)classes and the necessity for all players to explore multiclass options even if their desire is to play an isolated class.
Now that is not to say the multiclassing is bad or should be outlawed. Multiclassing is fun and I have multclassed. The above doesn't represent definitive outcomes; only concerns people have with the process.
Regarding the overall concern with optimizing, a hypothesis is that players who tend to focus entirely on optimizing will tend to optimize for their character and not optimize for the campaign. Below are some issues players have with optimization that is not limited to optimizing through multiclassing.
1) Players trying to influence the direction of the game rather than respond to it. The specific builds of these characters can tie the hands of the GM or cause conflict at the table should the direction of the game result in a player's character not achieving peak performance. Take this example, the GM creates what they believe to be a powerfully crafted battleaxe but is now dismayed when the players at the table reject this because it doesn't gel well with table's build of a Barbarian with Crusher and Paladin with Pole Arm Master & Sentinel.
This can also lead in players challenging the GM because the encounters are not structured in way to reflect their builds. Some examples could be that the tactics needed to win encounters do not align with the spellcaster's selection of spells or magic items in general are perceived as not beneficial based on what the players perceive their characters must do. The GM have enough on their plates now. If the tools they are given to build session play are potentially being countered or undermined by how a player is building characters then I can see how GMs can occasionally be aggravated by the optimization process.
In summary: Instead of building the character to respond to the game; the players expect the game to adjust so it is tailored to their characters.
2) The optimization mindset tends not to stop with the player's character development; so there can be a tendency for the player to start dictating the buildout and actions other characters. To be clear, there is a difference between commanding the battlefield and directing other players to solely follow the lead of their build. I agree, the line her can be blurry. I won't say that every player who suggests a plan of action is guilty of this. All players have the right to opinions but the key term is "all players". And of course "non-optimizers" can let their ego take over as well. With all that said, the concern players have with an optimizer is that they feel the direction given is only considering how it can benefit optimized character (even if the feature can benefit multiple characters on the map). Their focus in what they feel or have proven to be the most efficient game plans and are determined to execute accordingly. A fear then develops in some players (maybe or maybe not justified) that their agency is being compromised and they are being pressured to not design the character they want to play but the character the optimizer(s) feel they table needs.
Just look around on this board; there are probably examples now of people looking for advice on their characters only to get response that offer guidance on builds that are not what the original poster wanted. I am not saying this a criticism or judgement on the responders; after all the poster's question does imply that they are seeking some form of optimization. The point I want to emphasize is that the responder is missing the objective of the poster and instead offering what they see as an optimal build out. While it might not be intentional it can be perceived as directing a player to not create the character they want to play but rather what someone else deems as preferred option.
3) The game becomes static and repetitive. Creativity is compromised for number crunching and proven builds. It is very efficient; don't get me wrong; I deal in businesses who's success is based on efficiency. And that is exactly why, for me, I want to escape in something that allows for more creative ideas. Once again, there is nothing wrong with wanting efficient game sessions. It just some people prefer a Lawful build and some a Chaotic one. But for players who are looking for a creative output they may be turned away by a player who wants repetitive and proven implementation of processes.
To reiterate, the fear that players have with the direction of optimization is that the optimizing player, again possibly without realizing it, will be trying to make the game about themselves even at the expense of other players at the table. It is a potential side effect of the definition as the optimizer is trying to optimize every aspect of the table's game. It can especially become problematic if the optimizing player is building their character in isolation (which is common). This increases the probability that the player isn't looking to optimize the campaign but to optimize their character within the campaign. Players don't want to be pushed aside or relegated; they want to be an active and accepted part of the table. GMs too. They have put in the effort to make the game sessions happen and there is a different between seeing a party overcome their challenge and feeling like player(s) are actively trying to undermine their work.
And it is possible there are players overacting to someone looking to optimize a character. An optimized character can still be played so that all members at the table can feel their roles are being accepted and utilized. The above are just some examples of the perception (and sometimes realities) as to why there are players who are adverse to the notion of "optimizing".
Look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Basically it states that some people see RP and mechanics as an either/or situation, and they think playing a useless character in a team game is the highest form of roleplaying.
Fortunately, most people are reasonable and even if they do believe that optimization can compromise roleplay they can acknowledge that this is not the case for everyone. We've all met folks who just want to play the battles and haven't put effort into developing their characters, but that's a person problem.
Look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Basically it states that some people see RP and mechanics as an either/or situation, and they think playing a useless character in a team game is the highest form of roleplaying.
Fortunately, most people are reasonable and even if they do believe that optimization can compromise roleplay they can acknowledge that this is not the case for everyone. We've all met folks who just want to play the battles and haven't put effort into developing their characters, but that's a person problem.
The Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy. We'll call that fallacy the .... what's my nick on here, Acromos? The Acromos Fallacy, which states that the Stormwind Fallacy assumes that both time and mental capacity are limitless ressources, so there's no problem in dividing attention and brain power between optimization, roleplaying - and various other aspects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
@Redpelt I suppose optimization is just fine, if that's what a player wants most from their gaming experience. Just understand that some folks, myself included, don't care about having the mechanically best possible character for the gaming adventure at hand. That in itself can create friction, often initiated by the Optimizer, as that person grouses about the lesser abilities of their fellow PCs, "You know, if you only took this feat, and boosted this score, your character would work better in this setting."
In other cases, it can be the optimizers that make the difference between success and a total party wipe when the other players are newbies or don't care about being a burden to their allies. If I'm not playing with others who like to optimize, I optimize for support in order to make everyone more awesome. Griping about other people's characters isn't a thing optimizers do, it's a thing that jerks do.
Some people think it detracts from the narrative, or from the emotional drama of roleplaying. (Of course, it could dovetail with those...) Some people aren't good at it (it can be pretty math-y), but resent being "outperformed."
Some games are poorly designed, where the mechanics incentivize things that the writers didn't want to incentivize. Optimization brings that out into the open, causing conflict between players and DMs who want to "game" and players and DMs who want to enjoy some particular pre-concieved notion of what the game "should" be.
Minmaxing I can see why people think it detracts from Roleplay, even if that’s wrong
but Multiclassing? A lot of use multiclass FOR Roleplay or narrative reasons! Like a follower of Oghma being a bard/cleric multiclass
(I didn't mention multiclassing, so perhaps you meant to quote someone else. But I'll respond assuming that was to me)
I was writing about optimization in general (which can, I presume, include multiclassing). But, regardless, I can't really speak for people who think it detracts from roleplaying; I think that idea is silly.
I see someone has already brought up "Stormwind fallacy" so perhaps this whole conversation is about to go the usual flamewar route.
Look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Basically it states that some people see RP and mechanics as an either/or situation, and they think playing a useless character in a team game is the highest form of roleplaying.
Fortunately, most people are reasonable and even if they do believe that optimization can compromise roleplay they can acknowledge that this is not the case for everyone. We've all met folks who just want to play the battles and haven't put effort into developing their characters, but that's a person problem.
I play with a few people that rarely engage in the game outside of combat, the only RP they do are things that their PC is optimized for. It hasn't be an issue very often simply because no one has made it one, again as you said these are people problems not character build problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Basically it states that some people see RP and mechanics as an either/or situation, and they think playing a useless character in a team game is the highest form of roleplaying.
. . .
That's a new term to me, thanks.
Can't say I've met a player who believes that mechanically worthless characters are the ideal for role playing. Have met two who believe that, "Role-playing is useless and silly. It slows down efficient gaming." That quote came directly from one of those players. We all played one live session at a table, then went our separate ways.
I suppose that "The Stormwind Fallacy" really does define the boundaries on what could be considered an optimization issue.
@Redpelt I suppose optimization is just fine, if that's what a player wants most from their gaming experience. Just understand that some folks, myself included, don't care about having the mechanically best possible character for the gaming adventure at hand. That in itself can create friction, often initiated by the Optimizer, as that person grouses about the lesser abilities of their fellow PCs, "You know, if you only took this feat, and boosted this score, your character would work better in this setting."
In other cases, it can be the optimizers that make the difference between success and a total party wipe when the other players are newbies or don't care about being a burden to their allies. If I'm not playing with others who like to optimize, I optimize for support in order to make everyone more awesome. Griping about other people's characters isn't a thing optimizers do, it's a thing that jerks do.
Under the circumstances you present here, I agree with your argument.
This is what's called "sucking all the air out of the room", and it's the main reason DMs don't like hyper-optimized characters. It's not that the character or even the player is a problem on their own, it's the way they warp the campaign around them and force everyone else to adapt. It makes for great YouTube videos and absolutely miserable games.
And that's half the issue (and the other half is related to it).
It can also wreck encounter balance as the DM tries to make everyone's build valid, meaningful and challenging.
Another point is that it reduces breathing space for "flab". By optimising and pushing the DM to come up with more challenging encounters to keep them meaningful, the other players can be pushed to optimise, rather than taking flavourful choices. Like, maybe someone wants the Chef feat. Perhaps that's the perfect choice for mechanically representing their character for RP. They might not be able to because if the encounters are tuned up to provide challenge despite Mr Optimiser's awesome powerhouse of a killer, then that power "loss" cab cause real issues in their own character.
The conversation though is a complex one. Optimisers, as has been said, is not inherently bad. It's about fit. That guy who wants to take Chef? Well, he's the problem if he comes to a table that wants to optimise. He's dragging the team down and not pulling his weight.
It's about being a good fit. Being with people who you enjoy playing with and who enjoy your contribution. The major issue I've seen a couple of times is the lack of recognition of this issue. They'll insist that the problem is everyone else, citing or referencing the Stormwind Fallacy etc, not recognising that how they play affects the other players and not always for the better.
You can have both kinds of players at a table, and it can be fun for everyone. You also have to have a lot of self-awareness to know when "I'm having fun" isn't translating to "everyone is having fun". There's the jerk person who thinks they're the same thing, and that's who is being reacted to in the optimiser criticisms.
And here's the thing - it's not always obvious to anyone at the table that problems cropping up is a result of them. Sometimes they cause something to happen, which causes a reaction, that dominoes to something else, and that upsets someone. The multiple relationships between things then hide the fact that the cause was how differently optimised that one character was. I've seen that at the table, and it took me weeks to track down why Player A was upset, and that it was because Player D was doing something which dominoed through.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's about being a good fit. Being with people who you enjoy playing with and who enjoy your contribution. The major issue I've seen a couple of times is the lack of recognition of this issue. They'll insist that the problem is everyone else, citing or referencing the Stormwind Fallacy etc, not recognising that how they play affects the other players and not always for the better.
This is a key insight, too. Sometimes the player who's out of sync is the one who wants to spend half the session having irrelevant in-character conversations with NPCs while the rest of the table just wants to find the next fight. Neither of these playstyles is wrong, they just don't fit well with each other.
Bottom line: it's everyone's job to make sure everyone at the table is having fun. If one player (or even the DM) is exerting undue control over the game to the detriment of others, that's a problem no matter what form that control takes.
[Fictional account, based loosely on gaming reality] Player to GM, during a break, "I'm tired of this guy's character. It has no interest in our groups' reputation; their sub-standard in a fight. All their character does is play with dirt and rocks, and talks to NPCs. The player won't listen to my advice, and bring the up character's combat ability, like the rest of us. Their character almost never kills anything, at least on its own, dragging us all down."
GM, "That character just saved your asses by dropping rubble, sealing that Beholder off from the party, and giving your tapped-out group a chance to escape. Their character saved enough of their magic, so they could use it to improve and secure a cave, giving the entire party the security they needed to get a solid full rest."
GM, "This character talked the Baron into sheltering the party for a few days, a few weeks back, so another party member could get that curse removed. This character doesn't gather powerful weapons and armor, because that's not its style. This gives the rest of the party more choice in what they want to take, carry and wield. Remember, that character saw your (favorite of two) staff(s) first, and passed it by, giving your character the chance to become more powerful.
"Yeah, but they're making me (my character) look bad; messing with my glory, and getting in the way of my plans."
GM, "Huh."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’ve seen it everywhere, to be completely honest. Someone (naming no names) says they don’t like multiclassing because it can be used for optimising. What is actually, inherently bad about optimisation? It’s not like you can’t RP an optimised character. I have done so successfully on numerous occasions. Not investing in your character’s backstory and personality is an entirely separate problem. If anything an optimiser who actually plays D&D regularly is more likely to invest in their characters’ backstories and personality, because they care about the game.
Optimising in a low-stakes game is a different story, obviously - if you’re deliberately making a character that outshines everyone else’s, that’s a problem. But it’s a problem you can just mention. In the session 0. Talk about the expected power level. And it’s not like this is a minmaxer problem, either. A controller wizard in a party of three martials and that wizard is going to feel a lot more powerful, but talking about improving martials often gets disagreed with by the same people who dislike minmaxing/optimisation on these forums. (as a general, not a universal. I’m aware that this is not always the case).
This is basically a poll without the poll because I can’t predict people’s opinions.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Some people think it detracts from the narrative, or from the emotional drama of roleplaying. (Of course, it could dovetail with those...) Some people aren't good at it (it can be pretty math-y), but resent being "outperformed."
Some games are poorly designed, where the mechanics incentivize things that the writers didn't want to incentivize. Optimization brings that out into the open, causing conflict between players and DMs who want to "game" and players and DMs who want to enjoy some particular pre-concieved notion of what the game "should" be.
It is not bad. Most of the real life celebrities have min-maxed themselves. Actors take dancing and singing lessons just in case. People planning to become politicians often take jobs in the military and/or as a prosecutor before they apply. Business people take up golf to make contacts.
The problem is if you min-max and the other players in the game do not. That can make for a massive problem for the DM.
For this reason some DM's outlaw it, allowing for a more balanced game.
The big issue with optimization itself stems from encounter balance - it is not easy to balance encounters when one player vastly outstrips the others. A good encounter should leave everyone feeling accomplished, which can be hard if an encounter which would be hard for players A and B is made trivial by optimizing players C and D; or if an encounter which might be hard for C and D is lethal to A and B.
This is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a problem. Encounter balance in a relatively even party is already more augury than science and can be extremely difficult for many DMs - having some optimizers and some who do not adds another layer of difficulty to an already complicated aspect of the game.
The other problems stem less from optimization and more from the optimizing player themselves.
Trying to force things that do not narratively make sense for roleplay reasons is a big one - though, this can often be solved with the DM and player working out something that makes sense roleplay wise.
There are a series of issues which can arise if the person is a jerk - mocking “underperforming” players, lecturing others on how they “should” be building their character, bragging about their superiority, etc. This is a problem best addressed the same way one would address any jerk player.
There can also be a host of other issues - the needy optimizer who constantly is asking the DM questions about rules, the story, etc. to try and squeeze out something to help with their optimization; the slow optimizer who second guesses their every choice and this takes forever to do any action (either during building, leveling, or the game itself), the internet optimizer who plays a build others designed, but does not know how to play it themselves, the regretful optimizer who complains that they should have taken another choice (and might constantly ask for mulligans), etc. Lots of other ways someone obsessed with optimizing can be a bit annoying to play with.
On the other side of this coin are the other players who feel inferior to an optimized character - which can often be addressed by helping that player improve their character or reminding them aspects of the game where they excel.
All told, I can completely see why someone might be annoyed with optimizers - there are a lot of ways things can go wrong, particularly if the optimizer is a jerk, insensitive, or just does not realize they are kind of annoying. A bad experience or two could turn someone off of that entire style of play and of optimizing players generally.
Nothing - in a game - is inherently bad, except maybe bad game design.
Now, some parts of 'optimization' are really just about exploiting bad game design. Hence, some parts of optimization are actually, inherently bad. But if we toss aside the coffeelock side of the discussion, and concentrate on the intended part of optimization, then there's a problem - but nothing inherently bad.
Here's the problem: Out of a standard party of say five people, one is a newbie, one is a jaded veteran, one is a truly devout player of roles, one is a big 'ol jokester, and the last guy is our optimizer. This group will never work. Not because of the optimizer - nor because of the jokester, or the role player, or any one player individually, but because the group dynamic just isn't there.
What you want is a group of players with enough common ground to make the game work. Part of that is a relatively even power level within the group. You could play with five optimizers - but you can't really play with just one, and four others.
And being the type of GM that I am, I cannot play with optimizers at all. Cause I'm good at narrative, but I fairly suck at encounter design, so if I have to deal with a truly strong character - I'll eventually randomly kill someone. I mean ... some character. To my mind, optimization leads to rocket tag. And that's fine, but it's just not .. how I enjoy playing, or what I'm good at.
As an aside, you can optimized for things other than damage. I'm well aware. But in the above example, I've used damage, because that's the simplest way to illustrate the problem.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
In my experience, optimizers for damage are the most problematic - it is the most noticeable form of optimization (hey, that guy’s numbers are always bigger) and, in my experience, attracts the worst kind of optimizers (the kind of player who just crunches the numbers, but doesn’t understand that D&D is not just a numbers game and there are far, far more debilitating things you can do than just hurt someone).
Optimizing something like a support role (tanking, healing, etc.) on the other hand hardly ever causes party problems - after all, the optimization exists to let them shine, as your effectiveness is dependent on their taking advantage of the booms offered. That is personally why I tend toward support characters - I like reading all the rules and options to optimize… but fully acknowledge that me optimizing damage is not fun for anyone.
As others have been saying, it’s not bad. It’s simply a choice of playstyle, and no playstyle is inherently good or bad. You like what you like. Some people may not be a fit for some groups, but that doesn’t mean either of them are wrong.
Really, the only bad thing is saying that one way or another is bad. None of us should be judging what’s fun for someone else.
@Redpelt I suppose optimization is just fine, if that's what a player wants most from their gaming experience. Just understand that some folks, myself included, don't care about having the mechanically best possible character for the gaming adventure at hand. That in itself can create friction, often initiated by the Optimizer, as that person grouses about the lesser abilities of their fellow PCs, "You know, if you only took this feat, and boosted this score, your character would work better in this setting."
As both player and DM, over many years, I've noticed that the Optimizers/Minmaxers/etc. spend more active play time arguing their case, and consulting the books, than those at the table who build characters with 'character' in mind, and let the game flow from there.
Socially speaking, the Masters of the Mechanical are most often the ones who kill the magic of the moment during gaming sessions, by regularly pulling the groups' attention from the adventure, back up to that player's concerns and arguments over their character's stats. Perhaps they don't immerse themselves in the magic like I do, their focus being where it is. Just supposition on my part. As one of those players who love story building, and immersing myself in the adventure, I enjoy keeping my character's set of mechanics simpler but well understood, so discussion of my character's mechanics take up less table time during play.
I have successfully played in groups with many different players. That said, the Minmaxers of a group seem to dominate the play, and tend to use up more of the time allotted to the session, likely because of a competitive desire to be the best, whatever that may mean. Not everyone at the table wants to compete that way, with them or against them.
I don't see it as good or bad, it is just another play style. Like many play styles it may not be a good fit at every table or every game.
Myself, I tend to play optimized characters as I enjoy it. I do know at times and with other playstyles in the group some things can cause the DM issues so I check with the DM and give them a rough outline of where I plan to take my optimized characters so they can plan too. I also have no issue with the DM nerfing my build a little to keep the game fun for everyone.
As a DM I will nerf or disallow certain things in a build due mainly to my short comings as a DM, and occasionally because it is not a good fit with the rest of the party. It is always discussed, explained and often a workable compromise is found. On the occasions it isn't they either play a different character, or we use it as an excuse to put another game together if we can get enough players interested.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
First, I think there needs to be more discipline in how the term "optimization" is used. There are several strategies that meet the goal of optimizing a character; therefore the concept of "optimization" is not what should fall under scrutiny but rather the method a player is using and how it can impact the table overall:
Your comments imply that optimizing is equated to the multiclassing. This is not entirely true; multiclassing is just one strategy to optimize a character. But the point I believe you are referencing is that optimizing through multiclassing is an issue in this one example. Based on the scenario of optimizing through multiclassing, here are some reasons why players may have issues:
1) Often the intention here is to find builds to circumvent limitations or hinderances to a character. This takes away an element of the game where the player needs to strategize how to optimize their performance through tactics and interactions with their party.
2) Players optimize so that they can increase the number of game areas they excel at. This can really become problematic as the rate at which characters' feature scale might result in a player's character gaining comparable abilities to another player's character at a later level up, and resulting in a player feeling like their role in the party is being diminished or taken away. Whether intentional or not; optimizing a character this way could result in players developing the "The Lead Character" syndrome as they can point out they have the higher ability scores or a feature that increases the probability of success.
3) When a build is deemed to powerful the proposed solution tends not to impact only multiclass builds but the general game classes as a whole. Examples could be barring spells or modifying game mechanics.
4) The above can result in obsoleting (sub)classes and the necessity for all players to explore multiclass options even if their desire is to play an isolated class.
Now that is not to say the multiclassing is bad or should be outlawed. Multiclassing is fun and I have multclassed. The above doesn't represent definitive outcomes; only concerns people have with the process.
Regarding the overall concern with optimizing, a hypothesis is that players who tend to focus entirely on optimizing will tend to optimize for their character and not optimize for the campaign. Below are some issues players have with optimization that is not limited to optimizing through multiclassing.
1) Players trying to influence the direction of the game rather than respond to it. The specific builds of these characters can tie the hands of the GM or cause conflict at the table should the direction of the game result in a player's character not achieving peak performance. Take this example, the GM creates what they believe to be a powerfully crafted battleaxe but is now dismayed when the players at the table reject this because it doesn't gel well with table's build of a Barbarian with Crusher and Paladin with Pole Arm Master & Sentinel.
This can also lead in players challenging the GM because the encounters are not structured in way to reflect their builds. Some examples could be that the tactics needed to win encounters do not align with the spellcaster's selection of spells or magic items in general are perceived as not beneficial based on what the players perceive their characters must do. The GM have enough on their plates now. If the tools they are given to build session play are potentially being countered or undermined by how a player is building characters then I can see how GMs can occasionally be aggravated by the optimization process.
In summary: Instead of building the character to respond to the game; the players expect the game to adjust so it is tailored to their characters.
2) The optimization mindset tends not to stop with the player's character development; so there can be a tendency for the player to start dictating the buildout and actions other characters. To be clear, there is a difference between commanding the battlefield and directing other players to solely follow the lead of their build. I agree, the line her can be blurry. I won't say that every player who suggests a plan of action is guilty of this. All players have the right to opinions but the key term is "all players". And of course "non-optimizers" can let their ego take over as well. With all that said, the concern players have with an optimizer is that they feel the direction given is only considering how it can benefit optimized character (even if the feature can benefit multiple characters on the map). Their focus in what they feel or have proven to be the most efficient game plans and are determined to execute accordingly. A fear then develops in some players (maybe or maybe not justified) that their agency is being compromised and they are being pressured to not design the character they want to play but the character the optimizer(s) feel they table needs.
Just look around on this board; there are probably examples now of people looking for advice on their characters only to get response that offer guidance on builds that are not what the original poster wanted. I am not saying this a criticism or judgement on the responders; after all the poster's question does imply that they are seeking some form of optimization. The point I want to emphasize is that the responder is missing the objective of the poster and instead offering what they see as an optimal build out. While it might not be intentional it can be perceived as directing a player to not create the character they want to play but rather what someone else deems as preferred option.
3) The game becomes static and repetitive. Creativity is compromised for number crunching and proven builds. It is very efficient; don't get me wrong; I deal in businesses who's success is based on efficiency. And that is exactly why, for me, I want to escape in something that allows for more creative ideas. Once again, there is nothing wrong with wanting efficient game sessions. It just some people prefer a Lawful build and some a Chaotic one. But for players who are looking for a creative output they may be turned away by a player who wants repetitive and proven implementation of processes.
To reiterate, the fear that players have with the direction of optimization is that the optimizing player, again possibly without realizing it, will be trying to make the game about themselves even at the expense of other players at the table. It is a potential side effect of the definition as the optimizer is trying to optimize every aspect of the table's game. It can especially become problematic if the optimizing player is building their character in isolation (which is common). This increases the probability that the player isn't looking to optimize the campaign but to optimize their character within the campaign. Players don't want to be pushed aside or relegated; they want to be an active and accepted part of the table. GMs too. They have put in the effort to make the game sessions happen and there is a different between seeing a party overcome their challenge and feeling like player(s) are actively trying to undermine their work.
And it is possible there are players overacting to someone looking to optimize a character. An optimized character can still be played so that all members at the table can feel their roles are being accepted and utilized. The above are just some examples of the perception (and sometimes realities) as to why there are players who are adverse to the notion of "optimizing".
Look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Basically it states that some people see RP and mechanics as an either/or situation, and they think playing a useless character in a team game is the highest form of roleplaying.
Fortunately, most people are reasonable and even if they do believe that optimization can compromise roleplay they can acknowledge that this is not the case for everyone. We've all met folks who just want to play the battles and haven't put effort into developing their characters, but that's a person problem.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy. We'll call that fallacy the .... what's my nick on here, Acromos? The Acromos Fallacy, which states that the Stormwind Fallacy assumes that both time and mental capacity are limitless ressources, so there's no problem in dividing attention and brain power between optimization, roleplaying - and various other aspects.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
In other cases, it can be the optimizers that make the difference between success and a total party wipe when the other players are newbies or don't care about being a burden to their allies. If I'm not playing with others who like to optimize, I optimize for support in order to make everyone more awesome. Griping about other people's characters isn't a thing optimizers do, it's a thing that jerks do.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
(I didn't mention multiclassing, so perhaps you meant to quote someone else. But I'll respond assuming that was to me)
I was writing about optimization in general (which can, I presume, include multiclassing). But, regardless, I can't really speak for people who think it detracts from roleplaying; I think that idea is silly.
I see someone has already brought up "Stormwind fallacy" so perhaps this whole conversation is about to go the usual flamewar route.
I play with a few people that rarely engage in the game outside of combat, the only RP they do are things that their PC is optimized for. It hasn't be an issue very often simply because no one has made it one, again as you said these are people problems not character build problems.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
That's a new term to me, thanks.
Can't say I've met a player who believes that mechanically worthless characters are the ideal for role playing. Have met two who believe that, "Role-playing is useless and silly. It slows down efficient gaming." That quote came directly from one of those players. We all played one live session at a table, then went our separate ways.
I suppose that "The Stormwind Fallacy" really does define the boundaries on what could be considered an optimization issue.
Under the circumstances you present here, I agree with your argument.
And that's half the issue (and the other half is related to it).
It can also wreck encounter balance as the DM tries to make everyone's build valid, meaningful and challenging.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking more generally:
Another point is that it reduces breathing space for "flab". By optimising and pushing the DM to come up with more challenging encounters to keep them meaningful, the other players can be pushed to optimise, rather than taking flavourful choices. Like, maybe someone wants the Chef feat. Perhaps that's the perfect choice for mechanically representing their character for RP. They might not be able to because if the encounters are tuned up to provide challenge despite Mr Optimiser's awesome powerhouse of a killer, then that power "loss" cab cause real issues in their own character.
The conversation though is a complex one. Optimisers, as has been said, is not inherently bad. It's about fit. That guy who wants to take Chef? Well, he's the problem if he comes to a table that wants to optimise. He's dragging the team down and not pulling his weight.
It's about being a good fit. Being with people who you enjoy playing with and who enjoy your contribution. The major issue I've seen a couple of times is the lack of recognition of this issue. They'll insist that the problem is everyone else, citing or referencing the Stormwind Fallacy etc, not recognising that how they play affects the other players and not always for the better.
You can have both kinds of players at a table, and it can be fun for everyone. You also have to have a lot of self-awareness to know when "I'm having fun" isn't translating to "everyone is having fun". There's the jerk person who thinks they're the same thing, and that's who is being reacted to in the optimiser criticisms.
And here's the thing - it's not always obvious to anyone at the table that problems cropping up is a result of them. Sometimes they cause something to happen, which causes a reaction, that dominoes to something else, and that upsets someone. The multiple relationships between things then hide the fact that the cause was how differently optimised that one character was. I've seen that at the table, and it took me weeks to track down why Player A was upset, and that it was because Player D was doing something which dominoed through.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is a key insight, too. Sometimes the player who's out of sync is the one who wants to spend half the session having irrelevant in-character conversations with NPCs while the rest of the table just wants to find the next fight. Neither of these playstyles is wrong, they just don't fit well with each other.
Bottom line: it's everyone's job to make sure everyone at the table is having fun. If one player (or even the DM) is exerting undue control over the game to the detriment of others, that's a problem no matter what form that control takes.
[Fictional account, based loosely on gaming reality] Player to GM, during a break, "I'm tired of this guy's character. It has no interest in our groups' reputation; their sub-standard in a fight. All their character does is play with dirt and rocks, and talks to NPCs. The player won't listen to my advice, and bring the up character's combat ability, like the rest of us. Their character almost never kills anything, at least on its own, dragging us all down."
GM, "That character just saved your asses by dropping rubble, sealing that Beholder off from the party, and giving your tapped-out group a chance to escape. Their character saved enough of their magic, so they could use it to improve and secure a cave, giving the entire party the security they needed to get a solid full rest."
GM, "This character talked the Baron into sheltering the party for a few days, a few weeks back, so another party member could get that curse removed. This character doesn't gather powerful weapons and armor, because that's not its style. This gives the rest of the party more choice in what they want to take, carry and wield. Remember, that character saw your (favorite of two) staff(s) first, and passed it by, giving your character the chance to become more powerful.
"Yeah, but they're making me (my character) look bad; messing with my glory, and getting in the way of my plans."
GM, "Huh."