This is a fascinating conversation and a really good read! From all of you that have replied.
I've had this come up in a game I had Saturday. Min maxing and optimization of a character.
My only response was: it's great if you have fun with the character. Remember that the dice rule the game. Rolling high numbers is great! But rolling low in some circumstances can lead to very fun things that can happen.
I've played in some games where a DM will punish a low roll. I don't like that and won't do that to my players. Instead I come up with something weird or fun that happens.
With that approach my players are not afraid to roll low numbers.
Some players I've hosted will only role play what they are good at based on their stats. I feel bad for them because they are missing out of how much fun and crazy things could happen with them. Nothing dangerous or a punishment at all.
Min max roll high roll low.
Just have fun and any good DM will make each roll regardless of the outcome to be a memorable moment.
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.
I've seen this in two different GM's games.
A new player to the game, rolling damage, does something like 8 damage and feels (rightfully) quite pleased. Then the minmax character comes along and does 12 points on their first attack and 10 points on their second attack and sets the foe on fire (or something similar). I saw the faces of the new player fall as all the fun of the game left them. It was heartbreaking.
Both new players had been very upfront that they wanted a casual game, not a wargame.
One of the games was also advertised as a casual game, where the GM said they would play pretty loose with rules focusing more on story than combat. Which didn't stop the minmax player turning up with a beast barbarian clockwork sorcerer multiclass…
In short, its not the minmaxing that is an issue, it is the mismatch of expectations at the table.
What makes it a bigger issue is that (in my experience anyway) minmaxers can't not be minmaxers. It's how they play games. I guess the only real solution is not to mix player types. which is a hassle when the players are people you like and actually want to socialise with.
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.
I've seen this in two different GM's games.
A new player to the game, rolling damage, does something like 8 damage and feels (rightfully) quite pleased. Then the minmax character comes along and does 12 points on their first attack and 10 points on their second attack and sets the foe on fire (or something similar). I saw the faces of the new player fall as all the fun of the game left them. It was heartbreaking.
Both new players had been very upfront that they wanted a casual game, not a wargame.
One of the games was also advertised as a casual game, where the GM said they would play pretty loose with rules focusing more on story than combat. Which didn't stop the minmax player turning up with a beast barbarian clockwork sorcerer multiclass…
In short, its not the minmaxing that is an issue, it is the mismatch of expectations at the table.
What makes it a bigger issue is that (in my experience anyway) minmaxers can't not be minmaxers. It's how they play games. I guess the only real solution is not to mix player types. which is a hassle when the players are people you like and actually want to socialise with.
Those seem more like DM issues than character optimization issues. I am defending the players actions, but the DM could have just said that is not a good character for this table and game roll up a new one that meets the criteria for this game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If you've got 10 minutes, here's a story about a hyper-optimized character that I think is really illustrative (I'll summarize it below, but I recommend watching the video to get the full effect): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxNGLUDGj-4
So, I think this is a great story. We've got a ranger who's extremely optimized for long-ranged combat, and he's doing some really incredible things. The player hasn't neglected the RP side, either; he's got a simple but effective backstory, and a clear characterization he's going for. What could possibly be wrong with this?
Imagine for a second what it would be like to be any other player in this campaign. Seemingly at random, your ranger player calls for the group to stop. He starts rolling dice. The DM rolls some other dice. You have no idea what's going on. Neither of them explain. This goes on for potentially minutes at a time. Much later, the battered remnants of an enemy battlegroup stagger out of the treeline, and you finally get to play the game. You mop up the survivors and move on. A while later, the scene repeats. Gradually it dawns on you. Every encounter on open ground is going to be like this. You sigh to yourself and start looking over options for a long-ranged support build, because that's what you and everyone else in your party is now.
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.
This sounds less like a problem with optimization and more like a problem with a GM who has no clue how to actually run a game. The number one job a GM has is to communicate with the players and that's not happening in this story. Instead, they're giving all their focus to one player and not letting anyone else have a chance to do anything. That's what's actually sucking the air out of the room.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you've got 10 minutes, here's a story about a hyper-optimized character that I think is really illustrative (I'll summarize it below, but I recommend watching the video to get the full effect): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxNGLUDGj-4
So, I think this is a great story. We've got a ranger who's extremely optimized for long-ranged combat, and he's doing some really incredible things. The player hasn't neglected the RP side, either; he's got a simple but effective backstory, and a clear characterization he's going for. What could possibly be wrong with this?
Imagine for a second what it would be like to be any other player in this campaign. Seemingly at random, your ranger player calls for the group to stop. He starts rolling dice. The DM rolls some other dice. You have no idea what's going on. Neither of them explain. This goes on for potentially minutes at a time. Much later, the battered remnants of an enemy battlegroup stagger out of the treeline, and you finally get to play the game. You mop up the survivors and move on. A while later, the scene repeats. Gradually it dawns on you. Every encounter on open ground is going to be like this. You sigh to yourself and start looking over options for a long-ranged support build, because that's what you and everyone else in your party is now.
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.
This sounds less like a problem with optimization and more like a problem with a GM who has no clue how to actually run a game. The number one job a GM has is to communicate with the players and that's not happening in this story. Instead, they're giving all their focus to one player and not letting anyone else have a chance to do anything. That's what's actually sucking the air out of the room.
Yeah the GM messed up letting that build through, but also I don't know that it's completely fair to let the player who actually built it off the hook. TTRPGs necessarily build up a certain reverence for The Rules because if they didn't, they'd have nothing to sell you. Plenty of GMs aren't comfortable saying no to things that are technically conformant to The Rules. Players know this, and they exploit it all the time. So between the player who knows they're putting together something game breaking and the GM who fails to stop them, who bears ultimate responsibility? I don't think it's an especially valuable question to answer. The bottom line is: everyone at the table, including but not exclusively the GM, is responsible for making sure everyone at the table having fun.
The character's build is not the problem. The fact that the GM and the player were off doing their own thing while ignoring everyone else at the table is the problem. All the other players should have been told what was happening and been allowed to actually act. When combat happens, initiative gets rolled for everyone, not just one person.
On top of that, the video you linked to is a story, not the records of a campaign session. You really can't pull something like that off, especially in 5E even if your character is six levels higher than everyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, what's described here can't really happen without prior collaboration between the DM and the one player. There's no way for a player to simply realize midgame that a group of creatures are moving off-screen without the DM either setting up the scene ahead of time with them or giving the entire party a cue they can roll on.
Argument by hyperbolic example is not my favorite illustrative tool - people far too often miss the point and respond to the hyperbole rather than the underlying point, as folks are demonstrating here.
The point the hyperbole is making, however, is a valid one - optimization can lead to a sucking the air out of the room problem. This might be intentional (the optimizer is selfish and wants to be the center of attention) or unintentional (their character is so much more powerful/better at doing things that folks begin deferring to that character, as that character taking actions is generally the optimal choice for the party). This can also result in players deciding to focus more on supporting the “main character” than telling their own tails.
These are problems which can also exist independent of optimization - main character syndrome is a pretty darn common player flaw, and the campaign focusing around one player even without MCS at play can occur organically for any number of reasons.
Like with many other issues, optimization can exacerbate existing divides and problems. In that sense, it can be a catalyst for making “sucking the air out of the room” worse, and it is not hard to see why some players might get frustrated and blame the easy-to-see issue of optimization over “man, that person I was playing with was just kind of a selfish jerk.”
If you've got 10 minutes, here's a story about a hyper-optimized character that I think is really illustrative (I'll summarize it below, but I recommend watching the video to get the full effect): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxNGLUDGj-4
So, I think this is a great story. We've got a ranger who's extremely optimized for long-ranged combat, and he's doing some really incredible things. The player hasn't neglected the RP side, either; he's got a simple but effective backstory, and a clear characterization he's going for. What could possibly be wrong with this?
Imagine for a second what it would be like to be any other player in this campaign. Seemingly at random, your ranger player calls for the group to stop. He starts rolling dice. The DM rolls some other dice. You have no idea what's going on. Neither of them explain. This goes on for potentially minutes at a time. Much later, the battered remnants of an enemy battlegroup stagger out of the treeline, and you finally get to play the game. You mop up the survivors and move on. A while later, the scene repeats. Gradually it dawns on you. Every encounter on open ground is going to be like this. You sigh to yourself and start looking over options for a long-ranged support build, because that's what you and everyone else in your party is now.
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.
I just can't support an argument that uses a computer generated tubes video as the foundation of their argument, no matter how good the voice may be. Yes I am ashamed of how long I watched that video.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The character's build is not the problem. The fact that the GM and the player were off doing their own thing while ignoring everyone else at the table is the problem. All the other players should have been told what was happening and been allowed to actually act. When combat happens, initiative gets rolled for everyone, not just one person.
On top of that, the video you linked to is a story, not the records of a campaign session. You really can't pull something like that off, especially in 5E even if your character is six levels higher than everyone else.
Yeah, what's described here can't really happen without prior collaboration between the DM and the one player. There's no way for a player to simply realize midgame that a group of creatures are moving off-screen without the DM either setting up the scene ahead of time with them or giving the entire party a cue they can roll on.
Okay, yeah, you guys raise fair points. I can accept that the example I gave wasn't very good, but I don't think it's really core to the argument. I thought it was an entertaining example of the way min-maxers view their characters, and an opportunity to present the other side of that. But I see now that's it's mostly distracting from the broader discussion. There are better examples of the argument I was trying to make elsewhere in the thread, so I'll go ahead and remove the post.
I think it's important to determine the difference between "Optimized" and "Efficient" WRT any sort of discussion on the subject of whether this is problematic or not.
Like If you are building a character around a theme or idea then it makes sense to have the things that support that Idea/Theme; Like If you're playing "Large Mchuge Man" and want him to be a guy swinging around a big sword really hard it makes sense that he's a fighter with a focus on strength, great weapons and maybe giving him some feats like GWM or Slasher to push his damage a little further while also not neccesarily entering into problem territory due to how he's certainly good but he's pretty much good at one specific thing (swinging a sword around) and probably going to lag behind in some other area (IE talking to other people or sneaking or recalling specific lore).
This is what I call "efficient".
The Alternative to this at the extreme end of optimization, is the lucky halfling diviner with Tasha's lineage rules thrown in and Krynn's backgrounds tossed in for the extra feat. This is a character that is going to very quickly become all things to all situations because of there sheer ability to brute force dice rolls to be whatever the hell they want them to be and also gaining a versatile arsenal of spell that can let them do pretty much whatever the player wants and likely overshadowing much of the table as you go. As a Cherry on top it forces the GM to either Tailor encounters to counter the LHD or deal with the fact that there is a character that can run roughshod over everything.
As to Multi-classing: never really been a fan (particularly after the fiasco that was 3rd) but in 5th I find that it's more of an annoying hold over that tends to ignore how subclasses and feats cover pretty much everything you could possibly want a core class to do whether that's having your spellblade or warpriest or skald or shaman or whatever the hell comes to you while not being a naked power grab.
Here's a non-RPG example, from a work event many years ago.
One of our suppliers invited us to play paintball. It would be fun, they said. Meet at the arena this weekend.
We rocked up, with our old green clothes, and headed in to arrange rental of guns.
Then the people from the supplier arrived. They got out of their cars dressed in head-to-toe camo. They all opened their tailgates and started unloading gear. First gun, into a holster. Second gun, into a holster. Third gun, over the back on a sling. Then paintball masks, full-face, camo colours, with battery powered fans to stop them fogging up.
Yeah, they "forgot" to mention that they were a semi-pro team.
It was a perfect example of "sucking the air out of the room." We might have been in the same forest as they were but we weren't all playing the same game.
Here's a non-RPG example, from a work event many years ago.
One of our suppliers invited us to play paintball. It would be fun, they said. Meet at the arena this weekend.
We rocked up, with our old green clothes, and headed in to arrange rental of guns.
Then the people from the supplier arrived. They got out of their cars dressed in head-to-toe camo. They all opened their tailgates and started unloading gear. First gun, into a holster. Second gun, into a holster. Third gun, over the back on a sling. Then paintball masks, full-face, camo colours, with battery powered fans to stop them fogging up.
Yeah, they "forgot" to mention that they were a semi-pro team.
It was a perfect example of "sucking the air out of the room." We might have been in the same forest as they were but we weren't all playing the same game.
Ambushed before you even got on the battlefield, that does suck!
Here's a non-RPG example, from a work event many years ago.
One of our suppliers invited us to play paintball. It would be fun, they said. Meet at the arena this weekend.
We rocked up, with our old green clothes, and headed in to arrange rental of guns.
Then the people from the supplier arrived. They got out of their cars dressed in head-to-toe camo. They all opened their tailgates and started unloading gear. First gun, into a holster. Second gun, into a holster. Third gun, over the back on a sling. Then paintball masks, full-face, camo colours, with battery powered fans to stop them fogging up.
Yeah, they "forgot" to mention that they were a semi-pro team.
It was a perfect example of "sucking the air out of the room." We might have been in the same forest as they were but we weren't all playing the same game.
That's not a problem with minmaxing, that's just straight up bad sportmanship.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
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?
Often, it lets some players get easily outshined or useless. The DM typically has to adjust the encounters to make them harder for the optimized player but easier for everyone else. Doing that successfully is ridiculously hard.
So min-maxing is cool and usable in some games, but extreme optimization can be super problematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Regarding multiclassing, there's also the fact that sometimes people will want to weld incongruous classes together for the mechanical benefit which some DMs don't appreciate, particularly if they're trying to run a more narratively focused campaign. Fortunately for them, multiclassing is already optional and honestly should stay that way; it means WotC doesn't need to worry overmuch about gimmick multiclass builds like coffeelock messing with the game balance because their presence in a campaign is dependent on getting a greenlight from the DM.
To me it really comes down to the people at the table and whether or not they are playing "together", not the potential for "abuse" of the rules. Like many of the debated topics about D&D good communication at the table addresses the majority of the issues and should solve most problems. It is a social game and compromises are crucial for everyone to enjoy the game, good communication helps facilitate good compromises.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Here's a non-RPG example, from a work event many years ago.
One of our suppliers invited us to play paintball. It would be fun, they said. Meet at the arena this weekend.
We rocked up, with our old green clothes, and headed in to arrange rental of guns.
Then the people from the supplier arrived. They got out of their cars dressed in head-to-toe camo. They all opened their tailgates and started unloading gear. First gun, into a holster. Second gun, into a holster. Third gun, over the back on a sling. Then paintball masks, full-face, camo colours, with battery powered fans to stop them fogging up.
Yeah, they "forgot" to mention that they were a semi-pro team.
It was a perfect example of "sucking the air out of the room." We might have been in the same forest as they were but we weren't all playing the same game.
That's not a problem with minmaxing, that's just straight up bad sportmanship.
No, it's an illustration of the problem of mixing minmaxxing with non-monmaxxers. The bad sportsmanship was what allowed it to happen.
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.
Here's a non-RPG example, from a work event many years ago.
One of our suppliers invited us to play paintball. It would be fun, they said. Meet at the arena this weekend.
We rocked up, with our old green clothes, and headed in to arrange rental of guns.
Then the people from the supplier arrived. They got out of their cars dressed in head-to-toe camo. They all opened their tailgates and started unloading gear. First gun, into a holster. Second gun, into a holster. Third gun, over the back on a sling. Then paintball masks, full-face, camo colours, with battery powered fans to stop them fogging up.
Yeah, they "forgot" to mention that they were a semi-pro team.
It was a perfect example of "sucking the air out of the room." We might have been in the same forest as they were but we weren't all playing the same game.
That's not a problem with minmaxing, that's just straight up bad sportmanship.
No, it's an illustration of the problem of mixing minmaxxing with non-monmaxxers. The bad sportsmanship was what allowed it to happen.
Who/what allowed the bad sportsmanship to happen?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Here's a non-RPG example, from a work event many years ago.
One of our suppliers invited us to play paintball. It would be fun, they said. Meet at the arena this weekend.
We rocked up, with our old green clothes, and headed in to arrange rental of guns.
Then the people from the supplier arrived. They got out of their cars dressed in head-to-toe camo. They all opened their tailgates and started unloading gear. First gun, into a holster. Second gun, into a holster. Third gun, over the back on a sling. Then paintball masks, full-face, camo colours, with battery powered fans to stop them fogging up.
Yeah, they "forgot" to mention that they were a semi-pro team.
It was a perfect example of "sucking the air out of the room." We might have been in the same forest as they were but we weren't all playing the same game.
That's not a problem with minmaxing, that's just straight up bad sportmanship.
I think you've hit on something interesting here. There's a reason this story from a totally unrelated sport "feels" like minmaxing to some people (even though it definitely isn't). I think that reason is that most people who dislike minmaxing consider it a kind of bad sportsmanship, akin to rolling up your semi-pro paintball team to plaster a bunch of schlubby office workers.
"Bad sportsmanship" might actually be the most useful explanation of the feelings about minmaxing we've identified in this thread; like other actions that can be considered bad sportsmanship, hyper-optimization is appropriate in some contexts, but frowned upon in others. Consider the difference between a basketball coach calling for an intentional foul in (A) an NBA game, or (B) a little league game. Very different vibes, right? But unlike a lot of sports that have clear bracketing for players of varying skill (and seriousness), D&D is kind of a big mash of individuals with different preferences who all think they're playing the same game.
This is a fascinating conversation and a really good read! From all of you that have replied.
I've had this come up in a game I had Saturday. Min maxing and optimization of a character.
My only response was: it's great if you have fun with the character. Remember that the dice rule the game. Rolling high numbers is great! But rolling low in some circumstances can lead to very fun things that can happen.
I've played in some games where a DM will punish a low roll. I don't like that and won't do that to my players. Instead I come up with something weird or fun that happens.
With that approach my players are not afraid to roll low numbers.
Some players I've hosted will only role play what they are good at based on their stats. I feel bad for them because they are missing out of how much fun and crazy things could happen with them. Nothing dangerous or a punishment at all.
Min max roll high roll low.
Just have fun and any good DM will make each roll regardless of the outcome to be a memorable moment.
I've seen this in two different GM's games.
A new player to the game, rolling damage, does something like 8 damage and feels (rightfully) quite pleased. Then the minmax character comes along and does 12 points on their first attack and 10 points on their second attack and sets the foe on fire (or something similar). I saw the faces of the new player fall as all the fun of the game left them. It was heartbreaking.
Both new players had been very upfront that they wanted a casual game, not a wargame.
One of the games was also advertised as a casual game, where the GM said they would play pretty loose with rules focusing more on story than combat. Which didn't stop the minmax player turning up with a beast barbarian clockwork sorcerer multiclass…
In short, its not the minmaxing that is an issue, it is the mismatch of expectations at the table.
What makes it a bigger issue is that (in my experience anyway) minmaxers can't not be minmaxers. It's how they play games. I guess the only real solution is not to mix player types. which is a hassle when the players are people you like and actually want to socialise with.
Those seem more like DM issues than character optimization issues. I am defending the players actions, but the DM could have just said that is not a good character for this table and game roll up a new one that meets the criteria for this game.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
This sounds less like a problem with optimization and more like a problem with a GM who has no clue how to actually run a game. The number one job a GM has is to communicate with the players and that's not happening in this story. Instead, they're giving all their focus to one player and not letting anyone else have a chance to do anything. That's what's actually sucking the air out of the room.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah the GM messed up letting that build through, but also I don't know that it's completely fair to let the player who actually built it off the hook. TTRPGs necessarily build up a certain reverence for The Rules because if they didn't, they'd have nothing to sell you. Plenty of GMs aren't comfortable saying no to things that are technically conformant to The Rules. Players know this, and they exploit it all the time. So between the player who knows they're putting together something game breaking and the GM who fails to stop them, who bears ultimate responsibility? I don't think it's an especially valuable question to answer. The bottom line is: everyone at the table, including but not exclusively the GM, is responsible for making sure everyone at the table having fun.
The character's build is not the problem. The fact that the GM and the player were off doing their own thing while ignoring everyone else at the table is the problem. All the other players should have been told what was happening and been allowed to actually act. When combat happens, initiative gets rolled for everyone, not just one person.
On top of that, the video you linked to is a story, not the records of a campaign session. You really can't pull something like that off, especially in 5E even if your character is six levels higher than everyone else.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, what's described here can't really happen without prior collaboration between the DM and the one player. There's no way for a player to simply realize midgame that a group of creatures are moving off-screen without the DM either setting up the scene ahead of time with them or giving the entire party a cue they can roll on.
Argument by hyperbolic example is not my favorite illustrative tool - people far too often miss the point and respond to the hyperbole rather than the underlying point, as folks are demonstrating here.
The point the hyperbole is making, however, is a valid one - optimization can lead to a sucking the air out of the room problem. This might be intentional (the optimizer is selfish and wants to be the center of attention) or unintentional (their character is so much more powerful/better at doing things that folks begin deferring to that character, as that character taking actions is generally the optimal choice for the party). This can also result in players deciding to focus more on supporting the “main character” than telling their own tails.
These are problems which can also exist independent of optimization - main character syndrome is a pretty darn common player flaw, and the campaign focusing around one player even without MCS at play can occur organically for any number of reasons.
Like with many other issues, optimization can exacerbate existing divides and problems. In that sense, it can be a catalyst for making “sucking the air out of the room” worse, and it is not hard to see why some players might get frustrated and blame the easy-to-see issue of optimization over “man, that person I was playing with was just kind of a selfish jerk.”
I just can't support an argument that uses a computer generated tubes video as the foundation of their argument, no matter how good the voice may be. Yes I am ashamed of how long I watched that video.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Okay, yeah, you guys raise fair points. I can accept that the example I gave wasn't very good, but I don't think it's really core to the argument. I thought it was an entertaining example of the way min-maxers view their characters, and an opportunity to present the other side of that. But I see now that's it's mostly distracting from the broader discussion. There are better examples of the argument I was trying to make elsewhere in the thread, so I'll go ahead and remove the post.
I think it's important to determine the difference between "Optimized" and "Efficient" WRT any sort of discussion on the subject of whether this is problematic or not.
Like If you are building a character around a theme or idea then it makes sense to have the things that support that Idea/Theme; Like If you're playing "Large Mchuge Man" and want him to be a guy swinging around a big sword really hard it makes sense that he's a fighter with a focus on strength, great weapons and maybe giving him some feats like GWM or Slasher to push his damage a little further while also not neccesarily entering into problem territory due to how he's certainly good but he's pretty much good at one specific thing (swinging a sword around) and probably going to lag behind in some other area (IE talking to other people or sneaking or recalling specific lore).
This is what I call "efficient".
The Alternative to this at the extreme end of optimization, is the lucky halfling diviner with Tasha's lineage rules thrown in and Krynn's backgrounds tossed in for the extra feat. This is a character that is going to very quickly become all things to all situations because of there sheer ability to brute force dice rolls to be whatever the hell they want them to be and also gaining a versatile arsenal of spell that can let them do pretty much whatever the player wants and likely overshadowing much of the table as you go. As a Cherry on top it forces the GM to either Tailor encounters to counter the LHD or deal with the fact that there is a character that can run roughshod over everything.
As to Multi-classing: never really been a fan (particularly after the fiasco that was 3rd) but in 5th I find that it's more of an annoying hold over that tends to ignore how subclasses and feats cover pretty much everything you could possibly want a core class to do whether that's having your spellblade or warpriest or skald or shaman or whatever the hell comes to you while not being a naked power grab.
Here's a non-RPG example, from a work event many years ago.
One of our suppliers invited us to play paintball. It would be fun, they said. Meet at the arena this weekend.
We rocked up, with our old green clothes, and headed in to arrange rental of guns.
Then the people from the supplier arrived. They got out of their cars dressed in head-to-toe camo. They all opened their tailgates and started unloading gear. First gun, into a holster. Second gun, into a holster. Third gun, over the back on a sling. Then paintball masks, full-face, camo colours, with battery powered fans to stop them fogging up.
Yeah, they "forgot" to mention that they were a semi-pro team.
It was a perfect example of "sucking the air out of the room." We might have been in the same forest as they were but we weren't all playing the same game.
Ambushed before you even got on the battlefield, that does suck!
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
That's not a problem with minmaxing, that's just straight up bad sportmanship.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Often, it lets some players get easily outshined or useless. The DM typically has to adjust the encounters to make them harder for the optimized player but easier for everyone else. Doing that successfully is ridiculously hard.
So min-maxing is cool and usable in some games, but extreme optimization can be super problematic.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Regarding multiclassing, there's also the fact that sometimes people will want to weld incongruous classes together for the mechanical benefit which some DMs don't appreciate, particularly if they're trying to run a more narratively focused campaign. Fortunately for them, multiclassing is already optional and honestly should stay that way; it means WotC doesn't need to worry overmuch about gimmick multiclass builds like coffeelock messing with the game balance because their presence in a campaign is dependent on getting a greenlight from the DM.
To me it really comes down to the people at the table and whether or not they are playing "together", not the potential for "abuse" of the rules. Like many of the debated topics about D&D good communication at the table addresses the majority of the issues and should solve most problems. It is a social game and compromises are crucial for everyone to enjoy the game, good communication helps facilitate good compromises.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
No, it's an illustration of the problem of mixing minmaxxing with non-monmaxxers. The bad sportsmanship was what allowed it to happen.
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.
Who/what allowed the bad sportsmanship to happen?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I think you've hit on something interesting here. There's a reason this story from a totally unrelated sport "feels" like minmaxing to some people (even though it definitely isn't). I think that reason is that most people who dislike minmaxing consider it a kind of bad sportsmanship, akin to rolling up your semi-pro paintball team to plaster a bunch of schlubby office workers.
"Bad sportsmanship" might actually be the most useful explanation of the feelings about minmaxing we've identified in this thread; like other actions that can be considered bad sportsmanship, hyper-optimization is appropriate in some contexts, but frowned upon in others. Consider the difference between a basketball coach calling for an intentional foul in (A) an NBA game, or (B) a little league game. Very different vibes, right? But unlike a lot of sports that have clear bracketing for players of varying skill (and seriousness), D&D is kind of a big mash of individuals with different preferences who all think they're playing the same game.