So, you’ve read all about how to how to make a character with a compelling story and how to play D&D tactically. You love your character, and you don’t want them to die. It’s only natural to start thinking about making your character as powerful as possible so they aren’t casually slain by a lucky kobold. Whether you’re a roleplaying maven who wants to give your character a beautiful arc or a combat fanatic who wants to slay everything that stands against you, it only makes sense for your thoughts to turn to powergaming.
In this installment of the New Player’s Guide, we take a look at a controversial topic that has driven many D&D groups apart: will optimizing your character improve your D&D game, or tear your group apart? The answer is more nuanced than you might think.
What is Powergaming?
Powergaming is a term that describes the act of optimizing your D&D character and acting in a way that maximizes reward while minimizing risk. “Powergamer” is roughly synonymous with terms like “min-maxer,” and “munchkin,” and all of these terms carry a degree of derision. That might be because this efficient way of playing largely ignores the “roleplaying” aspect of roleplaying games, and focuses almost exclusively on winning the “game” aspect.
Some powergamers think deeply about the systems of D&D to find broken combos and exploits in the rules, whereas others simply look at character optimization (“char-op”) boards to find powerful combos that other players have theorized about online.
Why Some Folks Optimize, and Why Others Don’t
Everyone who optimizes does it for different reasons, but one common through line is that being strong is fun. If you make a character and envision them as a mighty demon slayer, you want the game to support your story with the mechanics. You want your character to be cool, right? D&D rewards a clever understanding of its mechanics with greater power—essentially, the ability for your character to do cool things more consistently.
In a more extreme case, you might want to create an all-powerful character because the relationship between you and your Dungeon Master is antagonistic. If your DM tries to screw your character over at every opportunity, like you’re playing the Tomb of Horrors in every session, it makes sense to create a character that can’t be defeated.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with optimizing your character; it just means that you’ve put in work to allow your character to do the cool things that you want them to be able to do. On the other hand, there is a dark side to powergaming. If your DM just wants to play a collaborative game where the DM sets interesting challenges in front of the players, but isn’t going out of their way to annihilate your characters, optimizing your character into an all-powerful death machine could leave other players in the dust.
If everyone in your group is optimizing their characters to the best of their ability, this isn’t a problem; everyone’s playing Gandalf or Galadriel or Elrond, the campaign becomes a super-powered thrillfest where powerful wizards and warriors battle evil liches and their undead servants.
On the other hand, there are lots of players who don’t like to optimize. Some do so because they don’t have the time to dedicate to fussing over every minute detail of their character sheet because of their job, home life, or because of any number of real-world concerns. Life is hard, and the people who are working hard to make their real life work deserve to have fun just like the folks who are able to dedicate hours to learning how to optimizing their D&D character. If everyone in your game is “optimization neutral” in this way, you might have a party made up of Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli. All powerful warriors in their own rights, but with a few flaws that force them to rely on one another to survive.
There’s another type of players, too: the kind that actively choose not to optimize their character because they like their characters to have character flaws that are represented in their game stats. These players might optimize their characters in some ways, and lean hard into their weaknesses. Or, they might be happy to be defined by their flaws more than they are by their strengths. A group of players that would rather play Frodo, Sam, and Gollum desperately surviving in a world too powerful for them might play characters like this.
It’s easy to have fun in any group filled with players that all have the same philosophy towards character optimization—even if they don’t have the words to articulate what that philosophy is. However, things become messy when characters of wildly different levels of optimization are in a party together. Gandalf fights the Balrog alone at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum in The Fellowship of the Ring because, as he tells the Fellowship, “This foe is beyond any of you.” This is an awesome moment in the Lord of the Rings films and novels, because we’re an audience that gets to watch one character have the spotlight in a scene that is at once both tragic and epic.
But in a game, the wild power disparity between the hyper-competent Gandalf, the strong-but-flawed warriors like Aragorn and Boromir, and the kind-hearted but physically weak hobbits would be incredibly frustrating. Unless you know that your group is actively excited for that kind of power disparity, you need to figure out a solution.
Side Note: The Stormwind Fallacy
Worth noting is that these broad categories aren’t the be all and end all of powergaming. A classic RPG fallacy is the “Stormwind Fallacy,” which states that character optimization is antithetical to roleplaying. This statement is fallacious because it’s absolutely possible to have a flawed, three-dimensional character and still optimize their build so that they can reliably do cool things, too. Aragorn and Boromir are great examples from the Lord of the Rings characters mentioned above; they’re powerful combatants, but have intense roleplaying flaws. In the films, Aragorn is reluctant and fearful to lead, so he chooses not to claim his birthright and lead the mighty armies of Gondor. Boromir is a talented warrior with many advantages, but he is vulnerable to the corrupting influence of power and the will of the One Ring—a temptation that leads to his downfall.
Some of the best story-focused roleplayers are willing to put their powerful, optimized characters into compromised, suboptimal situations because it creates a dramatic and exciting story. You can see this in Critical Role, Tales from the Mists, and any number of other beloved D&D streams. It can take a lot of trust in the DM to present you with situations that let you kick ass and situations that prey upon your characters’ weaknesses. Nevertheless, playing this way is incredibly rewarding.
What Kind of Gamer are You?
There are too many positions on powergaming and character optimization to count; the spectrum of opinion between “it’s the only true way to play” and “it ruins D&D” contains infinities. Likewise, there’s a continuum of how intensely players will optimize their characters. Some players have an innate knack for finding powerful combos and gravitate to optimizing automatically. Some read char-op threads on D&D forums to learn the best strategies. Some are just happy to play. Some still actively give their characters debilitating flaws because it helps them create a more dramatic and nuanced character.
All of these playstyles are valid. Even so, just because they’re all fine ways to play D&D doesn’t mean that people with different playstyles won’t come into conflict. Some of these playstyles are so disparate that it’s almost inevitable that someone will get annoyed with someone else for playing the game “wrong.” But don’t despair. This doesn’t mean that your group is doomed if some people want to optimize and others don’t.
Communicate Early and Often
If you’re playing with veteran D&D players, they probably know whether or not they like to optimize their characters. In that case, just ask them straight away as part of your Session Zero. As usual, clear and open communication with your fellow players is the solution to 90% of all problems at the game table. Try to align everyone’s goals by finding out if some people don’t like the power imbalance that powergaming can create between player characters, or if they don’t mind.
If your players are new to D&D, they probably don’t know for sure if they’re going to min-max or not, so asking directly won’t be as useful as it would with a veteran player. You might be able to guess how they’ll approach the game based on their personalities or taste in other media. D&D players who play collectible card games or MMORPGs may be more inclined to optimize their characters in D&D because the types of games they play heavily encourage optimization, whereas players who were more into fantasy novels or films may be less inclined to min-max. This is just a rule of thumb; it’s not true for all people. The only way to know how new players will approach the game is to play with them for a few sessions.
Once you know roughly where on the powergaming continuum your players fall, you can host a Session Zero and lay out some expectations for your campaign. Remember, you can have a Session Zero at any time during your campaign, not just before the first session. This works even better if everyone can talk about their own expectations too; this will make your Session Zero less of a lecture from the DM and more of a conversation between friends.
Here are some questions to ask new players that haven’t thought about powergaming before:
- If one of the characters is stronger than all the others, would that make the game less fun for you?
- On the other hand, would you have less fun if your character is weaker than all the others?
- If one character hogs the spotlight and consistently spends more time doing cool things than you, would you be annoyed?
- Do you want this game to be the sort of game where we all work together to tell a story, or do you see it as a competition between the players and the DM?
These questions will help identify your players’ feelings towards intra-party balance (how powerful the characters are in relation to one another), without once mentioning the jargony words of “powergaming” or “optimization.” If the players tell you that these things don’t bother them, great! Just let them know that they can always tell you if something feels bad about your campaign, then go play some D&D!
If a player answers “I don’t know,” then take their answer at face value. Don’t assume they’re hiding something from you. Optimization is probably just a topic they haven’t thought about before, or one that doesn’t impact their enjoyment of the game. Don’t interrogate them, just move on. Trust that if someone’s optimization (or lack thereof) bothers them during the campaign, they’ll let you know.
If the players tell you that yes, some of these things would bother them, you can facilitate a conversation in which the players can agree to not do things that will upset the other players. You’re all here to have fun together, after all. If someone feels like their fun is being trampled on because they feel forced to consider what’s fun for other people, that’s not the kind of person you want in your weekly gaming group. You can ask questions like these to work out a compromise:
- It sounds like most people want the group to not be too overpowered. Would you feel okay not reading any character optimization guides or choosing overpowered combos?
- It sounds like most people want the group to be relatively powerful. Would you feel okay reading a bit about your character’s class before playing? (The Class 101 series is a great place to start to get an overview of your character.)
Balance between player characters can be one of the most important topics a D&D group can discuss. Or, it could be completely unimportant! Figuring out what works for your group must be your number one priority as a Dungeon Master. If you and your players can communicate clearly and effectively with one another, you’ll all come back to the game week after week, excited to play again.
Are you a powergamer, or does someone in your gaming group love to optimize their characters? Have you ever talked with your group to work out how to deal with power imbalances in the party? Let us know in the comments?
Create A Brand-New Adventurer Acquire New Powers and Adventures Browse All Your D&D Content
James Haeck is the lead writer for D&D Beyond, the co-author of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus, and the Critical Role Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, a member of the Guild Adepts, and a freelance writer for Wizards of the Coast, the D&D Adventurers League, and other RPG companies. He lives in Seattle, Washington with his fiancée Hannah and their animal companions Mei and Marzipan. You can find him wasting time on Twitter at @jamesjhaeck.
I think we can learn from Aristotle's notion of virtue, where something like courage is different from not only cowardice but brashness in balancing our desire to survive and our fear on one side and our desire to win and fight on the other. I find the best roleplayers understand the game well enough not to make actively bad characters, but also not design characters with the singleminded purpose to be "most powerful." A min-maxed munchkin is probably a one dimensional character since its character is based entirely around some meta-game scheme. The character is an afterthought slapped on the meta-game, which almost always makes for a totally empty character. They can also make for less entertaining fights and campaigns for everyone else as the article points out.
A character designed totally around roleplaying without any thought to power doesn't really make much sense though. Presumably, the characters themselves, as adventurers, are generally going to desire power, even if its the power to do good. So I think it's best to think of what kind of character and what kind of limitations they have, and then wonder what kind of power would that character seek out to fulfill their objectives.
The best kind of minmaxing is not done as some meta game, but as players having their characters try to find synergies in different situations. That way the players are being brought together, and the question of power isn't being asked from the POV of the player, but from the player trying to take the POV of their character (it is a *roleplaying* game)
I used to never powergame ... I enjoyed cool quirks or odd things in backstories that drove the character. And to a large extent, I still do, but I started playing with a younger group with a DM that primarily learned the game on Adventure League. We have fun, but if you do not optimize for combat in his games you are going to have a string of bad days until that character dies. I admit, I miss my 9 year long campaign with an old group of friends, but sadly, some of them are no longer with us. I think in time this group will be ready for more than combat and we can lean into roleplay more. I will admit though, I've been challenged quite a few times to find workable solutions in an unoptimized party (our first iteration had no tank and no cleric). So, while I do now put a lot more thought into how effective in combat my character is, I still always am learning about the backstory of the character and finding new oddities to throw in. For my Barbarian, I picked up a bag of runestones and would throw them at the table and use it to influence his thinking on what good or bad thing was coming to affect them next.
Regardless of how optimized I try to make characters, I try to have interactions with others at the table so that everyone has moments to shine. And by Optimized, I prefer to balance my characters as much as possible, not just make them a war machine. I just want to be capable in combat... and efficient when it is my turn so I'm not hogging too much time. I much prefer the story between the characters and moments where we get to interact. So many newer players really struggle with pulling that out of their characters... and right now it feels like most of the game group is newer players. I just try to have different voices and ways of acting for each of my characters and try to talk to them in game and during downtimes. If nothing else, they laugh, but in time I hope they all open up and see the larger sphere surrounding their characters.
NIce!
Hear, hear! It shouldn't even matter that much! If he/she wants to purposefully anti-minmax, that's their business; their character. The whole foundation of the game is imagination and choice, so let others play how they want instead of bullying them for doing so.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply, but I still stand by my stance that powergaming ruins encounters in the sense that things are just one-sided (the enemy stomps you immediately, or you stomp them), and that other, non-powergaming players don't get a chance to even use their abilities once, let alone shine. Consider a ranger/rogue that takes the lucky and sharpshooter feat as well as sneak attack -- hell, make them a halfling so they get to re-roll every 1. They encourage their other players to tank for them. Their sharpshoot ability negates enemy cover, and they get to deal a ridiculous amount of damage at long range with no penalty, and when it is time to switch targets, do they have to reposition their character? Do they have to be creative at all? No. They just aim their bow at the next enemy, encourage another player to go next to the enemy so they can add another 1d6 for sneak attack, and then one-shot that enemy, and this is exacerbated if they have multiple attacks per round action.
I guarantee that in this type of situation or any other powergaming situation, unless all players at the table are powergaming, experienced, and know the rules in and out (including the DM -- in which case the encounter is Gygaxian and extremely epic with cruel, well-thought-out combat puzzles to decrypt), then people are going to be deflated. "Oh cool we get to fight this awesome dragon!". "Wow, the ranger 1-shot it and its dead and I don't even get to use my spells. Sigh." Combat becomes meaningless. It is just a stompfest and a waste of time. There is no thrill unless the DM steps up, goes far out of their way to find specific monsters to challenge the powergamer, and then if they indeed do this, they put an undue (I'll even say unfair) challenge on the rest of the group if the other party members are not powergamers. The powergamer is the problem. The powergamer ruins the fun of not only the DM, making them step up to a challenge of even more prep, but also their party members.
Again, I'll say that powergaming doesn't ruin encounters if you have a veteran DM, you are in a group of veterans who all also like to powergame, and your group is nerdy and has read and re-read the rules so they can hold each other accountable, and the DM has authority in that they know every spell in the book, so even caught off guard, they can suddenly have their mage know a feat or spell that can counter a situation that would prematurely end an epic combat scenario.
I don't think powergaming ruins encounters. I think piss poor communication within gaming groups, especially about expectations and playstyles, is the real problem. There's nothing wrong with knowing the mechanics of the game well, and using that knowledge to build a potent character. Honestly in this edition of D&D you have to actively try to build a character that is truly useless, and it is very very easy to build a character that some might see as overpowered. The difference between those characters, thanks to the design of the game, isn't as great as everyone seems to be thinking it is. Also, as I've said before, any character that is super optimized in one direction tends to leave a lot of flaws in other areas. I understand that there may be DMs that don't have the time to prep properly, and that there may be players that don't have the time and inclination to learn the rules well. If there's good communication in the group, having a powergamer among them won't be an issue (maybe the powergamer gives advice to the DM about encounter building, and/or advice to the other players about character building and the like). I mean, my group has 3 new players who don't have the time to learn all the ins and outs of the rules, one player who's still fairly new but has the time and inclination to learn the nuts and bolts of the game, a SUPER fun but SUPER unforgiving DM, and me: the guy who would probably be labeled a "powergamer" in most groups. The DM uses me as a source of knowledge about rules and the like, and the other players ask my advice for character building and how to use their spells/powers effectively. It works out marvelously because we communicate and are on the same page, even if we have differing playstyles and levels of rules mastery.
Besides: 90% of this game boils down to dice rolls and how one actually plays their character in the game world. Unless we're talking homebrew classes, races, and the like. That stuff I'm sure we can agree is often busted.
Tl/Dr: Playstyle doesn't matter, as long as the other players and DM are all on the same page and no one is being a jerk. Dice rolls and luck determine more things than character build. Homebrew can make all of this wrong :)
SO the other players make fun of you for bragging. And here you are, openly bragging to strangers over the internet. Gaming is fun, bragging is not. The best fun is SHARED fun, when all people are enjoying a cool story that you all contribute to.
Yes, it sounds like a fighter/barb with 20 strength should be able to make some fantastic combat stories. But did that fighter/barb ever do that with just his fists because one of the weaker members challenged him to fight without his weapons?
OrtanFang: Yes, I can fight all those bandits with one hand tied behind my back.
OrtanFang's cleric-healerbot: Prove it, bro.
The reason I bring this up is that your comment seems too sarcastic to be real. Not a flame, just a lesson that needs to be clear. Roll those high stats, awesome! Design that premium build, Great! But then write a good story too and if your friends actually made fun of you, it's probably because you had no other stats beside Orc Fighter Barbarian and Greataxe. You certainly didn't bother including them in your original post so I imagine they weren't important enough to mention, which indicates that you might not have cared about them.
This places you in the category of Power-gamers that many folks don't like to play with. Again, I'm not trying to flame you, I am truly concerned with your game and how you might ruin your own fun and the fun of those at your table. Consider it, please. Read your own comment again and you might see what I'm talking about.
Those are really good stats, for ONE of the three pillars of D&D. The thing is, how does your character handle situations that can't be punched? What if fighting is the worst course of action? Also, how do you gel with the rest of the party. From what I've seen, everyone minmaxes to a certain extent. We build our characters to do what we want to do best. Being a munckin is a behavior. When players are focused so much on the 1's and 0's of combat and dice rolls, the game stops being fun and becomes math and craps. So as long as you and your table are having fun, great. It's cool to brag about your character, but understand that there is a time and place for everything. And sometimes it's best to throttle back.
I think you probably have the impression that it works out marvellously for you since you dominate the direction of the learning of the game (and this is not necessarily a bad thing if your group likes you to lead) and the game mechanics. Perhaps your group is very outspoken and everyone wears their hearts on their sleeves, but perhaps there are some that just don't want to rock the boat and let you run the show and dominate the conversation. From your post, it's clear that you are literally running the show. The DM even defers to you. The DM probably adjusts to how you see the rules, and thus, so do the players. Maybe this is fine for your group, but in most groups, having a player interject and talk about how rules are applied to the game rather than the DM interrupts the flow of the game.
In my experience, people who want to interject on how rulings are applied to the DM, even if they come from a good heart, usually disrupt the game, and it becomes annoying. I might not say it at the table, but I get annoyed. I think a good player needs to let the DM do their thing. More than likely, there are probably small rules you are missing that would probably detract from your character's power, but since the DM is inexperienced, he never even knows they are there. He relies on you to bring them up, and you probably don't because we all have an implicit bias for our character to be advantaged (e.g. if you deal lightning damage, and the party is facing a shambling mound, you might forget to let the DM know that your attacks heal the creature). It sounds like your character is the most powerful one there, and unless DND is more about just hanging with your friends, you are probably not really challenged that often. It sounds to me that given your expertise, you would be better suited as the DM for your group of players.
I disagree with you that 5e is perfectly well-balanced. How would you feel if someone came to the table and insisted on playing coffee-lock, and his backup character was bear totem barbarian? Do you think that it's going to be balanced when your group has 10 downtime days and the coffee-lock prepares 50+ spell slots? He's playing by the rules. How about the bear totem barbarian that rushes in and has resistance to every damage type but psychic? The players might not outrightly say it, but the only way to balance this type of character is trickery on the part of the DM. If done poorly (as many inexperienced DMs do) it feels ad-hoc and unfair to the players.
It sounds to me like you are a veteran player, and at my table of veterans, sure, I would let you run rampant on whatever combinations you want, because I like to rise to that challenge as a DM. Maybe you have a great group that communicates super well, but this isn't often the norm (talking from 10+ years of experience). People don't want to have uncomfortable conversations. The powergame prompts these types of conversations. Because of the powergamer, the group either rises up and becomes nerdy and learns all the rules, and the DM becomes experienced and awesome, or in a lot of cases, many people just view it as too much work and leave the game, or they just let the powergame run the show to keep the peace. I still believe that powergaming detracts from the experience because to me, DND is about taking an active part in writing a narrative. Powergamers can break hours of prep, and it truly is heartbreaking when it happens.
I also think it's a cop out to say "better communication". Literally all problems in life can be solved with better communication. And even if we agree that people should learn to communicate better, some won't or some just flat out refuse.
I appreciate your reply. But can you see where I am coming from? I'm trying to be a voice for those new players who have only played a few one-shots and are thinking about running their first campaign with all of their teenage friends. If I needed to give some advice to a group like that, I would tell them to focus on having fun, immersing in the story, and let the rules go by the wayside. Learn to compromise to have fun in the flow of the game rather than constantly challenge your DM who is doing you a big favor of setting it up for you.
I'm personally not an optimizer in the least, but I like what was said about how as long as the entire party has the same philosophy, it'll be okay. I've personally just stopped allowing rolling for stats in my games because of the risk that one player will not be bad at anything and will outshine the others, who have interesting flaws and specialties.
I also think multiclassing should have a base in lore. It's unlikely that you could just "decide" to be a sorcerer on a whim.
Thanks so much for the great article James!
In my experience, when I was DMing and one character was doing way more damage than the whole rest of the party, it just became not fun for me and the players. I really agree with you on how you need party consensus cause I find that it can really make other party members feel like they aren't valuable and don't contribute enough.
As a player, I optimize for combat in my class, and roleplay the social encounters and the inter-party conflicts and such. I make myself good for combat so I can focus solely on developing my character's personality and flaws.
That being said if it's a dungeon crawl I'm the worst powergamer trope ever, and will dedicate myself to ruining the DM's combat encounters. As I should.
It's weird to me that people here seem to associate rolling for stats with powergaming, especially since point-buy, the style that seems to be advocated a lot, lends itself far more easily to min-maxing. I like there to still be an amount of randomness in how characters end up statwise, so when I DM I'll usually either have players roll for stats but reroll if they have more than one stat below 10 (so everyone's pretty good) or have each player contribute to an array.
I'm 100% in agreement on multiclassing, tho. I'm actually experiencing something like that right now in a game I'm in as a player, where my character (who actually is one of my better builds) is in a position lore/roleplaying-wise where he could easily take that enviable dip into warlock but I can't bring myself to justify it in-character.
Thanks for expanding you thoughts,
So what you are saying that combinations of abilities are far more advantageous in specific situations far too often. Is that correct? Because I agree. (Note: IMHO in 5e the Rogues back-stabb ability is very very powerful and I would look at a way to change it if I was going to run a long term game. Or as you say re-balance it in terms of the other class/races abilities)
I also agree that some classes have a much more likely ability to survive a party split and if a GM takes the stand that I never split the party you are in essence allowing hyper-specialized PC's to exist and grow.
The main reason I asked about what "Blowing up and encounter" is to you, is that I have seen quite a few GM's take the position that they players did not act as they had envisioned them to so they encounter did not go as planned. In this situation the players are more like programmed bots and not freely interacting and changing their environment. If you are interested in an example I can post it but it is fairly long.
In closing I would like to say again that I have been playing and GMing for a long time and have made many mistakes along the way and will make many more before I stop RPing but hopefully I try and avoid the major mistakes I have made in the past or at least limit their impact going forward.
MDC
I think you have an important point that GMs and players need to realize, flaws should come into play at some point otherwise they ate not flaws. Now again I have seen GM's over emphasize flaws because they think it is a RP moment which is just as much an issue as not having the flaw be felt.
This generally leads to the idea of more interaction between the GM and player when creating their PC and approval and explanation of flaws in their game. Which can be very helpful.
MDC
What you are pointing out is important, which is some builds can vastly overshadow other players fun and a veteran GM should adjust the other PC's as needed. Again that is in a perfect world and I have seen some GM's believe that the "PCs level" is all the balancing a game needs. Also player personality can be uplifting or disastrous to a game and as I have seen game stores.
MDC
The multi-classing comment is great flavor for a game world. But in general in most of my games the idea of people not being able to fit into distinct categories does not fit well, ie every villager in an area is essentially the same.
An idea around dice rolling, have the players each roll stats twice, each player puts one of those two arrays into the middle, a player picks 3 of those arrays, the GM rolls a d3 and that array the player cannot use. After that player is done then the arrays they picked go back into the middle. The player can switch two numbers but have to play the array as is otherwise.
The above roll method means every player uses the same values but they are not the same values that are generated by point buy (which IMHO PC tend to look the same after a time). Problem areas include issues that random dice rolls and placement in the array can make specific class and race choices extremely problematic.
MDC
Great write up on the issue. I'm usually against 'dirty powergamers' but you illustrate some interesting points about how everyone enjoys the game differently. No harm in that!
I think you're blowing my words WAY out of proportion.
I absolutely do not "run the show", that is not my role (at least not in the group in the example, I do run another game and in THAT game I have a player who knows much more than I do about the game. I ask his advice regularly and my game is better for it). I simply offer advice when its sought. I teach, I advise, but I do NOT "run the show". The DMs word is final. The vast majority of issues described here are communication issues. Hell, the vast majority of MOST issues people have with the game could be solved by talking about it rather than complaining on a message board. Have an issue with someones playstyle? Talk to them about it. Have an issue with the way the DM runs the game? Talk to them. Its not a "cop out" answer to tell people to talk to their gaming buddies when there's a problem. Its where all problem solving between people should start, and in this instance its the best fix to what many consider to be a problem (I don't know why, but many do).
I see where you're coming from though, I think: I don't think its an issue with powergaming. I think its an issue with someone playing to "win". Which I'm sure we can agree is not the purpose of D&D. Players like that will use the same tricks as optimizers/powergamers, but they do so to compete, to "win". They're playing the game like a competitive sport, against people who aren't there to compete. Those players are ******** (or at least very misguided), and I wouldn't tolerate one at my table. Like any other jerk player, they'd be kicked from my table.
You mention people refusing to communicate: Why the hell would you want to play with someone like that? That sounds downright awful. I mean, hell, this is a social game. In my experience (almost 30 years, btw), I've learned that if a group can't talk to each other about issues there is usually other problems as well. Bad D&D is worse than no D&D. I'll cut my losses and wait until I can find a better group. I will say that I'm lucky in that most of my friends are also my gaming buddies, and that I generally refuse to play at AL events as I find the players there to (more often than not) be toxic and immature.
No disrespect was intended in my reply, but I think your situation is highly outside of the norm. In my ten years of playing, I've never had the privilege of having a veteran of 30 years as a resource.
My argument is that if we take the most general type of new DND group (note the title of the article is new player's guide -- not veteran's), the kind that doesn't have seasoned veterans, then allowing powergaming is a recipe for disaster. It shouldn't be viewed as something positive. I think it was a mistake for the author of the article to write in such a way that condones powergaming. I don't think many players when starting a campaign are going to know how they truly feel about power imbalances until they experience how awful they can be. If the article is intended for the most general audience, then I believe it should flat out state that yes, in a general sense, people who powergame are highly correlated with ruining fun, and that a player's focus shouldn't be on powergaming. A new player's focus should be on roleplaying, enhancing the story, and building memories with friends.
Not every smoker dies of lung cancer, but there is a high correlation. Therefore if you value your health and longevity (the health and longevity of the game as the metaphor here), you should probably stay away from it. Most would say it's an unhealthy thing to condone smoking to a group of teens, and I view powergaming in the same sense. If you tell a player with maybe a year of experience that it's perfectly fine to powergame, it helps them rationalize ruining the fun of others at the table.