types of optimizers

[vasilidor]

this is a thread to discuss the types of optimizer, separate from the skill levels there of.
my proposed types:
1: anti-optimizer: the guy who does not care to optimize.
2: the regular: the guy who tries to make his character effective within the rules and expectations of the game.
3: the power gamer: the guy who uses the rules to the best of his ability to make his character he ultimate powerhouse.
4: the cheater: ignores the rules when they tell him his character should fail. often fudges dice rolls.
please note that these types are separate from the skill it takes to actually pull off what they are trying to do, I have seen type 4 newbies and type 4 system masters (the newbies are easier to catch) and type 2 newbies and type 2 system masters. remember skill in optimization is not what is being discussed here.

[ayvango]

In which category do you put infinite loop users? Like d2 crusaders.

[vasilidor]

type 3, hands down, unless the rules do not actually allow what the character is trying, which may put them in a type 4. the important thing to note about type 4 is that they know what they are trying is against the rules of whatever game they are playing.

[Long_shanks]

I mean, type 1 and 4 are not optimizers by definition; 1 doesn't try to optimize and 4 just ignores the rules (more of a munchkin that an optimizer if you ask me).
Personnally, my optimization consists of taking something that is subpar (I'm playing a Swashbuckler//Bard gestalt in a Pathfinder game ATM) and try to make it as powerful as possible within the boundaries of the rules (and if something is grey, I bring it up to the DM for a ruling). This way, I invest time in optimization without overshadowing the rest of the group (which I would do with Tier 1-2 classes).

[vasilidor]

you are a type 2 most likely, possibly type 3, but I don't think that type 3 care about if they step on others toes. maybe. in any case what type of optimization categories do you think there should be?

[ShurikVch]

Type 0: the guy who plays with intentionally gimped build

[GrayDeath]

I think you need another type, see the posts above.

Call him type 5: The Guy who optimizes "weird stuff" (be it taking weak classes and going through the roof, or taking strange concepts and maxing them out, or simply deciding when to optimize by a coin toss), lets call him the Weirdo.


Also I usually fall between type and 3. Optimizing is not ´central for me unless playing in a Fully optimized" group, but since I usually try to get a lower powered base class and make the best of it (I hate palying the Wizard, because in 2 of my long running groups i HAD to^^) I could also be a Type 5. ^^

[Fouredged Sword]

Gandalfs - the optimizer who builds a super powered build out of step with the game bur never actually uses it and plays his build in line with everyone else despite the mechanical power.

[BassoonHero]

Category 3 is deceptively narrow. A player who “uses the rules to the best of his ability to make his character he ultimate powerhouse” will simply make Pun-Pun or some other nigh-unbeatable character. I guess there's an edge case for someone powergaming “to the best of his ability” but not really knowing what the system is capable of. This is an inherently unstable state.

At the same time, Category 2 can be a bit narrow as well. Optimization “within the… expectations of the game” surely excludes all sorts of high-powered or even simply unorthodox builds that nevertheless aren't “the ultimate powerhouse”. Or you could interpret “the… expectations of the game” to mean the expectations of the gaming group, at which point Category 2 covers pretty much everyone who's not actively trying to break the game.

Category 1 is likely to start some arguments. A player who makes *any* decision on mechanical grounds is excluded. Why would such a person choose a game as mechanically rich as D&D in the first place?

These recent arguments about optimization seem a bit misguided to me. In the games I've run and played in, the chief game-balance-related problems have been:

Some PCs are clearly more powerful than others.
The PCs are too powerful and the challenges they face are too easy.
The PCs are too weak and the challenges they face are too difficult.
Some PC's “schtick” is frequently inapplicable.
The way that you prevent these problems is by:

Establishing a desired power level before the campaign begins.
Respecting that power level rather than escalating it. (This goes for the DM as well as the players!)
Cooperating out-of-character to resolve disparities as they arise.
I think that maintaining a consistent party power level is more challenging in 3.5 as compared to, say, 5e or Savage Worlds, because:

There is an extremely broad range of possible power levels.
Reliably hitting the right power level across a wide variety of character concepts often requires deep system mastery.
The expected power of a novice player's character is highly correlated to character type.
The game designers had a poor grasp of the balance of their own system, though it improved markedly as time went by. As a result, the core books are full of traps and bad advice.
If I had to classify players from an optimization standpoint, I'd do it as follows:

Experienced players who create characters at the party's common power level. :smallcool:
Novice players who create characters at the party's common power level with help from experienced players. :smallsmile:
Players who create characters significantly more powerful than the rest of the party and don't want to address it. :smallmad:
Players who create characters significantly less powerful than the rest of the party and then accuse everyone else of powergaming. :smallfurious:

[DEMON]

In my opinion, the categorization in the OP does not work.

I'd say an anti-optimizer is actually someone who actively and decidedly makes crap builds, because RP.

Type 4 is a cheater, not an optimizer.

Type 3 is what, exactly? Drawn-healing and pun-pun, both fall here, right?

Type 2, on the other hand, is pretty much anything not actively trying to break the game, while also not gimping oneself on purpose, since any kind of building to one's strengths is optimizing by definition.

[Florian]

I don't think that the "tiers" in the OP really work out.

Based on observation over the years, the big divide is between "rp (role playing)" and "g (game)", as well as TO and PO (in relation to the actual game, not how the forums use it).

How to explain that? There's a sharp divide between people who care about what the actual game is (What campaign, which setting, how´s the party composition?) while others mainly care about solo concerns (What system, what splats?).

[Darth Ultron]

Your Types look good to me.

Most Optimizers are Type 4.

[Afgncaap5]

Which category am I if I feel like I'm a type 2 who asks their DM for permission to use type 4 methodology that fits the story-flow so that I can attain type 3 results in story-appropriate situations? I feel like that's still type 2, but I wanna check.

[Mato]

this is a thread to discuss the types of optimizer, separate from the skill levels there of.
my proposed types:
1: anti-optimizer: the guy who does not care to optimize.
2: the regular: the guy who tries to make his character effective within the rules and expectations of the game.
3: the power gamer: the guy who uses the rules to the best of his ability to make his character he ultimate powerhouse.
4: the cheater: ignores the rules when they tell him his character should fail. often fudges dice rolls.What should I list GitP as?

Most of them don't obey the rules making them 4s but if asked it's not so achieve a powerful character but "that's what raw wants" making them 1s. The only thing I can add is GitP is not a 3, even after arguing the rules almost no one here comes up with anything close to most of the stuff I've seen on other boards.

[RoboEmperor]

You need a LOT more categories.

There are optimizers who don't read beyond 1 or 2 books.
There are optimizers who read every single book in existence and search online.
There are optimizers who make gamebreaking characters that does everything and makes his party obsolete intentionally or unintentionally
There are optimizers who are extremely specialized making them excel at their role but still needs full party support. This is done intentionally to not hog the game or break the game.

Putting bad optimizers and good optimizers in the same category is stupid.

[WhamBamSam]

What should I list GitP as?

Most of them don't obey the rules making them 4s but if asked it's not so achieve a powerful character but "that's what raw wants" making them 1s. The only thing I can add is GitP is not a 3, even after arguing the rules almost no one here comes up with anything close to most of the stuff I've seen on other boards.This has been pretty much the opposite of my experience. I rarely see things that are seriously questionable on GitP compared to when I venture onto other boards. Certainly the roll20 games I've been roped into have been exercises in sloppier and less effective optimization than I've come to expect.

The categories as presented have problems. To remedy this, I'd suggest starting from the Timmy/Johnny/Spike (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2002-03-08) player archetypes used in MtG design, and then expand on them with a scale similar to the one you proposed.

1: Is unwilling to use anything beyond the power of imagination to accomplish their design goal. Likely a problem player unless the whole group is like them, and perhaps even then.
2: Is willing to do some optimization toward their goal, but is uncomfortable beyond some artificial non-rules constraint. The lower end of the category (if their constraint is much more restrictive than the rest of the group) may be a problem and start dipping into category 1 territory.
3: Is willing to optimize toward their goal as far as the rules will allow. Problematic at the high end unless the whole group is the same, especially with Spike players.
4: Willing to break rules in service of their goal. Not an optimizer, and almost certainly a problem that should be booted.

[The Glyphstone]

There's always the option of rephrasing the old joke about driving*.

Tier -1: Anyone who makes weaker characters than you. These are anti-optimizing Stormwind Fallacy believers who drag down the party by taking Weapon Focus (Artisanal Cheese Grater) on their multiclassed Monk/Samurai/Aristocrat.

Tier 0: Anyone who makes characters of equal power to yours. These are good people and you should only ever play with them.

Tier 1: Anyone who makes characters more powerful than yours. These are dirty powergaming munchkins who only rollplay instead of roleplay with their characters built from seventeen different books and five web supplements. They can't RP their way out of a wet paper bag, but their artisanal cheese grater can one-shot ancient dragons.



(*Anyone on the road driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac)

[Afgncaap5]

There's always the option of rephrasing the old joke about driving*.

Tier -1: Anyone who makes weaker characters than you. These are anti-optimizing Stormwind Fallacy believers who drag down the party by taking Weapon Focus (Artisanal Cheese Grater) on their multiclassed Monk/Samurai/Aristocrat.

Tier 0: Anyone who makes characters of equal power to yours. These are good people and you should only ever play with them.

Tier 1: Anyone who makes characters more powerful than yours. These are dirty powergaming munchkins who only rollplay instead of roleplay with their characters built from seventeen different books and five web supplements. They can't RP their way out of a wet paper bag, but their artisanal cheese grater can one-shot ancient dragons.



(*Anyone on the road driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac)

Actually, I like this. I'll go with this. A lot of this is subjective anyway, so this is a fun frame of reference.

[vasilidor]

on a personal note, I have seen what people have described as the weirdo, the Gandalf. I have also been that player. the point of the type 3 being narrow about anyone trying to make an effective character with out breaking the game is probably spot on. yes, a lot of this is subjective. on type 1: they can make an effective character, but are unlikely to do so. some type 1 like to make a low power character for the challenge of keeping them alive, some for role play reasons, some because they like to annoy their fellow players. I have also been each type mentioned in different games (frustration can lead to someone taking the path of type 4, when they find their character to be ineffective 90% of the time or more).
please note that someone can be a type 2, but wind up with a low powered character or an over powered character if the player misjudges the type of game they are playing, or if they are not that great at making characters. Intent of the player is what is important here. my own attempts at being a type 3 generally resulted in making a character that was on par with the other players (It was a table filled with type 3 players, each trying to be the super character, with a gm smart enough to spot things like pun-pun and say "no").
that said one can be the weirdo and any of the initial 4 types mentioned at the same time. the Gandalf is a type 3 disguising himself as a type 2 or 1.