My problem with optimization

[Erloas]

So after thinking about optimization and how it compares to other game systems, I think I've mostly found out what I don't like about it.

I think a character is as much defined by its shortcomings as it is by its strengths.

I can't stand when someone takes a PC game and mods out the parts they don't like. The FPS where someone hates snipers so they mod out all long range areas so its only up close, or the opposite and make it so you can't get to the opponents and just have to snipe. They are redesigning the game so they as a player have no weakness. The same goes for cheat codes in electronic games of all sorts, it just takes out a lot of the challenge. Even seemingly simple ones like extra/infinite ammo, because "it sucks to run out" but ammo being a limited resource was a specifically designed part of the game and if you are running out it means you have to be more conservative. See the complaints about how the revitalization chambers in BioShock took all of the challenge out of the game.

Its also one of the reasons I don't like Superman or Batman very much, they really have no weaknesses. Superman's is entirely contrived and is only an issue if they go way out of their way to introduce it. It seems like they are never really challenged because they have no weaknesses.

Then there is Battletech, where I prefer the stock designs over custom designs. Sure the stock designs are not as good, they have clear weaknesses, but I think that makes the game much more interesting. Sure the Rifleman has weak armor, but thats part of what makes it a Rifleman, if you take the same size 'Mech and equip it almost the same but change the armor... well its not really a Rifleman any more. There are in fact a lot of designs that are better known for their weaknesses as their strengths. They all have interesting in-universe reasons for their shortcomings as well. And teaching someone the game, they'll learn it a lot better with 'Mechs with problems then they will if you give them optimized balanced builds that doesn't force them to think about their actions as much.

The same is true in Warhammer Fantasy. Dwarfs'* obvious weakness is their slow movement but its one of the defining factors in how they play. And undead have the weakness of not being able to flee for a tactical advantage, but thats balance as well as a flaw a good player has to work around. And the times someone tries to mix two different armies, generally to try and hide the weaknesses of each, it breaks the game and it stops working correctly.
*GW doesn't do Dwarves


Of course with an RPG, even without any mechanical shortcomings a character can have weaknesses. But they end up being kind of like Superman where its all sort of contrived. And it kind of seems like an After-School-Special where "it turns out I had the power in me to overcome it all the time" sort of thing. And having a weakness of not being able to pass a red-light district in town without spending 20% of your money isn't really a weakness.

I think the group dynamic, the fact that one person can't do it all and needs to rely on others for help, is one of the best parts of a game and one of the reasons why I like class based systems. The removal of group dependencies in MMOs is also one of the worst things that WoW seems to have pushed on the genre. (at least at the non-raid level in WoW, don't want to derail this before it starts, but it really pushed the everyone can solo thing into mainstream MMO development).


The main point of fun I get from games is the sense of challenge. In computer games PvP is almost always more of a challenge then PvE, which is also why so many people find it more fun. Although I know thats not universal.
In an TT RPG you've got two basic forms of challenges, mechanical and non-mechanical. The advantage of the TT RPG is of course that non-mechanical challenges are a lot easier to do and a lot more common, but I think its best when you have both types available. If a character has no mechanical weaknesses then its much harder to have a good mechanical challenge. And of course if you are just going for non-mechanical challenges then your mechanical optimization means nothing, and in fact you could have most of those challenges as a commoner just as well as a level 20 wizard.
And generally a mechanically optimized player just fights higher level opponents, but I don't see what the advantage is of being able to fight an adult red dragon at level 11 as an optimized character instead of fighting it at level 14 as a normal character, especially when the the DM is going to be building the encounters around the characters anyway. But with high optimization some challenges for a normal party can't really be duplicated for the optimized party. Not even being on these parts of the board very long, the strong trend of DMs asking how to handle and challenge highly optimized parties is very clear.

So why take a character and optimize all of your weaknesses away so that what you can be challenged by is much more limited?
You can't challenge the party with a BBE single bruiser type enemy because it will be nuked down before it can do anything. You've got to really specialize your encounters in specific ways to get any challenge. Or the thread about challenging a group of highly optimized casters where there are only a couple of very high level monsters with the abilities to debuff the party to the point of being able to challenge them.
To my mind by highly optimizing you are actually limiting the ways a DM can challenge you and give you a fun game.

edit: I'm going to edit this in because a lot of people seem to have skipped the middle posts and/or are specifically trying to misread what I was meaning.

Min-maxing and the "high" levels of optimization are the problem. Since I'm not aware of a standard set of definitions of levels of optimization. I'm not trying to say a specifically poorly designed character would be good, but that some middle ground would be best. I would think that this "average" sort of optimization level would be able to handle incorporeal opponents and magic wielding opponents, but they aren't going to be the sort that is going to take a CR appropriate dragon out in 2 rounds of combat.

[randomhero00]

Woa there. Batman definitely has plenty of weaknesses. Like he's mortal.
Superman has cryptoknite.

But ya, i think most people dislike playing perfect characters,

[Tengu_temp]

I fail to see the connection. Most reasonably optimized characters have weaknesses, especially in games that encourage you to take weaknesses (hello, M&M!). Optimized DND 3e casters don't because spellcasting is massively overpowered in that game.

As for MMOs, I will just say two things: it feels much more satisfying to beat challenges on your own, without relying on others, and I really don't like when an MMO forces you to group with random, often idiotic people, to do anything level-appropriate.

[Erloas]

Woa there. Batman definitely has plenty of weaknesses. Like he's mortal.
Superman has cryptoknite.

But ya, i think most people dislike playing perfect characters,

I'm sure Batman has weaknesses, but at least in the movies and cartoons, he doesn't really. And mortal almost never comes into it when no one can really beat you up and your suit deflects bullets like they are nothing. He's always got the answer for everything, no matter how obscure it is (though his toolbelt of everything has gotten better over the years).

As for Superman, yes, cryptoknite, and entirely contrived weakness that is specifically added to give him a weakness so they can have some thing for him to overcome.

In the end most of the challenge either of them have is having to decide between saving one thing or another, or saving someone or getting revenge, and the majority of the time they are so great that they get both done anyway. And yes, some of that is genre expectations, but I think it leads to the same thing.

[WarKitty]

As someone who prefers to DM for more highly optimized groups:

I've found the trouble with lower optimization is that you really can't challenge them in interesting ways. They simply don't have the breadth of tools to take on the challenge. The unoptimized party has one way of dealing with things - stab it until it dies. Which means every battle consists of a straightforward slugfest, and monsters that require a different approach simply can't be used. In D&D, this means nothing incorporeal, nothing with significant DR, and nothing that relies primarily on spellcasting.

Optimized characters are more fun because they can take on a wider breadth of challenges and not die. They can be challenged in interesting ways rather than simply be given variations on "this hits harder".

[Sarone]

As someone who prefers to DM for more highly optimized groups:

I've found the trouble with lower optimization is that you really can't challenge them in interesting ways. They simply don't have the breadth of tools to take on the challenge. The unoptimized party has one way of dealing with things - stab it until it dies. Which means every battle consists of a straightforward slugfest, and monsters that require a different approach simply can't be used. In D&D, this means nothing incorporeal, nothing with significant DR, and nothing that relies primarily on spellcasting.

Optimized characters are more fun because they can take on a wider breadth of challenges and not die. They can be challenged in interesting ways rather than simply be given variations on "this hits harder".

Welcome to WoW and World of 4th Ed.

Not to mention, this topic feels like it is about minmaxing and not optimizing. There's a significant difference between the two, but moslty in "how do I build my character" departments. I'll use Steve, a 1st Level fighter with a 20 point buy.

With minmaxing, Steve is a hulking brute of a man with a greatsword. His has max points in Strength and Constitution, with enough in Dex so he'll have a good Initiative and maybe in wisdom so he can spot traps and not botch a will save. However, he has a tendency of yelling "Steve smashes (whatever)", is not very sociable, and has problems with simple math problems.

With optimizing, Steve is a big man weilding the same greatsword. While he is not as strong or tough as minmaxed Steve, he is more well rounded. He isn't very sociable, since he plays the part of a scarred, rough mercenary, but he can talk to people and not be confused by simple math. He has a decent Intelligence and Wisdom, enough to to get a +1 out of both stats, and spends the rest of his points on a mix of Strength, con, and dex.

However, even this the two descriptions about, neither one is particularly good without a someone willing to roleplay them. The only thing the minmaxer is good for, honestly, is roll playing an encounter, which in this case trying to hit said enemy with a greatsword. The optimizer can have a life outside of combat, and be useful in non-combat situations, even if it's only "stand here and look tough."

But that's my view. I am definetely enjoying this topic, though.

[Totally Guy]

In an TT RPG you've got two basic forms of challenges, mechanical and non-mechanical. The advantage of the TT RPG is of course that non-mechanical challenges are a lot easier to do and a lot more common, but I think its best when you have both types available.

I'm not sure what you mean by a non-mechanical challenge. Can you elaborate?

[Erloas]

Not to mention, this topic feels like it is about minmaxing and not optimizing. There's a significant difference between the two, but moslty in "how do I build my character" departments.

Well min-maxing and certain levels of optimization. Since I'm not aware of a standard set of definitions of levels of optimization. I'm not trying to say a specifically poorly designed character would be good, but that some middle ground would be best. I would think that this "average" sort of optimization level would be able to handle incorporeal opponents and magic wielding opponents, but they aren't going to be the sort that is going to take a CR appropriate dragon out in 2 rounds of combat.

I'm not sure what you mean by a non-mechanical challenge. Can you elaborate?

I wasn't sure of a relatively short way of saying exactly what I meant. Basically challenges that involve more then rolling dice for attacks or skill checks. Things like puzzles and situations that require the player to think of something clever to get past. Something like crossing a river when you've got something you can't just swim with and can't just fly over with. Some social encounters that are handled via roleplaying rather then a couple diplomacy checks and a bluff or two.

[Gamer Girl]

I've never been a fan of optimization, and do agree with you.

Superman and Batman are great examples of what I see wrong with gaming. both of them are boring, invincible heroes. No bad guys, except the god like ones, stand a chance against them. It makes for a boring read when 'bad guy shoots Superman and he laughs''. So the comics do more 'story' based plots, where the hero can't use their awesome abilities and must complete the story(and they must forget how cool they are). And this type of story play has crept into D&D, especially 4E. Where the group is there to 'tell a story' and things like random acts and death never happen.


In my gaming style, players often have weak characters. Not every player must play a god-like character. I play with the types of people that like the challenge of normal characters.

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

[FatJose]

Part of that though is the journey. Superman and Batman are pretty cool,if you ask me. But only if they actually worked to get there. Not the case, though. Its like the point made about cheat codes. Instead of having adventures and the character developing until he becomes a dynamo, Superman is just instantly awesome and Batman is a super genius combatant. Superman and Batman classes can instantly cast 9th level spells and have Damage Reduction/40.

I think it would be a much more different story if we actually saw Superman get there over time. Batman trained for years and years, but all we really see is the result. Instead of being a high-level Rogue/Paladin/Monk/Whatever he's a level 1 Batman...which just happens to be a Rogue, Paladin, Monk Gestalt.

Sadly, the more balanced characters aren't as well known. Example, every group of teen super-heroes, especially the more obscure groupings and the JLA reject teams like Elongated Man, Blue Beetle and Booster Gold.

[Ashram]

I've never been a fan of optimization, and do agree with you.

Superman and Batman are great examples of what I see wrong with gaming. both of them are boring, invincible heroes. No bad guys, except the god like ones, stand a chance against them. It makes for a boring read when 'bad guy shoots Superman and he laughs''. So the comics do more 'story' based plots, where the hero can't use their awesome abilities and must complete the story(and they must forget how cool they are). And this type of story play has crept into D&D, especially 4E. Where the group is there to 'tell a story' and things like random acts and death never happen.


In my gaming style, players often have weak characters. Not every player must play a god-like character. I play with the types of people that like the challenge of normal characters.

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

Well, to be fair, if you're going for a fairly-low op game, Rath could be a decent finesse-rogue who focuses a bit more on stabbing people and pickpocketing rather than hunting for traps. :P

[SowZ]

I've never been a fan of optimization, and do agree with you.

Superman and Batman are great examples of what I see wrong with gaming. both of them are boring, invincible heroes. No bad guys, except the god like ones, stand a chance against them. It makes for a boring read when 'bad guy shoots Superman and he laughs''. So the comics do more 'story' based plots, where the hero can't use their awesome abilities and must complete the story(and they must forget how cool they are). And this type of story play has crept into D&D, especially 4E. Where the group is there to 'tell a story' and things like random acts and death never happen.


In my gaming style, players often have weak characters. Not every player must play a god-like character. I play with the types of people that like the challenge of normal characters.

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

How is Batman, a completely psychotic hero with what is dange near a God complex who gets off on beating people to near death and has NO powers boring? He is nowhere near invincible. He is often wary of a single enemy with a machine gun.

[Xanmyral]

It seems like your problem is less with general optimization, but rather with going way to far with it, I.E. Pun-Pun, going crazy with night sticks, Batman Wizard on crack. I'd have to agree that a perfect character is boring, and one of the reasons I really dislike Superman. I'd be fine with batman if he was the result of a few years worth of seasons that show him working towards what he is now, but it didn't. Onto the real discussion however... I only see people playing extremely heavily optimized characters when it is appropriate in the campaign, as in if the enemies are also as strong and such. Pretty much the only real problem with optimization is when it isn't necessary, and detracts from the original fun of the game. Like if someone played Pun-Pun in a game where people still think monks are the best thing ever.

[Blazen]

First, a quick note regarding Superman. Kryptonite is not his only weakness. He is still vulnerable to magic, radiation, and lantern rings. There are still objects, and creatures that can beat him through sheer force. Some of the things that he does are outdone by other characters (notably, The Flash is faster than him). Finally, he is solar powered. If he spends too much time away from a yellow Sun he is no better than any random civilian.

I also have to agree that optimizing is more fun because you can throw bigger challenges. In 4e, if a group is not too well optimized then they won't be able to handle many of the harder challenges.

[Talvereaux]

I like optimizing because you work to get there.

I think the big difference between an overpowered story character (like Superman) and an optimized character in gaming is that the former is powerful because they were wrote that way. No further effort is really needed. Want them to be the most powerful character ever made? Just say they're immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and it's done. Want them to have a solution for every problem to come up? That's easy, they're as prepared as you want them to be.

Meanwhile, the latter requires meticulous knowledge of the game's system to be created. For a character in an RPG to be played at their full potential, you plan ahead, crunch numbers, and weigh what powers are worth having, and which ones should be tossed, all to prepare for as many plausible situations as possible. This takes a thorough understanding of the metagame and creative thinking to make the character as adaptable to their surrounding campaign world as possible.

I like minmaxing because I think of it as a rewarding intellectual exercise. The same can not be said for making Supergod in a strictly narrative medium. I agree to finding overpowered characters to be rather dull in a story, but in a game, we're talking about a completely different medium, and different rules for making and operating strong characters.

[Talya]

Do you place ability scores in sensible places for the job you want to perform? If so, you're an optimizer.

Do you pick feats based on things you want your character to be able to do? If so, you're an optimizer.

Do you pick your class based on the function you want your character to have? If so, you're an optimizer.


People don't pick a d20 fighter and try to squeeze them into a skillmonkey or spellcaster job, because the class can't perform those functions. They're optimizers.

Optimizing simply means making sensible choices that allow you to build an effective character. This doesn't mean the character will have no weaknesses. It doesn't even mean they'll be overpowered. A d20 fighter optimized to high heaven with the most cheesy tactics possible still can't keep up to a druid with only the barest minimum of optimization (like having a high wisdom and constitution.) That fighter will have some glaring weaknesses. The druid probably won't have any glaring weaknesses. (That's a function of d20 3.x, not optimizing.) Optimizing simply means building a character in a manner that lets them do their job reasonably competently.

[Jude_H]

I get the feeling that the meaning and use of 'Optimize' have finally gotten that divorce.

[Erloas]

I like optimizing because you work to get there.

That depends really. I don't know most of the 3.5 splatbooks, but I could come here and spend a couple minutes reading a thread or simply posting "I'm looking for X" and someone else can do all the work for me. And I think that is at least common enough that a lot of high powered builds have specific names to them and the ideas are common enough that a lot of people are doing them. It seems rare, maybe even impossible, to come up with something that other people haven't already seen, though its a given that not everyone will have checked online and you can find the same thing on your own without knowing others already figured it out.

And not all games start at level 1, I would actually be surprised if most games started at level 3 or less, though thats the sort of thing that would be hard to measure. In which case a lot of the earlier, more awkward levels before the combos really start kicking in, are not even worked through. So you do sort of just skip the build up and go to the super power.

[WarKitty]

That depends really. I don't know most of the 3.5 splatbooks, but I could come here and spend a couple minutes reading a thread or simply posting "I'm looking for X" and someone else can do all the work for me. And I think that is at least common enough that a lot of high powered builds have specific names to them and the ideas are common enough that a lot of people are doing them. It seems rare, maybe even impossible, to come up with something that other people haven't already seen, though its a given that not everyone will have checked online and you can find the same thing on your own without knowing others already figured it out.

And not all games start at level 1, I would actually be surprised if most games started at level 3 or less, though thats the sort of thing that would be hard to measure. In which case a lot of the earlier, more awkward levels before the combos really start kicking in, are not even worked through. So you do sort of just skip the build up and go to the super power.

Actually a part of optimization (at least for me) is building a character that has tricks that work all the way up. A character that doesn't have to suffer through being useless at any particular level - while that may make a decent story, I've found in a roleplaying game having a character that's ineffective frustrates the entire table. Many of the non-optimized builds simply don't have much to contribute to a fight at higher levels, other than standing around leaning on their swords.

[Gorgondantess]

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

That's because Rath is an example from 2e AD&D, where stats worked very differently. Indeed, Rath could be a rogue or wizard as effectively as pretty much anyone else, as in AD&D stats between 6 and 16 had little to no mechanical effect on a character except for class qualifications and Nonweapon Proficiencies. It's not the mindset, it's the system. Using Rath as an example is like using an example from a system where having 5 in a stat is a high number- it's simply not applicable. 2e AD&D and 3.5 are only superficially similar systems, but the actual mechanics have little to no relation.

[Talvereaux]

That depends really. I don't know most of the 3.5 splatbooks, but I could come here and spend a couple minutes reading a thread or simply posting "I'm looking for X" and someone else can do all the work for me. And I think that is at least common enough that a lot of high powered builds have specific names to them and the ideas are common enough that a lot of people are doing them. It seems rare, maybe even impossible, to come up with something that other people haven't already seen, though its a given that not everyone will have checked online and you can find the same thing on your own without knowing others already figured it out.

There are multiple cookie cutter builds because there is no universal 'perfect' build. It all varies with the constraints and circumstances of the surrounding campaign world.

A lot of spells or feats are context-sensitive, and vary between being unusable and perfect depending on what your DM throws at you. For instance, the choice to prepare Entangle and Plant Growth can end up either rewarding or a sad waste depending on whether your session ends up in a forest or a stone fortress.

The famous "mages are Batman" allegory comes from the class being centered on preparation and forethought. The player needs to know how to make informed choices and be proactive to adapt to what happens next. If you're really just copy-pasting guides without mentally absorbing something out of it, or being prepared to make creative choices, you aren't going to run to the best of your ability.

And not all games start at level 1, I would actually be surprised if most games started at level 3 or less, though thats the sort of thing that would be hard to measure. In which case a lot of the earlier, more awkward levels before the combos really start kicking in, are not even worked through. So you do sort of just skip the build up and go to the super power.

It doesn't matter if you start from level 1 or 21. You still need to build your character.

[Talya]

I get the feeling that the meaning and use of 'Optimize' have finally gotten that divorce.

Not really, because my example of the definition of optimizing covers all possible levels of it.

let's say you rolled your stats, as a 3.5 wizard, and got a 17, 15, 12, 11, and 8.

Putting the 17 in intelligence? That's optimizing. Is there a problem with that?

That's not fundamentally different than building a killer gnome super-illusionist. It's just a matter of how far you take it. If you think optimizing is a problem, then you have an issue with people assigning their ability scores appropriately.

Perhaps it's just "extreme" levels of optimization one has an issue with. But then you have to define it. At what point does it become a problem? When does it start to be an issue? Is it an issue of power? The ability to dominate gameplay and trivialize encounters? A 3rd edition monk who optimizes as extremely as possible is still going to lag behind the party, whereas the 3rd edition druid who barely pays attention to optimizing will likely still dominate every encounter. So why is the monk's optimizing an issue? Why is the druid who didn't optimize not a problem when they're still trivializing gameplay?

Blanket statements indicating a "problem with optimization" don't really take these things into account. Where's the dividing line? How to you categorize the difference between cheese and simple smart play? It's not always going to be so easy.

I once thought it was the height of cheese to stack the Dervish PrC (in Complete Warrior, 3.5) with the Scout class, because people would get skirmish damage on every single attack. I considered that tacky, over-the-top munchkinism, stacking of synergistic features. But it does nothing to trivialize gameplay. It's not even a very good option. So where do you draw the line? Where's the level of optimization you think is unacceptable? Pun-pun? Well yes, I agree with you there. Just playing a druid? How about that? In some campaigns, that's enough optimization right there to ruin everyone's experience. I don't think it's cheese to pick a primary option in the SRD, though.

Where is the line in the sand between acceptable and unacceptable levels of optimization?

[Kilo24]

Character optimization is about understanding the rules to the game and doing what you can to make the most competent character within a given set of constraints. It is about minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths - but a well-designed rules system will not let let you eliminate weaknesses.

3rd edition and its later brethren have had so much added with time to it that things like Pun-Pun slip through. With the glut of material held to inconsistent standards, they cease to be well-designed and house rules/DM fiat/agreements are required to make them playable and/or fun.

Optimization is not a problem. Shoddy, unbalanced rules are.

Unfortunately, balancing to a significant degree becomes expensive in time and effort, so there's a lot of shoddy, unbalanced rules out there. A lot of things intended to be viable choices in RPGs simply aren't or are so powerful that they are the only viable choice. If the majority of choices are crap, that's fine for the people who know the rules well (and for the company selling you all this extra material) - they'll just realize that the options are worthless. Where the problem occurs is when players come in and don't have the time or effort (or money) to wade through all the crap. They just accept the premise that all classes and options are roughly equal, because they can't afford exploring the deeper premises. So they make unoptimized characters that don't take advantage of all their options.

Playing with both optimized and unoptimized characters is the biggest source of "problems with optimization", because the unoptimized characters will be relatively ineffective. The DM can't challenge the optimized players without also slaughtering the unoptimized ones. And in games with lots of options, the people who put in a lot of effort to compare all the options are vastly outnumbered by the people who don't, making them the people who stick out and therefore the easiest targets. Especially when there's a vast difference in capabilities between supposedly equal options (like with spellcasters in pre-4th-edition D&D).

But, if the optimized characters support the party well then that can be alleviated (this is one of the things that 4th edition does really well with in combat - encourage party collaboration.) That way, the unoptimized characters are directly benefitting from their optimized teammates.

[shadow_archmagi]

No weaknesses? Most optimization I see is designed to increase strengths rather than decrease weaknesses. A shock-trooper greataxe build hasn't removed any fundamental flaw from the Fighter; he still can't knit baskets or use diplomacy. He just hits harder than he previously hit.

[Totally Guy]

Are you sure the problem you have is with optimisation or could it be that you have a problem with situations that have optimal responses?

I mean I can totally see an argument for that.

Do I save my friend or kill the leader or the orcs? If the answer is both (with very little creativity required) then the choice wasn't a real choice. Is that kind of situation a thing that you try to make prominent in your gaming sessions?

The existence of optimal choices (because, when analysed, they aren't really choices at all) within the gameplay is different from players choosing optimal choices at character creation. But I guess they're related...

If you are trying to make "love or vengeance" type situations in the game then, to a degree, d&d style optimisation could lead to these being particularly contrived.

Another thing to consider is that players tend to create characters that interact with the part of the game the player is most interested in. Lets say I make a fighter. In most cases that's me saying to the GM, "I wants to see lots of fights in this game". If you look at an optimised character from this viewpoint you might see a more refined scope of challenge that'd be a turn on for the player.

[Jude_H]

Where is the line in the sand between acceptable and unacceptable levels of optimization?

This is what I mean.

An "optimized" D&D character is almost never optimal. Unless it involves an omnipotence trick (which are almost universally frowned upon), it does have weaknesses and it can't do everything on its own.

Much of the OP seems founded in the denotative use of "optimal." It is understandable, but misguided.

The parts about the process of tinkering, trying to make things better, seems to be a separate argument relating to adherence to archetypes. That's a completely different discussion than most of the OP and this thread, so I'm not going to touch it.

[Lord Raziere]

optimizing is not making common sense decisions that make sense for the character.

it is going too far and outright go beyond what makes sense for them and making them too powerful for the level they are supposed to be.

if its common sense and everyone does it, it ain't optimizing. optimizing is people trying to be better than the norm and becoming overpowered, while people who make sub-optimal choices intentionally are just weakening the group. both optimizers and anti-optimizers are detrimental to group balance.

[WarKitty]

optimizing is not making common sense decisions that make sense for the character.

it is going too far and outright go beyond what makes sense for them and making them too powerful for the level they are supposed to be.

if its common sense and everyone does it, it ain't optimizing. optimizing is people trying to be better than the norm and becoming overpowered, while people who make sub-optimal choices intentionally are just weakening the group. both optimizers and anti-optimizers are detrimental to group balance.

This is...not what most of us mean by the word "optimizing." That's min-maxing. Different beast altogether.

[shadow_archmagi]

optimizing is not making common sense decisions that make sense for the character.

it is going too far and outright go beyond what makes sense for them and making them too powerful for the level they are supposed to be.

if its common sense and everyone does it, it ain't optimizing. optimizing is people trying to be better than the norm and becoming overpowered, while people who make sub-optimal choices intentionally are just weakening the group. both optimizers and anti-optimizers are detrimental to group balance.

If optimizing is exclusive to the realm of going too far, what do you call decisions that fall between "Obvious" and "Extreme?"

Redefining the word to mean "only the bad thing" isn't really beneficial to the discussion.

[Lord Raziere]

If optimizing is exclusive to the realm of going too far, what do you call decisions that fall between "Obvious" and "Extreme?"

Redefining the word to mean "only the bad thing" isn't really beneficial to the discussion.

I call those decisions "dangerous", I call them things that should be handled carefully and with thought.