"Power gamer" hate?

[BreaktheStatue]

Disclaimer: I am relatively new to pen & paper RPGs, having played about two dozen sessions of 5E, total, in three different groups, although most of those are with my current group. That said, I invest a lot of "off-time" in the hobby, in reading theorycraft, designing characters, forum lurking, etc. (but I am not claiming to be an expert).

Also, this isn't intended to be a dig at "non-power gamers" disguised as a question, I am honestly curious if I am the only person who has observed this, and I'd like the opinions of more experienced gamers.

Definition: I understand "power gamer" or "munchkin" to mean someone that spends what others judge to be an inordinate amount of time optimizing their character, usually to maximize damage output in combat, while ignoring other aspects of the game - although I've noticed there are those who basically look down their nose at anyone who likes high damage in combat.

Background: I get enjoyment out of the process of building and optimizing characters. I like the game, and I like to make characters who are useful at at least one thing. I've played a grand total of 3 characters, but drawn-up probably close to 30 - not just rolling stats, but full character concepts, concise but comprehensive backstories - the whole nine. Maximizing damage is not my only concern, but unless I'm specifically trying to create a more dedicated support character, it is a strong consideration.

In my current game, my PC has pretty high nova damage output, by design. That said, I gave him a fleshed-out backstory, and as far as my DM and I (and the others in my group, as far as I know), are concerned, I've justified the mechanical workings of my character with a backstory that makes sense. I roleplay (with a voice and everything!), I enjoy out-of-combat, but yes, my character is effective in combat, and he hits hard.


TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"


Random Observation:

I think part of the reason people might choose to optimize for combat damage, rather than other aspects of the game, is that the rules for straight-up, combat damage (especially melee damage), seem to be the most consistently applied regardless of the group one joins, and the situation one finds oneself in, in game.

The first character I ever made was a gnome illusionist wizard with no damage spells; I read Treatmonk's guide, and wanted to make a slick, fun support caster. This guy was basically the "anti-Munchkin" - nothing but battlefield control, fun tricks for out of combat, and INT skills. I pre-cleared this with the DM (who I am no longer with), and he seemed cool with the idea. In practice, he second guessed everything I tried to do, (Why wouldn't the guard just go over and touch the rock/tree/illusion?), and I didn't stay with the group for long.

[Nifft]

To me, the derogatory meaning of Power Gamer would be appropriate when one player's power fantasy interferes with the fun of the other players.

This power might be engineered using the game's rules -- that would be a power gamer using optimization.

Alternately, this power might be engineered using social pressure on the DM / other players -- that would still be a power gamer, but not necessarily optimized in any meaningful way.


The non-derogatory meaning would be that the player likes getting new powers, and likes the feeling of character growth, so ensure that level-ups happen without too much delay and that player will be happier. This meaning of Power Gamer is not problematic.

[Quertus]

TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"

This is way too much human psychology for this early in the morning

IMO, power gaming involves maximizing the capabilities of the character, and viewing the character as a playing piece rather than a person. I may be wrong on those terms.

D&D is a group game, not a competition. The goal isn't to make the singularly most powerful playing piece you can, and show it off to your friends / brag about it. The disgust is for those braggerts who cannot see past themselves to the larger picture, who have no empathy, no concern for the enjoyment of others. IME.

IMO, you want to create a character who is within the range of what your group enjoys. Now, mind you, I've literally played a sentient potted plant in a game beside a Thor-like deity, so the size of the range that your group finds fun can vary greatly. Needless to say, I like big... ranges. I think balance is overrated, and, in fact, an unrealistic component, and a detriment to fun. But some groups like Combat as Sport, strongly enforced balance - for them, a lack of balance is a detriment to fun.

So, know your group. Know what range of power levels is acceptable. And play something in that range. Play for fun.

Happily, with all the characters you've made, you've got options.

Random Observation:

I think part of the reason people might choose to optimize for combat damage, rather than other aspects of the game, is that the rules for straight-up, combat damage (especially melee damage), seem to be the most consistently applied regardless of the group one joins, and the situation one finds oneself in, in game.

The first character I ever made was a gnome illusionist wizard with no damage spells; I read Treatmonk's guide, and wanted to make a slick, fun support caster. This guy was basically the "anti-Munchkin" - nothing but battlefield control, fun tricks for out of combat, and INT skills. I pre-cleared this with the DM (who I am no longer with), and he seemed cool with the idea. In practice, he second guessed everything I tried to do, (Why wouldn't the guard just go over and touch the rock/tree/illusion?), and I didn't stay with the group for long.

I'm glad you left.

[Pelle]

IMO, power gaming involves maximizing the capabilities of the character, and viewing the character as a playing piece rather than a person. I may be wrong on those terms.

Yeah, I think this describes my feelings on it. What I find fun about rpgs is representing the fiction and expressing the characters. When it is obvious that people don't care about that, and only the mechanics themselves, there's no point in playing a rpg. It's not wrong, but then I would rather play an actual good boardgame, which I have plenty of.

[LibraryOgre]

IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else. To make matters worse, you might have situations where some of the group is intentionally avoiding situations where the power-gamer's ability can be shown off... if I make an uber-combat character but the rest of the group made stealthy plotters, might uber-combat character is likely going to be sidelined a lot, since I can't necessarily contribute to the play-style the rest of the group wants.

When EVERYONE is power-gaming, you can have a ton of fun. The tonal match put everyone on the same page. It winds up playing out like the A-Team, where threats keep getting bigger but your characters get bigger to match them. If only one person is power-gaming, you wind up with either one person carrying the entire load, or with one person completely side-lined as the party participates in things that their character does extremely poorly.

[Kaptin Keen]

TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"

I have no strong feelings either way - but it's indisbutable that I cannot play with power gamers, because I'm simply not the GM for it. Nor the player, but that's another matter.

1: When power gaming has been a notable trait in players - it has always been problematic. One example was a guy who wanted to play, if I remember correctly, a half-dragon warlock of some sort. But then, he'd really like to dispense with the rules for level adjustment. So in other words, what he really wanted was to build a character that got a bunch of powers and hitdice for free.

That's a somewhat extreme example, but it serves to illustrate the point: The guy was incapable of comprehending how being totally out of line with everyone else's character was a problem.

2: I make no real distinction.

3: I'd say 'playing as a group'. Or maybe 'playing your role'. But to me, it's really a GM job to make sure the group is functional as a whole. High or low optimizing is irrelevant - but everyone should be similarly optimized.

[tensai_oni]

Power gaming isn't about optimization. It's about player attitude.

It's an attitude of playing a roleplaying game "to win". Rather than understanding that this type of gaming is built around everyone at the table working together to have a good time (and yes, this includes the GM too), you take on an actively antagonistic stance that assumes the whole thing is a challenge for you to beat. Of course what follows are attempts at amassing as much power/magic weapons/etc as possible, and optimizing your build as much as you can - but it's not because it makes sense for your character to do so or because you want to contribute in the game, but because you want to be the number one.

This also means every single decision made ingame is made from a meta perspective, with the assumption that less than optimal choices will be somehow punished. Sadly, that part is often a result of poor experience with past GMs.

On the other hand, not everyone who is optimizing their character is automatically a worse player or roleplayer, nor is a poorly optimized character automatically better. This kind of thinking is known as the Stormwind Fallacy, and people who believe in it are just as annoying as powergamers themselves.

[kyoryu]

IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else. To make matters worse, you might have situations where some of the group is intentionally avoiding situations where the power-gamer's ability can be shown off... if I make an uber-combat character but the rest of the group made stealthy plotters, might uber-combat character is likely going to be sidelined a lot, since I can't necessarily contribute to the play-style the rest of the group wants.

This, exactly.

The issue with "power gamers" (and, at a baser level, the disparity that some systems allow in character power) is that you end up with two choices:

1) Accept the imbalance, and that some characters are basically going to be extras.
2) Everyone power-games.

For people (like me) that don't really enjoy the optimization part of the game, this is basically being caught between two undesirable outcomes.

[2D8HP]

When does optimization become "power gaming?.

I read the term "Powergamer" decades before I ever saw the term "optimization" in an article called

Aspects of Adventure Gaming

by Glen Blacow

("Adventure Game was briefly a term used instead of "Wargame or "Role-playing game", I still like it better)

that appeared in

Different Worlds magazine.

IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not....

This +1.

It just about "Different Strokes".

I think of myself as a bit of a power game, and a bit of a story teller, I'm just bad at both.

I sometimes see a rules mechanic that looks like it may be fun so it inspires a character, but to a limit.

I won't change my "not"Robin Hood to being a "not"Dr. Strange just 'cause "power".

I've never had much trouble with playing with "optimizers" except when they hassle me about playing "sub-optimal", "Why are you playing a Rogue? You rolled an 18, you must play a Wizard"!, which was annoying, but not as much as when I've been hassled about my subpar role-playing (improvisational acting abilities), which really ticks me off even and especially when it's true.

Some of us just aren't that good at it, okay?

[Pleh]

IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else.

This adds that the problem can swing the other way, with a power gaming group frustrated by someone throwing all the brakes down by fluff centric characters insisting on traversing the game through role play rather than executing character abilities.

It's easy to point and label "power gamers" but less easy to see when trying to make the game match a lower level of power and competitive use of rules likewise becomes disruptive to play and selfish.

[tedcahill2]

If I had to make a distinction between optimizers and power gamers I would say it almost comes down to the difference between people using rules as written v rules as intended.

An optimizer will use all of the rules at their disposal to create a character that's as good as possible at the thing they're optimizing.

A power gamer will do the same thing as an optimizer, but will use whatever interpretation of the rules will most benefit their goal of optimization. Instead of thinking about what makes sense they simply look for every possible loophole to maximize their character.

For example, all Dragonfire Adept class guides try to find a way to obtain a breath weapon with a cool down represented in rounds (a requirement for the very powerful metabreath feats, which are arguably not intended for PCs to begin with). Optimizers/power gamers look to take advantage of the fact that, even though the feat requires a breath weapon with a cooldown, it doesn't say you can't apply it to other breathweapons you have. So after meeting the requirement they can then add the metabreath effect to their class obtained breath weapon which has no cooldown.

[Anymage]

One of the biggest problems is when the power gamer steps on other players toes by outshining their characters. Either in their area of competence (why be a rogue when you can have Invisibility and Knock spells?), or by forcing everything into their area of expertise (if the scene isn't a combat scene, start punching people until it becomes a combat scene). Both are things most of us have experienced in our earliest days of gaming.

From a DMing perspective such outliers can make it hard to balance group encounters, and sometimes by their being able to shove the DM's plans far outside what was reasonably prepared for. Either by teleporting to a whole other continent - the rest of the party not necessarily coming along for the ride - or else behaving like the aforementioned brawl starter.

[LordEntrails]

A lot of good points above. I will add that a lot of "hate" is always grounded in personal experience. Maybe someone who hates "power gamers" had a bad experience with one or more. Maybe they had their character or play style derided by one.

The reverse is true as well, that their are those who "hate" those who don't optimize their characters or who always want to talk to the trolls, or worry too much about backstory and character interaction.

It's just easy to label, and attack, power gamers, optimizers, and min/maxers.

I think most gamers find over time that they go through most of the types of gamers. When I was a teen, I wanted to be the story book hero. The god-killer, super hero. When I was in my twenties I did what you do, make a hundred character concepts, min/max, and see what was possible. At other times I've played the barbarian with 8 Strength and a backstory many pages long. Now, sometimes I min/max, sometimes I play fluff, sometimes I do bizarre stuff. Now I'm happy to play a hundred different ways and a hundred different character concepts. They all have potential for fun and depending upon the group, our mood, and desires, we work out something that we can all have fun with.

[Talakeal]

I read the term "Powergamer" decades before I ever saw the term "optimization"?

It is my understanding that power-gaming is a very old term while optimization is a much more recent one which was invented to "rebrand" the same behavior with a positive spin.

[martixy]

Rather than looking at arbitrary lines in the sand, which everyone draws in different places(read: arguing terms/semantics), I'll just address the underlying issue.

WHY does this attitude exist?

The answer is relatively simple actually.
The attitude exists in the public/group conscious. It is tribal knowledge within the D&D/TTRPG community. It persists, because in general it allows said group to operate more efficiently. Why? Because statistically power gaming in a majority of cases is a red flag and a strong indicator of other problems on the horizon. So a general stance of "hate" results in a better result for the entire group overall. It is strongly self-reinforcing in that the bad power gamers are filthy munchkins everyone should be warned about, while the good power gamers are not power gamers, but valuable party members, that you want to have in your party for those clutch moments. Social dynamics 101.

[OldTrees1]

Overloaded Words: Like many other areas of language, several words in our gaming vocabulary end up having many different definitions even to the same person. Which meaning is being used affects the usage of the word.

For example Munchkin is a derogatory term but the precise criticism invoked changes based on context. When I first encountered the word, on a forum, it seemed to be used to indicate someone with a powerful character. Not a week later I saw it being used, in an RPG webcomic, to indicate a player that was willing to cheat in order to get enough power to always be the most powerful. Then I encountered it being used, in a boardgame, to indicate someone willing to play against and betray their comrades in order to become the most powerful.

Power Gamer also suffers from this overloading but from a different direction. As a self describing term it maintains its definition of "Gamer" modified by the modifier "Power". However the vagueness of that modifier lead to the some drift in how people used the term. Then it got more drift when the term started to include features seen to derive from those definitions. A usage indicating "A player that seeks to have a powerful character" could gain the qualifier "And ends up causing the troubles that derive from an increasing power gap in the party".

Even optimizer has some minor overloading due to preconceptions about what is being optimized and whether the speaker agrees or disagrees with the stormwind fallacy.

Players are not Archetypes: I know this goes without saying but the terms Optimizer, Power Gamer, and Munchkin in their various usages all become archetypes but the people talking about them also draw upon their own personal experiences with actual Players. When those Players don't perfectly match the speaker's original usage of the term, then the speaker tends to amend their usage of the term rather than speak in a more verbose manner.

So what is the root of this contention?: While it can be summed up as a tonal disparity, I want to examine it further.
1) Players have preferences about how powerful they want this specific character at this specific level to be in this specific campaign. Such power is measured both relatively and objectively and those preferences can differ (Ex: Bob wants this bumbling fool to be able to wield a sword well enough to hit people effectively but for their swordplay to be a laughing stock compared to even a commoner's). Obviously these preferences tend to be ranges rather than single points. Furthermore the player will certainly have these preferences differ across different facets of the character.

Consequences: It only takes two people before it becomes possible to have mutually exclusive preferences on this matter despite having different characters. Anytime there is enough discord between these preferences you will see strain. How people react/handle this strain has a big impact on the outcome.

2) Players have many different aspects they value about the RPG they are playing. The degree to which they value each aspect can vary wildly. Importantly some of those aspects are about how the other people are the table are feeling about an aspect of the game. This is where you get both "I want player X to feel weaker than my character" and "I want my character to fit the group" despite the complete opposite tone.

So how do I see these terms: (from among their many usages)
Munchkin - A player that wants to have a more powerful character than the group but does not value the feelings of the other players or values them in a negative manner ("Help me break this DM"). As a consequence they have little reason to avoid deliberate cheating in order to reach the power they want.

Power Gamer (objective) - A player that wants a powerful character.
Power Gamer (relative) - A player that wants their character to be more powerful than I want my character to be (if I am a Player) or than I want the PCs to be (if I am the DM). Then we need to talk about that and see if there is want to increase both our enjoyment.

Optimizer (naive) - A player that wants a character that is really strong in general or really strong at X. Also sometimes called minmaxer as they are either "maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses" or "maximizing strengths by increasing weaknesses" (yeah I know, another overloaded word).
Optimizer (mature) - A player that wants to figure out how to use the mechanics to best express their character concept. Highly likely to end up with a strong character as a consequence of both intentional inclusion and side effects "features that were bundled with the features they wanted".

Conclusion: Sometimes strain is caused through the interplay between the mixture of negative, neutral, and positive player preferences different players have. Sometimes the strain causes someone to have negative associations against a negative or neutral player preference and even create terms to better communicate their negative associations. Those terms become overloaded with many different meanings. Some describe, in a derogatory manner, a negative player preference while others describe, in a derogatory manner, a neutral player preference that the speaker happens to have had bad experiences with.

Explicit Answers to the OP's questions: (although they are answered above)
1) Yes, I have only ever seen Munchkin used in a derogatory manner and I see Power Gamer flip between being used in derogatory and neutral manners. Optimizer is overwhelmingly used in neutral or even positive (huh?) manners but is rarely also used in a derogatory manner.

2) From the definitions I listed above the Optimizer(naive) and Power Gamer(objective) definitions are really similar. Both definitions of Optimizer I listed tend towards my definition of Power Gamer(relative) depending on how much the other players optimize their characters. Although the Optimizer(mature) is less at risk for the same level of system mastery.

3) A good alternative to Power Gamer(Objective) is Optimizer(Mature) as a side effect of the more nuanced objective you seek. However there is nothing wrong with Power Gamer(Objective) as I defined it as long as you work out any problems that might arise if the players in the group want different power levels.

[Quertus]

IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else. To make matters worse, you might have situations where some of the group is intentionally avoiding situations where the power-gamer's ability can be shown off... if I make an uber-combat character but the rest of the group made stealthy plotters, might uber-combat character is likely going to be sidelined a lot, since I can't necessarily contribute to the play-style the rest of the group wants.

When EVERYONE is power-gaming, you can have a ton of fun. The tonal match put everyone on the same page. It winds up playing out like the A-Team, where threats keep getting bigger but your characters get bigger to match them. If only one person is power-gaming, you wind up with either one person carrying the entire load, or with one person completely side-lined as the party participates in things that their character does extremely poorly.

While you're not wrong, I must say that balance isn't required. I've played a sentient potted plant alongside "Thor", as an extreme example. In such a scenario, where the players don't care about balance, power gaming as a derogative isn't a thing.

Also, the mostly sidelined combat powerhouse in the party of stealthy plotters sounds like a fun game, IMO, regardless of which of those I was playing. Actually, I think I've played all 4 variants of [in the majority / only] cross [combat monster / stealthy planner]... Good times. Much like Shadowrun, it kinda enforces spotlight sharing.

One example was a guy who wanted to play, if I remember correctly, a half-dragon warlock of some sort.

In what version of what system is this playable, let alone good, let alone power gaming?

[RazorChain]

For me tinkering with characters and making them powerful has never been a problem either as a player or a game master. Character that can do ton of damage isn't going to disrupt the game as combat is just one small aspect of the game. The problem is with people who think the player is disrupting the game or the GM who can't cope with the munchkin character.

I play a lot with point buy systems so the Uber munchkin combat character often will be useless in other situations. My games are maybe 10-15% combat so who cares if the uber munchkin combat character gets to shine for a few minutes.

The most boring thing IMO is when the players always want to take optimal choices. To make drama you have to expose yourself to drama and sometimes taking sub optimal choices leads to more interesting situations.

I mean...it's not like I take optimal choices during my life

[denthor]

I have slightly different take. Power gamers/optimizers tend to want to take a me first attitude.
Then they start to complain you do not do as much as they do. So they get resentful put you over your head and actively attempt to get other players killed(by going for what they are geared for). If that fails them they then generally deride you for not knowing how to play correctly.

There is another aspect you may not have considered you as a player with knowledge of the books. Have secret knowledge your character that you control would or may not have access to. Imagine you are in the game world for real life. How would you find out about all of the fears and combinations needed to complete the chain to get yourself to be that great at doing damage.

In real life opportunity is missed all the time. Ninja'ed by razor chain. And he said it better

[Kaptin Keen]

In what version of what system is this playable, let alone good, let alone power gaming?

I didn't say it was. But I said that he wanted to play a templated character at zero LA. I believe he wanted to play a lizardman, add the halfdragon on top, for a total of +1 HD, +4 LA, +7 natural armor ... and so on, and so forth. So, while he might not have been good at it - he was certainly greedy enough.

[Rhedyn]

Anyone who is playing for the power fantasy and only the power fantasy is a power gamer of the kind that tends to not work well in groups.

Making mechanically decent characters is just part of caring about this hobby, it doesn't make a power gamer.

Power gamer is also used as an insult directed at who ever makes stronger characters than the one throwing the insult around. Throwing such insults tends to be a sign of insecurities or a crippling fear that the game they like isn't designed or balanced well.

[kyoryu]

Throwing such insults tends to be a sign of insecurities or a crippling fear that the game they like isn't designed or balanced well.

I was with you until this sentence.

Some people just don't like optimizing. Having differing levels of optimization in a group essentially forces everyone to either match that level of optimization or be irrelevant.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Games that can be broken with optimization tend to be badly designed games.

[Tvtyrant]

The tilt about optimization is part of the inherent problem/advantage of RPGs: You have to play multiple games.

Character building is often dull, takes far more nuance then playing the character, and instead of learning a sheet you learn all of the same rulebooks as the DM.

As it is not only not fun for many players and takes a lot of time and effort, that it overshadows them in actual play can be galling. Like that guy who plays fighting games on his free time at a party, it quickly changes the tone of the game and can lead to resentment.

[Florian]

@BreakTheStatue:

The "hate" for power games and a "RAW über alles!" attitude are closely linked. D&D/PF is a very complex and rules heavy game, which can have the unfortunate side effect that you can break it by combining the "right" stuff. Now you can basically say that the split in the community is exactly along this fault line, one side understanding finding these combinations and using them as the right thing to do, the other arguing that no-one has the right to break the game. If you want, it´s like talking about glitches in Metroid and whether you should or shouldn't use them or are entitled to use them.

The main issue is, that for a game that thrives on being "balanced", a truck-load of available options are just heavily unbalanced and you can either understand that and avoid them, or target them and use them because of that.

[kyoryu]

The tilt about optimization is part of the inherent problem/advantage of RPGs: You have to play multiple games.

Character building is often dull, takes far more nuance then playing the character, and instead of learning a sheet you learn all of the same rulebooks as the DM.

As it is not only not fun for many players and takes a lot of time and effort, that it overshadows them in actual play can be galling. Like that guy who plays fighting games on his free time at a party, it quickly changes the tone of the game and can lead to resentment.

The issue isn't that any particular level of optimization is "bad". They're not.

The issue is when people have differing ideas about what level of optimization is appropriate for the same game. Much like other types of expectation issues, the issue is not the preference itself, but incompatibility between differing preferences.

[Lord Raziere]

I was with you until this sentence.

Some people just don't like optimizing. Having differing levels of optimization in a group essentially forces everyone to either match that level of optimization or be irrelevant.

Agreed. when I want to play a barbarian hero who risks life and limb to protect innocent people, its kind of undercut by the next guy over being a super-powerful wizard who seeks complete immortality and proceeds to destroy the foes easily before the barbarian hero gets to do anything. Just isn't fun for me.

[kyoryu]

Agreed. when I want to play a barbarian hero who risks life and limb to protect innocent people, its kind of undercut by the next guy over being a super-powerful wizard who seeks complete immortality and proceeds to destroy the foes easily before the barbarian hero gets to do anything. Just isn't fun for me.

And if you make the foes tough enough that they're not inst-blatted, then the barbarian can't scratch them.

I mean, I also come from decades of GURPS, where the expectation is that the GM will approve characters and keep them on an even-ish keel.

[tedcahill2]

Games that can be broken with optimization tend to be badly designed games.

I disagree. I think D&D 3.5 is a game that had a pretty good core design, but over it's 10+ years of development the core design started to evolve and you ended up with a very swingy balance scale as a result.

[Tvtyrant]

The issue isn't that any particular level of optimization is "bad". They're not.

The issue is when people have differing ideas about what level of optimization is appropriate for the same game. Much like other types of expectation issues, the issue is not the preference itself, but incompatibility between differing preferences.

Exactly. With RPGs, like CCGs, the issue is very much about time outside of playing spent analyzing data. To people who like analyzing data this is a feature, to those who don't it is a bug.