Well, as far as I have seen, many people can't understand why someone would like optimizing. Most of the time, optimization is shuned by a lot of people, and seen as douchebaggery and wanting to feel superior. Most of the attacks against optimization revolve around three aspects which, as far as I can see, only one of them is really acceptable in itself against optimization as a whole.
First one is related to the character building process, and the idea that an optimized character is intrinsically worse in inmersion and roleplaying than a non optimized character. We have disproved this time and again with things like the Stormwind Fallacy and similar ideas.
Another is related to the fact that optimization is only a way to play this game we call D&D. In a group where optimization is not intended to be used, an optimizer forcing his own paradigm will be disruptive to the game. In a sense, the group and the optimizer aren't playing the same game, and both should talk in order to find a solution. It may be the optimizer setting aside his ways for any game with said group, the optimizer leaving the group in search for a more suitable group for his gaming needs, or the group finding a middle ground. The same can be said about a group of optimizers, in which a non-optimizer will be disruptive in the same way. This is, in my opinion, a valid point, although it's not a problem intrinsical to optimization, but to different gamestyles altogether.
The third attack, and the one I'll be focusing on this thread, is the assumed goal of an optimizer by non-optimizers. Most people I know who are into roleplaying games but aren't optimizers assume every optimizer is an egotist bastard who only wants to get the spotlight and enlarge his own ego by showing anyone else how powerful is his di... *ahem* character. Of course, it isn't like there aren't people like that, and because they are usually the loudest group, many people tends to group all min/maxers with them, including optimizers with far more reasonable ideas in mind.
In fact, in my experience, optimizers have a wide range of reasons to optimize, and that shows in the kind of optimizing they do. As a thought experiment, I'd like to point the different reasons to optimize, or, in other words, the different models of optimization one can do. As far as I know, I've found most peopled to stand for the following models:
-Powergaming. This is the expected "optimizer". The kind of person who uses min/maxing to fap to his own "awesomeness", and have the idea that you can win in D&D. Not win the game as a whole, but win against the DM and the other players. It's usually asumed to be a kid. The term Powergamer is used to define these if they know the rules and work by them. Else, they usually are called munchkins, if they fail and try to cheat.
-Theoretical Optimizer: This is the kind of optimizer who likes crunching numbers for the sake of theoretical thought. It's not the playability of a character that matters, but the achievment of goals within a given idea. This kind of optimizing, in itself, can be further broken in cathegories, I think. For example:
> Perfectionism: Some people aren't happy unless the character they are creating is the best he can be. This is different than the powergaming in that the value of optimization is not in the ability it grants to fare better than other players. This is the OCD kind of optimization, where one is unhappy unless the character, by its own merits, is the best it can be, usually within a set of constrains accepted and assumed by the optimizer. Unless every feat and rank is accounted for and the optimizer feels that they appropiately contribute to the build, he isn't happy.
> System breakability: As in RL physics, these kind of optimizers like to challenge the system, by trying its limits and its incongruences. This is the standard TO we know. The goal here isn't to break a game, but to stretch the system for the thought experiment it proves to be.
> System study: These people like trying to figure which kind of game the system, as is, simulates. Not the intended game, where the DM softens the most troublesome parts and the game runs depending on DMs fiat, but a game where a party finds a variable set of challenges not necesarilly adapted to the group. This branch of thought is the one from which we know that the system, as is, doesn't support many classes decently, such as the fighter or the monk.
-Concept enabling: This is the kind of optimization which intends to make certain character concepts which aren't well supported by the game mechanics playable without the need of DM cuddling. It does not necessarilly target for the most powerful character in a given campaign, but instead tries to be able to contribute with an intrinsically gimped character. The example would be someone trying to play something akin a dragon. The existing rules don't support it well enough for what a dragon is supposedly be able to do, and the player is left to transform that into a competent character able to fight shoulder with shoulder with everyone else.
-Campaign Optimization: This is the kind of optimization which actively happens when the players play in a game world derived from the system study - That is, a game world where the DM is basically a referee between the players and the system, who organizes the plot, but leaves them to the mercy of the system, using the abilities the enemies have without pulling any punches.
-Concept optimization: Similar to Prefectionism, but usually for characters intended to be played. Usually revolves around an idea, concept or role, such as charging, in which the optimizer wants to shine. Instead of just creating the Best Character Evah, the player chooses a concept and optimizes it to hell, leaving other roles or concepts to be filled by the rest of the players.
Well, I'm pretty sure there are a lot more types of optimizers, and optimization models, but right now tohse are the ones I can think of. Maybe tomorrow I'll be awake enough to be able to think clearly.
Personally, I'd think that I'm fundamentally a concept enabler / concept optimizer. Because my group is mostly one without optimizers, and because I like thinking strange characters, I end with this kind of model most of the time, except when I'm designing theoretical characters for fun. I like it a lot, but everyone has its own share of experiences and ideas. So, now I ask you. What do you think about these? Do you think these models aren't correct? Maybe there are more models out there (I'm sure there are, I'm pretty sleepy right now). Which kind of model do you think describes you?
Well, thoughts?
