What amount of optimization do you accept in games you participate

>>52113701
So long as everyone is having fun and actions and the results make some logical sense in universe.

>>52113701

I don't play games where optimisation can harm suspension of disbelief.

If you're talking about powergaming and blatant rules exploits, those are shut down as a matter of course, but there's nothing wrong with players wanting their characters to be mechanically competent.

Whatever 'level' the group arrives at tends to be based on the preferences of the players, sticking to whatever the majority are comfortable with. Thankfully the players I know who like optimising aren't assholes, so they'll either tone down their characters in low-op games or help other people properly mechanically represent their characters capabilities in high-op games.

File: Asparagus.jpg (12KB, 195x258px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 195x258px

>>52113754

Honestly this. I just houserule out things I dislike from the get-go. Having a flat "no third party" rule usually works wonders.

But then again I mostly run Fate and Savage Worlds, which are designed for GMs with a pick and choose mentality. I know D&D and Pathfinder have a serious problem with players cheesing the supplement bloat. But it's not hard to say "CRB only".

I don't like disallowing stuff, but I've had to start. Ex., I have one player who exclusively plays only the most powergamey, loopholey shit every single character, with no regard for how it makes 0 sense in setting. I want to kick him out but unfortunately I can't, because he predates my presence in the group and it would basically end the group as we know it.

>>52113782
It is, because then you're cutting out of options and forcing players to stick to character archetypes that they've played a hundred times before.

>>52113782

3.PF are also systems where sticking to core is one of the worst things for that, though. Banning core and using selected third party books works way better.

Most games don't really let the two get in the way unless you're putting a bunch of 3.5 prestige classes that thematically clash together. Lately I feel like I'm having a problem on the opposite end of the spectrum with players that barely think about how to get the best out abilities and end up making stupid decisions

>>52113818

See this is a big reason I don't actually GM D&D/Pathfinder. I've got no problems playing it but actually running this system just feels like a headache.

>>52113842

Same here. I abandoned them for better systems first chance I got. You still need to watch out for the rules bugs though. No matter how good a game is, beyond a certain degree of complexity there'll always be some of them.

>>52113701
>What amount of optimization do you accept in games you participate in?
Any.