I know a guy who loves to build his own PCs. He's a bit of an elitist when it comes to what parts and brands he puts in his computer. He can be a real a&##~%@ when it comes to people "doing it wrong".
Does this mean:
A.) All people who build their own computers are a&$~!*!s?
or
B.) This guy in particular is an a%@+!&+?
to date, i only know one guy who likes to build his own machines that is not an a+$*~**.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to date, i only know one guy who likes to build his own machines that is not an a!%*+!&.I know a guy who loves to build his own PCs. He's a bit of an elitist when it comes to what parts and brands he puts in his computer. He can be a real a&##~%@ when it comes to people "doing it wrong".
Does this mean:
A.) All people who build their own computers are a&$~!*!s?
or
B.) This guy in particular is an a%@+!&+?
So, all 'optimisers' you have met are A$$es, all the PC builders you have met (bar one) are A$$es...you have a lot of bad luck attracting A$$es.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, all 'optimisers' you have met are A$$es, all the PC builders you have met (bar one) are A$$es...you have a lot of bad luck attracting A$$es.to date, i only know one guy who likes to build his own machines that is not an a!%*+!&.I know a guy who loves to build his own PCs. He's a bit of an elitist when it comes to what parts and brands he puts in his computer. He can be a real a&##~%@ when it comes to people "doing it wrong".
Does this mean:
A.) All people who build their own computers are a&$~!*!s?
or
B.) This guy in particular is an a%@+!&+?
Either that, or whenever he meets a non-ass, he fails to identify their character- and/or computer-building skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to date, i only know one guy who likes to build his own machines that is not an a!%*+!&.I know a guy who loves to build his own PCs. He's a bit of an elitist when it comes to what parts and brands he puts in his computer. He can be a real a&##~%@ when it comes to people "doing it wrong".
Does this mean:
A.) All people who build their own computers are a&$~!*!s?
or
B.) This guy in particular is an a%@+!&+?
So, all 'optimisers' you have met are A$$es, all the PC builders you have met (bar one) are A$$es...you have a lot of bad luck attracting A$$es.
If you think everyone is wrong, then perhaps something is out of whack with your perspective.
to date, i only know one guy who likes to build his own machines that is not an a!%*+!&.I know a guy who loves to build his own PCs. He's a bit of an elitist when it comes to what parts and brands he puts in his computer. He can be a real a&##~%@ when it comes to people "doing it wrong".
Does this mean:
A.) All people who build their own computers are a&$~!*!s?
or
B.) This guy in particular is an a%@+!&+?
So, all 'optimisers' you have met are A$$es, all the PC builders you have met (bar one) are A$$es...you have a lot of bad luck attracting A$$es.
or, optimizers and PC builders have a greater chance of being an a+~&~!@.
There are numerous personality guidelines that all three of these folks share, primarily revolVing around the idea that there is only one way to do something, and those that don't do it that way are deficient somehow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...
Tormmskull has basically already said there are two ways to do things. "His way" and "The wrong way". Since anything that isn't done "his way" has a "negative connotation".
I'm assuming you agree...?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...
Tormmskull has basically already said there are two ways to do things. "His way" and "The wrong way". Since anything that isn't done "his way" has a "negative connotation".
I'm assuming you agree...?
It is disturbingly reminiscent of hate speech isn't it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tormmskull has basically already said there are two ways to do things. "His way" and "The wrong way". Since anything that isn't done "his way" has a "negative connotation"
There are many things I can tolerate, people mischaracterising my position, people exaggerating, but spelling my name wrong?
Inexcusable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I know how you feel. Apologies for the misspelling.
i no rite?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I know how you feel. Apologies for the misspelling.
Im sure you do Sundakhan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I know how you feel. Apologies for the misspelling.Im sure you do Sundakhan.
At least Sundacan doesn't have it as bad as Rinjyn did.
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...
actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a&*++~~s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least Sundacan doesn't have it as bad as Rynjon did.Honestly, I know how you feel. Apologies for the misspelling.Im sure you do Sundakhan.
Who?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who?At least Sundacan doesn't have it as bad as Rynjon did.Honestly, I know how you feel. Apologies for the misspelling.Im sure you do Sundakhan.
Sorry, I meant Sumdakam.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a~$&*!#s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
Massive generalizations about whole groups of people is the problem. You can't say any of the things you're saying without being objectively incorrect about some proportion of those same people, where some proportion is between one and one hundred percent.
Personally, I think the problem comes in when there is too much optimization.
Pathfinder doesn't deal well with large gaps in character power. To be fair, neither did AD&D. If you are a 5th level character in a group of 8th level characters, you are not going to be able to contribute as much. Sometimes it may feel like an "escort this character through a dangerous area" mission, only with your character being the one needing the escort.
Unfortunately, there can be a large difference in builds such that even with characters of the same level one can dominate most encounters. As an example, if you have someone with an AC that is 7 or more above all the other characters, it may feel to the GM like in order to challenge that character you have to send in something that can hit them. Unfortunately, that means the creature is almost guaranteed of hitting any other character in the group, something that could result in a TPK for the rest of the characters.
Please note, I'm not saying that any build with too much AC, DPR, HPs, <insert other measure of power> is automatically causing problems. I've seen builds with huge ACs like I described above work as part of a group -- drawing out the Attacks of Opportunity so that other characters can move through an area. It really depends on the build and how it is played.
Still, it does complicate encounter design if you step too far outside the assumed power level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with.
Oh, so knowing how to play the game is Badwrongfun. Since that is basically all optimization is.
Well, the optimizer/powergamer/evildoer is really a problem only if he absolutely refuses to tone it down to match the group's play style, isn't it?
There are some of those, but most of them are probably pretty civil.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a#$+~~~s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
You're not saying there's a right or wrong way to play, you're just saying that people who play a certain way are more likely to be a!*!##&s.
I'm having trouble discerning a material difference between the two.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with.Oh, so knowing how to play the game is Badwrongfun. Since that is basically all optimization is.
when you act like the person I mentioned above, yes.
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a#$+~~~s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
You're not saying there's a right or wrong way to play, you're just saying that people who play a certain way are more likely to be a@*@$!~s.
I'm having trouble discerning a material difference between the two.
and yet, there is a difference.
Well, the optimizer/powergamer/evildoer is really a problem only if he absolutely refuses to tone it down to match the group's play style, isn't it?
There are some of those, but most of them are probably pretty civil.
I like to think I'm pretty civil, but if I travel to some areas it appears I won't be given the chance or I'll certainly have an uphill battle overcoming the 'taint' of being an optimiser/powergamer/evildoer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
when you act like the person I mentioned above, yes.
Except those actions aren't because they are an optimizer.
You're assigning association to two characteristics that are completely unrelated.
|
There is a bit of a disconnect here that I think needs to be underlined.
Group A's Definition of "Optimizer": Rulescrafter, 'one who optimizes', someone who uses the rules to optimize the character to be effective at their chosen role, someone with strong rules mastery.
Group B's Definition of "Optimizer": A$*++~$.
To be honest, what you define as A isn't even necessarily optimizing for me. But then, that might be because I have another definition of effectiveness than you (mine would be something like "has a relatively good chance to survive the game", instead of "beats generally every challenge he has been optimised for with ease as long as the GM doesn't up the challenge accordingly").
To me , optimizing is everything which would force me to modify the encounters of a published adventure because they would be boringly easy otherwise. I'm totally willing to modify encounters for story reason, to make them more interesting or to accomodate different group sizes. But I hate this power creep race which develops if players make their characters so strong that the GM has to react, because they still want to get challenged. This is work I shouldn't have to do because it's basically a waste of my time. The challenge was already there, so if the players hadn't modified their characters, I wouldn't have to do this just to recreate a state already existing before.
So I don't mind at all if you want to be efficient; at least depending on the game, I generally prefer games where player characters are (relatively speaking) a bit more down to earth. In Pathfinder, even a suboptimal character already is a super-hero compared to a normal human being. So maybe my adversity against (too much)optimising has to with the fact that this makes this difference even greater.
Well, the optimizer/powergamer/evildoer is really a problem only if he absolutely refuses to tone it down to match the group's play style, isn't it?
There are some of those, but most of them are probably pretty civil.
I like to think I'm pretty civil, but if I travel to some areas it appears I won't be given the chance or I'll certainly have an uphill battle overcoming the 'taint' of being an optimiser/powergamer/evildoer.
the guy I am referring to probably still believes quite firmly he did nothing wrong in how he acted. I guess the real test would be to be around people who were not optimizing and see if you could keep a level head, as it were.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Massive generalizations about whole groups of people is the problem. You can't say any of the things you're saying without being objectively incorrect about some proportion of those same people, where some proportion is between one and one hundred percent.Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a~$&*!#s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
Look, it's an objective fact that there are only two types of people in the world. Those who agree with everything Freehold DM (Peace Be Upon Him) says about how to have GoodRightFun, and evil kitten-punching optimizers.
Why do you want to punch kittens?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Character creation 101
1.Create a concept and character idea.
"I am Dwarven Scholar with a focus on smart tactics and leadership, not too strong though"
2.Decide how you want your character represented
I think it's logical that my character does something suited for a scholar Dwarf who doesn't punch well. So something with good knowledge access and possibly a Wisdom Focus.
3.Pick a class that could represent this character mechanically
Alchemist
Shaman (Lore spirit)
Wizard
Bard
Cleric (Evangelist)
4.Make a stat block that makes your concept true.
If you're a scholar, but can't pass a knowledge check to save your life then you failed.
If your character concept is true according to whats on your sheet, then you suceeded.
Some people may make characters in a different order, but if you do this then it's hard to mess up.
In a game with heavy optimization step 4 becomes "whats the class that represents this concept while offering the most possible benefit to the party."
It doesn't help that "TWF elf barbarian" is a super weak conceptualization of a character. Imagine saying I have a concept for a character that is "Asian architecture major" and needed help making him perform the best he can at school, if you got answers of "be an engineer instead, they make more money" you can't complain.So then you agree that optimization can include altering the character concept if the character concept isn't mechanically powerful?
If so, I'm in agreement, and this is why I dislike playing with optimizers. Doesn't make them bad people or that they're playing the game wrong, just that we have different preferences.
For your definition of optimizer yes, for my definition of it no.
By the way everyone optimizes since it really only means making a character that does what you want it to do. Even if you make a character really weak to justify him running away during combat you are still optimizing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So "people play something/some way different than I do" is a negative connotation to you?Let's assume you're playing a game one way, and everyone is having fun. Then someone comes along and plays it a different way.
The people that play it the first way think their way is better than the new way, and thus to differentiate between those two groups, we come up with a different name for them.
This was my first experience with the term "optimizer".
As optimizers played the game differently than we did, and in a less fun way in our minds, the word had a negative connotation.
As in "Should we invite Bob to play?" "No, Bob's an optimizer."
Does this make Bob a bad person? Does this mean Bob's playing the game wrong?
Nope, but I/my group don't want to play with Bob.
People don't play the game like I do, but I don't have any special names for them. They just play differently. I don't even see it as negative, just not what I like. It's not different than someone who enjoys different toppings on their pizza than I do. I just won't share a pizza(table) with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not an optimizer, Freehold. That's an a+%*#@&.then why was he optimizing, and demanding the other people around him do so as well?
You do realize that someone can enjoy building strong characters without being an a%&%$$$ right? <------Can be an optimizer.
Some who mistreats people<------a%*~#~$, no matter if they build mechanically weak or strong characters.
Optimizer /= a!+%+~% or jerk at least not to most forum goers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some fuel for the fire. In my experience, anti-optimizers (which is distinct from non-optimizers, those that actively oppose the process rather than those that lack system mastery) are, as a whole, worse at roleplaying than most of the non-munchkin (aka the bad optimizer) optimizers I've played with. Its typified by the refusal to accept alterations to Paizo's fluff and pigeonholing everything into identical boxes, for example throwing a fit if every Barbarian isn't a frothing mad savage. Basically a lot of effectively calling things badwrongfun if it doesn't conform with their one true vision (i.e. Paizo's fluff) of how things must be roleplayed.
Sometimes it's not even the Paizo fluff that they get so ridiculously attached to. There are plenty of folks who are just as attached to some other random source of inspiration; I've had run-ins with Tolkein, Warcraft, and Elder Scrolls purists. Not to mention all the folks we get even on the board who insist on maintaining their "Traditional Western Fantasy" that eschews any possible influence from non-whites.
I suppose it's not a surprise there's a fair amount of overlap between the two groups. After all, they both start with the idea that there's One True Way to play the game, and doing it any other way is wrong and deserves to be punished.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to date, i only know one guy who likes to build his own machines that is not an a*+~~#%.I know a guy who loves to build his own PCs. He's a bit of an elitist when it comes to what parts and brands he puts in his computer. He can be a real a&##~%@ when it comes to people "doing it wrong".
Does this mean:
A.) All people who build their own computers are a&$~!*!s?
or
B.) This guy in particular is an a%@+!&+?
I build my own computers, and I don't care how people build their characters. I just pick up the slack if they are not contributing.
That lets the other person do whatever they want. :)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the real test would be to be around people who were not optimizing and see if you could keep a level head, as it were.
As the only optimizer in my group it's pretty easy. -.-
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the real test would be to be around people who were not optimizing and see if you could keep a level head, as it were.As the only optimizer in my group it's pretty easy. -.-
As the serious heavy duty optimizer in my group, I am tied for the least problematic in the group along with the person who doesn't remember half the rules.
Here, let me rate the people in my group right now...
Constantly Disruptive: Person who can't optimize and doesn't give a damn about engaging with either the campaign or the mechanics, and tries to do things like go out and murder random NPCs for minor benefits
Often Disruptive: Person who wants to have a super powerful character and kill everything, but doesn't bother working towards it in any way besides buying gear with lots of plusses.
Occasionally Disruptive: The person who likes making twinked out gimmick builds. This person is probably the most "munchkinny" of the group, and is also the other GM
Not Disruptive: Me, and the guy who asks where on his sheet his attack bonuses are. We are actually team players, and would rather move on with the story than deal with interplayer drama.
So, I have 3 people who are not optimizers and two of them are seriously disruptive, and out of the two optimizers one is somewhat disruptive (but far less so than the others). Coincidentally, out of all the people no longer with the group, 2/3 of those were disruptive too (worse than the semi-munchkin other GM), and they were all non-optimizers and not interested in "winning" Pathfinder.
I guess that means that I can confidently say that roughly 2/3rds of non-optimizers are disruptive, lazy, unpleasant and don't give a damn about the mechanics, story or the other players at the table. That's how it works, right?
Right?
By the way everyone optimizes since it really only means making a character that does what you want it to do. Even if you make a character really weak to justify him running away during combat you are still optimizing.
It's interesting to think about. I take your point, however I think there is another way to do it.
I sometimes throw together a character (albeit not in pathfinder, but I daresay I could do the same if I knew the system better) with literally no thought towards an 'endpoint'. In other words, it's not so much "making a character that does what I want it to do" as it is making a character and then seeing how it plays at the table. It's part of the reason my preference for stat generation is 3d6 in order - the game for me includes the pseudo-random generation of my character.
As I say, I've never taken that approach in Pathfinder (not to the extreme as I do in other games, anyhow) and as a general rule I don't think that style of play is really going to appeal to people who like the PF approach to rules. Nonetheless, I think even such broad strokes are likely to miss a few corner cases.
For your definition of optimizer yes, for my definition of it no.
By the way everyone optimizes since it really only means making a character that does what you want it to do. Even if you make a character really weak to justify him running away during combat you are still optimizing.
Which makes your definition have no value.
I.e. if everyone optimizes, what's the point in calling it optimization? Why not just call it "making a character?"
So why do you think this word exists as it relates to gaming? Could it be to place a label on a certain playstyle?
|
|
It is also optimizing if I responded something like this, however...
*stuff*
Yeah, that would be optimising. Nothing wrong with that, though. The player asked for advice, you gave it to him, everything's perfect.
The difference between what you did and what those other people Tormskull talked about did is that you didn't move the goalpost. When I ask for advice within a certain frame of basic conditions (in this example, a TWF elf barbarian), I already made clear that there are some things not open for discussion. Namely: TWF, elf, barbarian. Keep being told that I shouldn't use an elf if I want to play a barbarian, when this has already been established, is, quite frankly, really annoying. It get's even more annoying when other peoples' suggestions, while fitting within this frame of conditions, get discarded by not being optimal decisions when I didn't ask for optimization in the first place. (and "coming for assistance in realising their concept" doesn't necessarily mean "coming for assistance in optimizing their concept").
Now as annoying as this behavior is, I want to make clear that this is by no means exclusive for optimizers. I once made the mistake, while asking for advice (elsewhere) about a concept for a new character class I wanted to develop, to preface this by giving a short summary for the fluff of my homebrewed I'd need this class for (just to explain what this class should be about). Well, turns out that nobody was interested to give this class a look and tell me what I did wrong in terms of balance, but instead a lot of people began to harp about the background, what was wrong with it in terms of standard D&D, why they would never play in such a stupid setting and so on.
It's this arrogance of people feeling entitled to tell other fellow gamers what they might be doing wrong instead of just telling them what they actually want to know, that causes all this forum war rubbish. And who's the enemy just depends on which side you choose be on, not on any alleged facts about how the game is to be played.
Massive generalizations about whole groups of people is the problem. You can't say any of the things you're saying without being objectively incorrect about some proportion of those same people, where some proportion is between one and one hundred percent.Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a~$&*!#s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
Look, it's an objective fact that there are only two types of people in the world. Those who agree with everything Freehold DM (Peace Be Upon Him) says about how to have GoodRightFun, and evil kitten-punching optimizers.
Why do you want to punch kittens?
why do you think the guy who I described above is right?
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you
Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.
I didn't claim that initially. The person I responded to did.
You do realize that someone can enjoy building strong characters without being an a&@$*++ right? <------Can be an optimizer.That's not an optimizer, Freehold. That's an a+%*#@&.then why was he optimizing, and demanding the other people around him do so as well?
This has not been my experience.
I guess the real test would be to be around people who were not optimizing and see if you could keep a level head, as it were.As the only optimizer in my group it's pretty easy. -.-As the serious heavy duty optimizer in my group, I am tied for the least problematic in the group along with the person who doesn't remember half the rules.
Here, let me rate the people in my group right now...
Constantly Disruptive: Person who can't optimize and doesn't give a damn about engaging with either the campaign or the mechanics, and tries to do things like go out and murder random NPCs for minor benefits
Often Disruptive: Person who wants to have a super powerful character and kill everything, but doesn't bother working towards it in any way besides buying gear with lots of plusses.
Occasionally Disruptive: The person who likes making twinked out gimmick builds. This person is probably the most "munchkinny" of the group, and is also the other GM
Not Disruptive: Me, and the guy who asks where on his sheet his attack bonuses are. We are actually team players, and would rather move on with the story than deal with interplayer drama.So, I have 3 people who are not optimizers and two of them are seriously disruptive, and out of the two optimizers one is somewhat disruptive (but far less so than the others). Coincidentally, out of all the people no longer with the group, 2/3 of those were disruptive too (worse than the semi-munchkin other GM), and they were all non-optimizers and not interested in "winning" Pathfinder.
I guess that means that I can confidently say that roughly 2/3rds of non-optimizers are disruptive, lazy, unpleasant and don't give a damn about the mechanics, story or the other players at the table. That's how it works, right?
Right?
if that is what you have experienced, then it is what you have experienced. I hope you have better ones in the future but I will not say it didn't happen, try to create excuses for the offending behavior, or otherwise impune your word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to date, i only know one guy who likes to build his own machines that is not an a!%*+!&.I know a guy who loves to build his own PCs. He's a bit of an elitist when it comes to what parts and brands he puts in his computer. He can be a real a&##~%@ when it comes to people "doing it wrong".
Does this mean:
A.) All people who build their own computers are a&$~!*!s?
or
B.) This guy in particular is an a%@+!&+?
So, all 'optimisers' you have met are A$$es, all the PC builders you have met (bar one) are A$$es...you have a lot of bad luck attracting A$$es.
or, optimizers and PC builders have a greater chance of being an a&@!&$+.
There are numerous personality guidelines that all three of these folks share, primarily revolVing around the idea that there is only one way to do something, and those that don't do it that way are deficient somehow.
I have discovered I am considered an a&@!&$+.
Actually, I haven't discovered it, I already knew some probably considered me one.
Especially here on these boards.
Not that I think it applies specifically to me in this instance, but it might.
It doesn't really bother me though. I still like to read Freehold DM's posts...as well as others (otherwise I wouldn't keep coming back to these forums).
I DO admit it though, sometimes when I optimize a character, I'm doing it due to being a a&@!&$+ and just wanting to mess with people.
In reality, it isn't normally because I find it overwhelmingly fun.
At least if doing it with in real life with actual people.
However, I know many do it on the boards as an exercise and probably don't do some of the stuff they suggest in their actual games (or they get killed a lot by DM's because a LOT of these so called "optimized" builds have obvious flaws which will get them killed in many situations a DM might toss at them).
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.
Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.
The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you
Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.
I think that's rather rude to say actually.
I might be one of those he's referring to (I hope not, but I match some of the qualifications in optimizing [and I have admitted I do it to be a jerk sometimes...which is evil and really is being a jerk], as well as building computers from scratch [not sure why that makes me a jerk...but hey...I'm not that troubled over it] as well).
I've never seen him say it directly to me through all our interactions, and if I've offended him in any way, I apologize.
However, I seriously don't have a problem with him saying it, even if it is directly about me....at all. I'll even freely admit that occasionally I can act that way...and I haven't seen Freehold DM act like a jerk to tell the truth.
Even in how he relayed his statements it was more matter of fact than being a jerk in any way or form.
I wouldn't say the common thread is that they dealt with him, but it MIGHT be if they dealt with ME!
On the original topic, I don't think optimization should over ride fun. Ever.
If you aren't having fun, you probably shouldn't be playing that way.
One should play in the playstyle they enjoy, as LONG as it doesn't intrude on someone else's playstyle.
In which case, they should talk it out and figure out a way to both play and enjoy the game.