PDA

View Full Version : People need to stop using this word.



Sinfire Titan
2009-10-12, 02:34 PM
Ignoring the Arcanist cheese, I'd say Undead followed by Constructs followed by Elementals. Mostly because they are immune to critical hits and sneak attacks, so any alternate way of increasing damage dealt against them helps.


Oh for Tzeentch's sake FE: Arcanists is not Cheese! It's good, but not cheesy. Dragonwrought Loredrake Kobolds with Epic feats at level 3 is cheese. Just because an ability is slightly better than what it replaces doesn't mean the ability is cheese automatically. Seriously, look at what it replaces! It's the worst damage booster in the PHB (only just barely beating out Rage because of how circumstantial it is).


It irritates me when people start calling everything even remotely stronger than a Core ability cheese, especially when Core is the most unbalanced source commonly allowed in campaigns (both ends of the spectrum can be found in Core).

People give so much freaking flak to the melee classes whenever something new gives them an option they didn't have before. Or when a useful ACF actually replaces a useless class feature (Slow Fall for Water Walk, anyone?). Power Creep exists, we get it all ready. Don't go labeling it as a bad thing by default. In some cases, Power Creep is a very good, or even vital addition to a game.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-12, 02:35 PM
Huh. Clearly everybody had heard about the word.

Jayabalard
2009-10-12, 02:41 PM
bird bird bird, the bird is the word.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-10-12, 02:44 PM
I prefer cheese in a different context.

cheesy, adj.

colloq. (orig. U.S.). Tawdry, hackneyed, unsubtle, or excessively sentimental, esp. if nevertheless appealing; ‘tacky’, ‘kitschy’, ‘corny’. Cf. CHEESE n.1
In early use frequently difficult to distinguish from sense 4.

...What? :smallconfused:

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-12, 02:46 PM
bird bird bird, the bird is the word.

All of a sudden Office Space sprang to mind...

Doc Roc
2009-10-12, 02:46 PM
I'm not amused, and I'm with Sinfire on this one.

jiriku
2009-10-12, 02:49 PM
Monks can swap slow fall for water walk? Holy gravity denial, Batman! What book is that in?

Tavar
2009-10-12, 02:52 PM
I agree, especially since Favored Enemy is easily one of my least favorite abilities due to it's extreme specialization. Making so that one of the supposedly key abilities of a class is relavent more than once per campaign? You FIENDS!:smallconfused:

Indon
2009-10-12, 02:53 PM
It irritates me when people start calling everything even remotely stronger than a Core ability cheese, especially when Core is the most unbalanced source commonly allowed in campaigns (both ends of the spectrum can be found in Core).
If Core has some of the strongest abilities, then something stronger than those abilities is very, very strong.

And cheese:
1.)Comes in many different flavors and strengths.
2.)Is not by any means necessarily a bad thing. Cheese is delicious! Unless you're lactose intolerant anyway.

Renchard
2009-10-12, 02:55 PM
Cheese is delicious! Unless you're lactose intolerant anyway.
If you're lactose intolerant, cheese is still (mournfully) delicious.

Tavar
2009-10-12, 02:57 PM
If Core has some of the strongest abilities, then something stronger than those abilities is very, very strong.

Actually, what he's saying is that Core has both the strongest and weakest abilities. Thus, things that boost the weaker end is good.

lsfreak
2009-10-12, 02:58 PM
If Core has some of the strongest abilities, then something stronger than those abilities is very, very strong.

Yea, and those things are pretty much universally considered cheese/borderline cheese. Things like Celerity, Craft Contingent Spell, and Shivering Touch that are all on par with some of the most powerful things inside Core. Things like Favored Enemy: Arcanists or the ability to sneak attack undead or (almost all) or ToB? Not cheesy in the least, and yet people call them cheesy all the time. The best is when people call these things cheesy and then have no problem whatsoever with Wildshaping.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-12, 02:58 PM
Monks can swap slow fall for water walk? Holy gravity denial, Batman! What book is that in?
Stormwrack
Its a book that involves water. That's your only hint.


If Core has some of the strongest abilities, then something stronger than those abilities is very, very strong.

I was referring to things like DMM, Incanatrix, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Shadowcraft Mage, Genesis, Domain Wizard, Focused Specialist, stuff like that. Stuff that any optimizer would take in a heartbeat when playing those types of characters. Because everyone knows Shadowcraft Mage is far stronger than the Archmage, another 5 level Wizard PrC.

Doc Roc
2009-10-12, 03:12 PM
And archmage is not particularly weak, as PrCs go.

Ecalsneerg
2009-10-12, 03:18 PM
If you're lactose intolerant, cheese is still (mournfully) delicious.
I sense a great sadness here.

Temet Nosce
2009-10-12, 03:26 PM
It's less the specific instance of word use that irritates me than the attitude which generates it. I've found that most of the time when buzz words like that get applied to things, it's by people who have a poor grasp of the rules and don't want to go through the effort of checking things themselves. It'd be nice if instead of reactionarily snapping that something is x (whatever the word of the day for cheesy, broken, overpowered, etc is) they actually looked into the matter then used more specific phrasing.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-12, 03:33 PM
I make my Pun-Pun and I roll the dice,
We gotta work our build, don't have to play it nice
There ain't no danger that can go too far
We start minmaxing now that we can play who we are
Cheese is the word

They think our game is just a role-play
Why don't they understand, that's just a newbie's way
Those scrubs are lying, only stats are real
We start to fight right now, we got to play what we feel
Cheese is the word

Cheese is the word, is the word, that you heard
It's got buffs, it's got healing
Cheese is the stats, is the dice, is the munchkin
Cheese is the way we are feeling

We take the bonus with our battle cry
Failing a saving throw makes all the monsters die
There is no chance that they can hurt us so far
We start attacking now and we will beat who they are

Cheese is the word, is the word, that you heard
Every day, every hour
Cheese is the spells, is the kills, is the looting
Cheese is the way of our power

Cheese is the word (is the word)

tyckspoon
2009-10-12, 03:43 PM
That an original, Kurald?

jiriku
2009-10-12, 03:58 PM
Stormwrack
Its a book that involves water. That's your only hint.


There's frozen water in Frostburn! No, the elemental plane of water is in Manual of the Planes! The Arms and Equipment guide details oceangoing ships? Water elemental from the Monster Manual? Aaaaaah, I can't figure it out!!!!!!!!!!!!111one

Optimystik
2009-10-12, 04:10 PM
There's frozen water in Frostburn! No, the elemental plane of water is in Manual of the Planes! The Arms and Equipment guide details oceangoing ships? Water elemental from the Monster Manual? Aaaaaah, I can't figure it out!!!!!!!!!!!!111one

I hate to see flumphs suffer. It's Stormwrack. :smalltongue:

Zeta Kai
2009-10-12, 04:21 PM
Kurald, you have outdone me. Kudos.

I agree that "cheese" is way, way, WAY over-used. So is "broken", "overpowered" (or its leet-ish twin, "OP'd"), "fallacy", "nerf", "alignment", "edition", "core", & "[CLASS]-fix". :smallsigh::smallamused:

Optimystik
2009-10-12, 04:25 PM
My pet peeve is people that use the word "optimizer" where they should be using "munchkin" and refusing to see the difference between the two. :smallsigh:

arguskos
2009-10-12, 04:44 PM
My pet peeve is people that use the word "optimizer" where they should be using "munchkin" and refusing to see the difference between the two. :smallsigh:
.../facepalm. I hate that one too.

Really though, "cheese" as a term needs to go die in a fire. :smallannoyed: I don't mind broken or overpowered, when used in context, so that we know the frame of reference the user is working with. When used in the sense of "lolcheesemuchkingtfo" and similar, I am annoyed. :smallannoyed:

lsfreak
2009-10-12, 05:34 PM
My pet peeve is people that use the word "optimizer" where they should be using "munchkin" and refusing to see the difference between the two. :smallsigh:

The reverse is also true as well. I've seen people call a rogue10 who has a sorcerer hit them up with Greater Invisibility optimized/overpowered because zomg-thats-like-25d6-per-round. (Which isn't even enough to qualify as Sinfire's point).

Really, anything that has lots of dice can fall victim to this. People don't seem to have a problem with "7 extra damage from Strength," but when that's "2d6 per attack from <source>" instead...

AslanCross
2009-10-12, 05:53 PM
I would rather use cheesy to refer to sandwiches or pasta.

Or badly-written romance novels.

lesser_minion
2009-10-12, 06:07 PM
I agree that "cheese" is probably overused.

'Broken' has too many definitions to really qualify as overused though.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-12, 07:46 PM
So much truthery has been posted!


I agree that "cheese" is probably overused.

'Broken' has too many definitions to really qualify as overused though.

You wanna know what's worth calling broken? The dishes. I'll complain about that all night long.


The Greater Invisible Rogue from above? Not broken, just optimized. Possibly even intentional on the Dev's part.

lsfreak
2009-10-12, 08:00 PM
The Greater Invisible Rogue from above? Not broken, just optimized. Possibly even intentional on the Dev's part.

I would hardly call a straight Rogue10 with no Craven, no Shadow Blade, no dips, nothing but a pair of daggers and greater invisibility bummed off a caster, optimized. Yet every month or two someone posts complaining about how "broken"/"overpowered" that rogue is.

The same thing happens with Rangers in 4e every few weeks. Really, there's a thread asking/complaining about unoptimized or only semi-optimized builds about as often as monk or batman or alignment threads come up.

SparkMandriller
2009-10-12, 08:21 PM
I wouldn't complain about cheesy characters nearly as much if it was possible to RP while playing one.

But it's not. :(

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-12, 08:22 PM
I agree that "cheese" is probably overused.

'Broken' has too many definitions to really qualify as overused though.

The varying definitions are exactly the problem. Every other thread, it seems, has someone calling something "broken" with no context or explanation, so it loses its impact because you have no idea if the person calling something broken has the same standards you do and thus whether you should accept their pronouncement.

Solaris
2009-10-12, 08:26 PM
The word cheese is broken.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-12, 08:32 PM
The word cheese is broken.

Technically true.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-10-12, 08:39 PM
I wouldn't complain about cheesy characters nearly as much if it was possible to RP while playing one.

But it's not. :(

[/sarcasm]?
letters, more of them

Jerthanis
2009-10-12, 08:46 PM
People give so much freaking flak to the melee classes whenever something new gives them an option they didn't have before. Or when a useful ACF actually replaces a useless class feature (Slow Fall for Water Walk, anyone?). Power Creep exists, we get it all ready. Don't go labeling it as a bad thing by default. In some cases, Power Creep is a very good, or even vital addition to a game.

Here's why it's a bad idea to fix worthless abilities by introducing options that provide overlap between them: The choice becomes meaningless.

If I could be a Ranger with Favored Enemy: Dragon, or Favored Enemy: Arcanist, I should always pick arcanist, because almost every single dangerous dragon will also have spells. Because of this, the existance of the Dragon entry as a choice of Ranger Favored enemy is now a trap to catch only the unwary, and I consider that bad game design.

If Complete Moonwalking Sandcat had introduced a variant ranger that dictated its favored enemies by a swift action knowledge: Appropriate Knowledge check at the beginning of the battle, or something, that would be a fix.

Introducing a choice to an existing class ability that says, "80% of everything, including entire categories previously presented" is a bad way to fix something.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-12, 08:57 PM
It's a bad fix, yeah, but that doesn't make it objectively bad. It's a lot worse than it could be, but it's better than nothing. Probably. It does reduce the probability that such "better" fixes will be implemented in future by providing a depressing precedent...
But the chance of those better fixes coming from WotC were always slim. Overhauling core mechanics isn't something that strikes me as likely to ever happen.

SparkMandriller
2009-10-12, 09:01 PM
[/sarcasm]?

Of course not. Cheesy characters take feats that make them better in combat, instead of proper RP feats like skill focus in profession: chef. How am I meant to RP enjoying cooking if I don't have something written on my sheet which says I do?

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-12, 09:03 PM
Here's why it's a bad idea to fix worthless abilities by introducing options that provide overlap between them: The choice becomes meaningless.

It can't be helped. This is a pen-and-paper RPG, and as such we are unable to alter the printed books. In other words, the only options are printing new sources and errata, and WotC has a policy about errata that prevents that option (a policy that I disagree with, BTW).


If I could be a Ranger with Favored Enemy: Dragon, or Favored Enemy: Arcanist, I should always pick arcanist, because almost every single dangerous dragon will also have spells. Because of this, the existance of the Dragon entry as a choice of Ranger Favored enemy is now a trap to catch only the unwary, and I consider that bad game design.

Well what else can the devs do? Printing feats to improve a single class feature is ineffective in 3.5 (as the Fighter proved), and Prestige Classes are very inefficient answers to the problem. I admit that WotC isn't the best at game design (admit? I practically embraced that as my calling card), but sometimes they really had no choice.

It may be bad design for Power Creep, Power Seep to exist in a game, but it will exist in any system that gets expansions. Sometimes the best idea is to embrace it and accept that traps will exist, and that the best you can do is steer the players away from those traps if you want them to be powerful.



If Complete Moonwalking Sandcat had introduced a variant ranger that dictated its favored enemies by a swift action knowledge: Appropriate Knowledge check at the beginning of the battle, or something, that would be a fix.

Introducing a choice to an existing class ability that says, "80% of everything, including entire categories previously presented" is a bad way to fix something.

Odd that you mention Knowledge Devotion. Even still, your own example of a variant is strictly superior to the basic method, invoking the same issues. It's also a new mechanic, something that FE (Arcanists) isn't (the term Arcanist has been around for a while, but the only change to the rules was that you could apply FE to Arcanists and the definition of the term).

Spellcasting enemies aren't as common as you say, BTW. 40%, maybe. But a full 80%? Not likely. If it applied to every enemy with Spell-like abilities or arcane spellcasting abilities, then yes, I would agree. But it applies to Arcane spellcasting and invocations only (of which only 2 encounters presented in a WotC book actually have without having levels in Warlock or DFA, and both of them are obscure).


Of course not. Cheesy characters take feats that make them better in combat, instead of proper RP feats like skill focus in profession: chef. How am I meant to RP enjoying cooking if I don't have something written on my sheet which says I do?

By saying you like cooking? No one ever said you have to be good at something to enjoy it, and vice versa. Youdon't need the feat, you could just add flavor (pun intended).

Zeta Kai
2009-10-12, 09:10 PM
The Favored Enemy ability does not need fixing, IMO, because the DM is responsible for generating antagonists. Therefore, the frequency with which a Ranger is able to use their FE is entirely up to the DM. Perhaps in a world where the DM was not a thinking entity, FE would need to be adjusted, but in our world, with (presumably) intelligent DMs, this is not the case.

Favored Enemy is the same as a Rogue's ability to use their Sneak Attack, or a Cleric's ability to Turn Undead. If a Rogue/Cleric was in a campaign in which the only enemies to be found were constructs/elementals, that would be extremely annoying, due to their inability to use their respective class features. Similarly, a ranger's FE is an unspoken request by the player to play in a campaign that features antagonists of a type/subtype that matches their FE choice. They don't have to be ubiquitous, but they do have to appear often enough for the Ranger to contribute meaningfully & feel useful.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-12, 10:38 PM
The word cheese is broken.

Nerf cheese! Nerf cheese!

Wait...this doesn't sound very tasty. Anyhow, I strongly suspect that even if you somehow blocked the word from everyone's brains, another word would pop up to replace it.

Doc Roc
2009-10-12, 11:02 PM
I fight hopeless battles all the time. Rightful be it that one of these is a battle to be understood. :)

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-12, 11:42 PM
Did someone say...
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/rick_reilly/10/09/reilly1015/p1_cheesehead.jpg
Nerf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf) cheese?

drengnikrafe
2009-10-12, 11:56 PM
"I do not think it means what you think it means." There, obligitory Princess Bride reference made. Now, on to the real stuff.

Yes, people need to stop using the word "cheese" in reference to character classes and/or abilities. Also, "overpowered" and "broken". Yes, the rules have flaws. Why don't you go and write 150 prestige classes, each with it's own benefits and drawbacks and backstory suggestions and natures and abilities that match up with all of that for any playstyle almost anyone could ever dream of, and make the whole thing balanced and fair? It's nearly impossible. If something is broken, don't march around saying "it's broken, it's broken, it's cheese", sit down with your DM and write up a rewrite to balance it with other things. Houserules exist (amongst other reasons) because your imagination is more important than the book. The books often contain half-baked ideas, or things that the writers didn't see as breakable when they developed it. It's your job as a player of this game to fix things you don't like. If you really desperately needed to, you could go make your own system. I truly do agree. Stuff may be bad, but rather than doing nothing but pointing at it, they should do something about it.

lesser_minion
2009-10-13, 02:09 AM
The Greater Invisible Rogue from above? Not broken, just optimized. Possibly even intentional on the Dev's part.

I don't really have a problem with Greater Invisibility rogues, and I'm surprised that anyone even considers them optimised.

I try not to call things 'broken' unless I really think they don't work like they should - for example, the drowning rules. If I ever mention it again, it's because somebody disputes my assessment, or because I'm trying to come up with a patch. I try not to whine about things, although I do like to keep games unoptimised.

potatocubed
2009-10-13, 04:26 AM
I was hoping this would be about 'fallacy'. :smallfrown:

Zeta Kai
2009-10-13, 05:28 AM
I was hoping this would be about 'fallacy'. :smallfrown:

Mentioned, but ignored. :smallsigh:

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-13, 07:52 AM
Do I look, sound or act like someone who whines about rogues using Greater Invisibility? Is that really optimised in any event?

If I'm going to call something broken, it's usually because I don't think it works the way it should. If I ever mention it again, it's because somebody disputes my assessment, or because I'm trying to come up with a patch. I try not to whine about it, and I think that it's reasonable to expect the same of everyone.

I'll agree that there might be no way to replace even the majority of the material found in the game, but it's worth trying to fix things occasionally.

I'm not too sure about trying to make everyone stop using words that are consistently misused, however.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was just adding. Sorry if it came off as an attempt to argue, that wasn't the intent. Damn internet, making communication so complicated.

Zincorium
2009-10-13, 08:30 AM
I was hoping this would be about 'fallacy'. :smallfrown:

That word is never going to go away until logic is no longer taught to anybody.

Logical fallacies exist, and they show up all the time, usually because they make sense. You aren't wrong simply for using one, but you are using illogical statements.

Most people fly off the handle when the word fallacy gets used primarily because our society has elevated opinions to a sacred cow. Saying that class x is awesome is an opinion, but when the math gets pulled out and people's statements are deconstructed word by word, people feel they're being personally attacked for holding an opinion.

Did I use the word enough times yet?

Jayabalard
2009-10-13, 08:32 AM
That word is never going to go away until logic is no longer taught to anybody.It might show up less if people actually learn some of that logic, so that they use the word correctly.

Zen Master
2009-10-13, 09:05 AM
If Core has some of the strongest abilities, then something stronger than those abilities is very, very strong.

And cheese:
1.)Comes in many different flavors and strengths.
2.)Is not by any means necessarily a bad thing. Cheese is delicious! Unless you're lactose intolerant anyway.

Actually, most yellow cheese is almost entirely free of lactose. Trust me. Also delicious.

lesser_minion
2009-10-13, 01:16 PM
I wasn't arguing with you, I was just adding. Sorry if it came off as an attempt to argue, that wasn't the intent. Damn internet, making communication so complicated.

It did read slightly like you were about to fly off the handle.

Sorry about that. I didn't exactly respond well.

Saph
2009-10-13, 01:44 PM
It might show up less if people actually learn some of that logic, so that they use the word correctly.

Yeah. People have a tendency to apply "fallacy" to any argument they don't like. Believing that someone is wrong doesn't make what they're saying a fallacy. Even being wrong doesn't make what you're saying a fallacy.

"Monks are overpowered!" is not a fallacy.
"3.5 is broken!" is not a fallacy.
"4e is like a MMORPG!" is not a fallacy.

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. If someone says "The monk in my game's the strongest PC, therefore monks are the most powerful class", then that is a fallacy (specifically, the converse fallacy of exception - arguing from a specific case to a general rule). The same would apply if you replaced "monk" with any other class, such as "druid" or "wizard".

It's also a good idea to take a real close look at one's own reasoning before accusing someone else of a fallacy, because odds are you hear more fallacies from yourself than from anybody else. :)

Akal Saris
2009-10-13, 01:57 PM
If you're lactose intolerant, cheese is still (mournfully) delicious.

I feel your pain. Horribly allergic to shrimp now, yet I remember sadly all the delicious fried shrimp I had as a children.

Fluffles
2009-10-13, 02:00 PM
What's the word?

Boci
2009-10-13, 02:03 PM
What's the word?

Cheese I think.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-13, 02:04 PM
What's the word?

Uh, bird? I think that's the (trite) word.

sonofzeal
2009-10-13, 02:05 PM
Cheese is a kind of meat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR95l9pMVkE).

Blackfang108
2009-10-13, 02:09 PM
I feel your pain. Horribly allergic to shrimp now, yet I remember sadly all the delicious fried shrimp I had as a children.

I pity you. I'll have a shrimp or two for you next time I can.

Fluffles
2009-10-13, 02:29 PM
Cheese I think.

You fail at memes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184) :smallbiggrin:

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-13, 02:32 PM
What's the word?

You mean you haven't heard?

I thought everybody had heard about the word.

Cieyrin
2009-10-13, 03:23 PM
Nerf cheese! Nerf cheese!

Wait...this doesn't sound very tasty. Anyhow, I strongly suspect that even if you somehow blocked the word from everyone's brains, another word would pop up to replace it.

It's really a shame that Cheese in this instance has such a negative connotation, as cheese is delicious and should be shared. Saying cheese is a bad thing is like saying giant mecha is something that should be abhorred because they're too awesome.

lesser_minion
2009-10-13, 03:32 PM
Yeah. People have a tendency to apply "fallacy" to any argument they don't like. Believing that someone is wrong doesn't make what they're saying a fallacy. Even being wrong doesn't make what you're saying a fallacy.

While that's true, I actually find it more annoying when people find something in an argument that might be an assumption or a logical fallacy and attempt to dismiss the argument on that basis rather than ensure that whatever weakness they have spotted is actually an issue.

If every [Z] can be shown to be the same as far as is relevant for the discussion at hand, then saying that something true of one [Z] is true of all of them is not going to be a problem.

To make an argument without assumptions, simply prove that absolutely everything, ever, including that, inexorably leads up to where you were going to start.

To attack an assumption made in an argument, simply demonstrate how the argument depends on the assumption, and demonstrate why the assumption should not have been made.

ericgrau
2009-10-13, 03:35 PM
"Fallacy", "cheese", "tier", whatever can be fine to use or utterly incorrect. As long as there's a reason other than the word itself I don't see any problem with using these or any terms. Terms make life easier and less wordy. Embrace terms. If OTOH, the term itself is all you go on, then that doesn't show anything; it's an assumption not an argument.

magellan
2009-10-13, 03:52 PM
Personally i think folks should stop using "Homebrew"
First i think the location of the brewing is not very important in most cases, and published rulebooks would to some degree be "office brews" (mostly depending on the amount of freelancers working at home)
and most companies have rather strict policies about brewing in the office, so kids could get ideas here...

But i am very glad that the person defending "fallacy" did not commit one in his post. :smallcool:

lesser_minion
2009-10-13, 03:53 PM
'fallacy' is a special case, because it usually refers to a particular type of mistake in reasoning that has been studied academically.

On a forum, I think it actually would be better to say "your reasoning is flawed because this does not follow from that because this" rather than "you're begging the question" or "your argument is fallacious".

Claiming that a fallacy exists in an argument is not worth much in any event - knowing a fancy term for reasoning which is dependent on its conclusion being true or not does not excuse you from explaining to someone who does so how and where they have done so.

shadow_archmagi
2009-10-13, 04:10 PM
"Nerf" can't really be over-used, since it just means "something bad happened to it so it isn't as good now"

I agree that cheese is a bit over-used though.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-13, 05:16 PM
I just had a debate about which diplomacy ruleset we should use in our campaign.
I think I can safely claim that "broken" is overused, misleading, and completely meaningless.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-10-13, 05:29 PM
I prefer cheese in a different context.

cheesy, adj.

colloq. (orig. U.S.). Tawdry, hackneyed, unsubtle, or excessively sentimental, esp. if nevertheless appealing; ‘tacky’, ‘kitschy’, ‘corny’. Cf. CHEESE n.1
In early use frequently difficult to distinguish from sense 4.

...What? :smallconfused:
Because polymorph spells aren't hackneyed and unsubtle.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-13, 05:40 PM
Because polymorph spells aren't hackneyed and unsubtle.

What's not subtle about being able to turn into anything, even your enemy? It can be used very blatantly, but when you need to infiltrate an Orcish encampment you really can't do much better than Alter Self for the base disguise.


Shapechange I'll give you. Free action ass-whuppin is just wrong.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-13, 06:45 PM
In the Internet Dictionary, it would seem that "fallacy" means "an argument that I disagree with", and "cheese" means "an optimization trick that I hadn't thought of myself"... :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2009-10-13, 08:07 PM
Because polymorph spells aren't hackneyed and unsubtle.

But, nevertheless appealing.

sonofzeal
2009-10-13, 08:26 PM
Note that a fallacious argument is not necessarily a false one. Seriously, I despair for the number of people online who realize this. "Two plus two is four because Obama said so" is a fallacy (an Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, specifically), and yet true. Is it really that hard a concept?

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-13, 11:32 PM
Note that a fallacious argument is not necessarily a false one. Seriously, I despair for the number of people online who realize this. "Two plus two is four because Obama said so" is a fallacy (an Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, specifically), and yet true. Is it really that hard a concept?

Reminds me of a riddle:

"What's green, hangs from a wall, and whistles?"

Anyone who's seen the riddle before should know the answer. From among those people, any of them who have taken the time to look up Logical Fallacies will know which fallacy the riddle refferences.

The Glyphstone
2009-10-13, 11:35 PM
A whistling green cow that likes to hang from walls?

Edit: Googled it...okay, it's not a cow.:smallconfused:

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-13, 11:42 PM
Reminds me of a riddle:

"What's green, hangs from a wall, and whistles?"


A parrot, I assume?

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-13, 11:42 PM
A whistling green cow that likes to hang from walls?

Edit: Googled it...okay, it's not a cow.:smallconfused:

A riddle so powerful even the True Neutral God of Knowledge has trouble with it.


Thankfully, the Chaotic Neutral God of Entertainment and Ruin has the answer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.BrickJoke) (CTRl+F is your guide here).


A parrot, I assume?


As Cartoon Network has occasionally pointed out, you need lips to whistle.

Grynning
2009-10-14, 12:03 AM
It's really a shame that Cheese in this instance has such a negative connotation, as cheese is delicious and should be shared. Saying cheese is a bad thing is like saying giant mecha is something that should be abhorred because they're too awesome.

Cheese is indeed wonderful. People can badmouth it all they want, but then they'd have to fight Patrick Warburton (http://www.cheeseandburger.com/).

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-14, 12:04 AM
As Cartoon Network has occasionally pointed out, you need lips to whistle.
Kettles can whistle.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 02:54 AM
"Two plus two is four because Obama said so" is a fallacy (an Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, specifically), and yet true. Is it really that hard a concept?

Yes, because "A implies B" is logically true whenever A and B are both true (and also, whenever A is false). But people don't talk like that except in logic class. In ordinary conversation, "A implies B" is only considered true whenever a causation can reasonably be inferred to exist from A to B.

"2+2=5 and therefore OOTS is great" is also true (regardless of whether you agree with the opinion in the second half of the statement). It is also fallacious (Does Not Follow) and more than a little silly.

Dixieboy
2009-10-14, 03:00 AM
What's not subtle about being able to turn into anything, even your enemy? It can be used very blatantly, but when you need to infiltrate an Orcish encampment you really can't do much better than Alter Self for the base disguise.

Notice "tacky".

lesser_minion
2009-10-14, 03:19 AM
The reasoning that a fallacious argument must be false is really a case of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions (which is one of the reasons why it might not be a good idea to spend all of your time browsing lists of logical fallacies).

Following a valid line of reasoning from reasonable and valid assumptions to a conclusion is sufficient to demonstrate that conclusion to be true.

The conclusion does not need this to be done in order to be true, however.

You can also mistake a necessary condition for a sufficient one. For a person to be sent to jail for an extended period of time, it is necessary that they be found guilty of a crime. However, being found guilty of a crime is not always sufficient (not many judges will jail people for littering).

By the way, KG, you might have mixed something up there. "A implies B" is a conclusion that might be drawn from A and B both being true, but to prove that conclusion, you need to demonstrate a causal link between the two.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 03:24 AM
By the way, KG, you might have mixed something up there. "A implies B" is a conclusion that might be drawn from A and B both being true, but to prove that conclusion, you need to demonstrate a causal link between the two.

It comes from truth tables like this,

{table]A|B|A and B|A or B|A xor B|A implies B
T|T|T|T|F|T
T|F|F|T|T|F
F|T|F|T|T|T
F|F|F|F|F|T
[/table]

"A implies B" is the logical equivalent of "B or not A". Of course, not all systems of formal logic work like that.

sofawall
2009-10-14, 03:25 AM
Note that a fallacious argument is not necessarily a false one. Seriously, I despair for the number of people online who realize this. "Two plus two is four because Obama said so" is a fallacy (an Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, specifically), and yet true. Is it really that hard a concept?

["Two plus two is four because Obama said so"] - Not True.

["Two plus two is four] because Obama said so" - True

The phrase as a whole is wrong, even if part of it is correct.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 03:42 AM
["Two plus two is four because Obama said so"] - Not True.

["Two plus two is four] because Obama said so" - True

The phrase as a whole is wrong, even if part of it is correct.

There are actually two ways to describe the truthiness of an argument- validity & soundness.

For instance (from wikipedia):
All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Note that neither premise is true, nor the conclusion true, but the structure is valid. This is a valid argument; it is not false. To describe it as fallacious would be misusing the term fallacious. It is, however, unsound, as it derives from false premises.

Fallacious, used in formal logic, describes a logical form as false. It describes the structure, not the content of an argument.

Guys, the Greeks already formalized all this and put it on wikipedia.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 03:58 AM
I can totally see this happening...

Forumite A: <game> is totally awesmoe and the lulz! And you are all <censored>s if you disgraeee!!1!

Forumite B: According to Hegelian philosophy, one might be enticed to conclude that the logic in your statement is not sound and that the conclusion is a non sequitur vis a vis its assumptions.

Forumite A: huh???

Forumite C: Ah, but according to Godel...

Quietus
2009-10-14, 05:25 AM
Nah. We'd never overcomplicate something here...

potatocubed
2009-10-14, 07:24 AM
Actually, my beef with the word 'fallacy' is that people like to name them after themselves. It's a perfectly useful word that has been co-opted into a sort of self-insert meme.

Of course, this is just a derivation of a tendency among gamers to throw around terminology as if they know what they're talking about, when in fact they haven't got clue one. Formal logic, with all its excessive Latin and quasi-mathematical construction, is a rich field for this sort of thing. Consider this gem from rpg.net:


"I'm sure reductio ad absurdums impress somebody, somewhere, but not here."

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-14, 08:09 AM
Actually, my beef with the word 'fallacy' is that people like to name them after themselves. It's a perfectly useful word that has been co-opted into a sort of self-insert meme.

There are really only two D&D fallacies commonly referenced--Stormwind and Oberoni--and they're not really named after their creators by their creators; Stormwind is just called "the Stormwind Fallacy" because "the particular 'RP vs. optimization' case of the False Dilemma fallacy as explained by Tempest Stormwind" is a bit of a mouthful.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 09:21 AM
There are really only two D&D fallacies commonly referenced--Stormwind and Oberoni--and they're not really named after their creators by their creators; Stormwind is just called "the Stormwind Fallacy" because "the particular 'RP vs. optimization' case of the False Dilemma fallacy as explained by Tempest Stormwind" is a bit of a mouthful.the funny thing is that people try to use Stormwind's argument to mean more than what it actually does... I guess we could call that the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy :smallwink:

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 09:34 AM
yes-

"Being good at optimizing means you won't be good at roleplaying" is a fallacious statement.

But is:

"There is a weak but noticable negative correlation between a person's enthusiasm about optimization, and the quality of their roleplaying"

a false statement?

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 09:38 AM
"There is a weak but noticable negative correlation between a person's enthusiasm about optimization, and the quality of their roleplaying"

Do you have statistics to back that up, or is it just a gut feeling?

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 09:42 AM
yes-

"Being good at optimizing means you won't be good at roleplaying" is a fallacious statement.

But is:

"There is a weak but noticable negative correlation between a person's enthusiasm about optimization, and the quality of their roleplaying"

a false statement?No, so long as you both preface it with IME and don't try to attribute it as the sole detracting factor from the quality of roleplay. People put too much stock on the detracting power of optimization from roleplay when the quality of your roleplaying only "needs" to be [at least] around the same level as the rest of your group. Much like optimization doesn't matter so much as the relative optimization level of the party.

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 09:44 AM
A guess, based on the complaints.

It might be interesting to test it though- maybe some kind of survey- perhaps.

Possible way of doing it- conduct a survey of random DM's opinions of their players' roleplaying skills.

Then conduct a survey of the DM's of CharOp players, and their opinions of the players' roleplaying skills.

I don't know what results it would show- and I suspect getting the whole thing done would be much easier said than done.

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 09:48 AM
No, so long as you both preface it with IME and don't try to attribute it as the sole detracting factor from the quality of roleplay.

This does make sense- person needs to say "In my opinion" or "In my experience."

Something like, from a long-term DM:

"In my experience, players who focus heavily on optimization tend to neglect roleplay, compared to players who specialize less"

Even then- it would be only an opinion- only when it becomes a case of numerous DMs (or fellow players) making this statement might people start paying attention to it with good reason.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 09:48 AM
yes-

"Being good at optimizing means you won't be good at roleplaying" is a fallacious statement.

But is:

"There is a weak but noticable negative correlation between a person's enthusiasm about optimization, and the quality of their roleplaying"

a false statement?

The problem with the whole idea of RP and optimization being opposing is that so many people think that there is a linear connection between them. While it is possible for a good RPer to be a poor optimizer and vice versa, it's also possible to be bad at both or good at both. Therein lies the fallacy: people are as likely to be good at both or be bad at both as they are to be good at one and bad at the other. Saying that you can only be one or the other is flat-out impossible.

Its possible to be one or the other, but it's also possible to be both or neither.

lesser_minion
2009-10-14, 10:03 AM
Reductio ad Absurdum is actually an interesting case.

Basically, in some contexts, it may be a valid argument - it is a popular method in mathematics, for example.

In order to work, a reductio ad absurdum argument has to demonstrate that the opponent's reasoning inevitably leads to an absurdity when applied to the exact situation at hand.

I have an exchange that demonstrates this pretty well:


The only thing it actually mentions can be made into a spell is another spell. There is no reason for the DM to interpret Secret Page as literally allowing the player to scribe spells for free (although it would in that case allow the spells to be scribed for half price).

The DM could probably make a pretty strong case for 'look like' to be 'resembles but is mechanically different to'.


Well if your DM rules that the word 'blue' looks like the word 'blue' but is mechanically different. Then you can just point out that the word 'damage' looks like but is different from the word 'damage' and so all the 'damage' done by attacks is different than the 'damage' done to you, and you become immortal.

Applying someone's argument to a completely different set of circumstances is a strawman argument, not a valid reductio ad absurdum - in this case, my argument about a page in a fictional book on which an illusion spell had been cast, should not have been applied to a page of a book in the real world.

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 10:14 AM
While it is possible for a good RPer to be a poor optimizer and vice versa, it's also possible to be bad at both or good at both. Therein lies the fallacy: people are as likely to be good at both or be bad at both as they are to be good at one and bad at the other. Saying that you can only be one or the other is flat-out impossible.

Its possible to be one or the other, but it's also possible to be both or neither.

I wonder if there is a "counter-Stormwind" theory that argues that people who take the time, and have the skills, to optimize well, are likely to be good roleplayers as well?

Basically- that the "good-player" skillset is more likely than not to incorporate both, and that bad roleplayers are more likely than not to be bad at optimizing too?

Godskook
2009-10-14, 10:19 AM
But is:

"There is a weak but noticable negative correlation between a person's enthusiasm about optimization, and the quality of their roleplaying"

a false statement?

It might not be false, but even if it is true, it doesn't mean anything useful. I mean, there's a weak correlation of the timing between eating ice cream and making phone calls. Correlation != causation.

For instance, I personally try to optimize(not that I do it well, mind you), and I usually dump charisma, in pretty much every character I play. Yeah, they're correlated, but they aren't related. In fact:


I normally play low charisma characters for just that reason(that I can't really roleplay high charisma well).

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 10:23 AM
Yes- the:

"A player only has enough time and energy to be really good at one or the other" causation argument is a bit weak.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 10:30 AM
I mean, there's a weak correlation of the timing between eating ice cream and making phone calls.

You mean because you can't eat ice cream while on the phone?

Well, I suppose you could, but it would get messy... :smallsmile:

Zovc
2009-10-14, 10:36 AM
I don't usually call anything overpowered.

With friends, I'll often say "power gaming" to be silly. "Alex, why are you striking? A regular attack would kill the bandit." "I'm powergaming!" (I proceed to die to a counterattack.)

I DO happen to use the word "broken" a lot when talking about game mechanics with friends. When I use the word, I'm not necessarily referring to something being too powerful, it could be too weak, or could just not interact with the rest of the game well.

Example: In a board game I like, Small World (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/40692) (I recommend you try it if you can), elves are an available race. Elves' special trait is that they are never killed in battle, they always retreat. Any other race loses a race token, then retreats. Small World encourages players to abandon their current race at strategic times and take another one in order to get more victory points--but elves are never withered down, and thus, never really pushed into decline. The problem with this is, over the course of a game, My friend will start with elves, and never change races, I will play strategically (well, if I may say so), sneakily, and defensively... going through maybe four races; My friend never changes races, and we end up neck and neck in terms of victory points. The idea with the elves (I think) was that eventually, it won't be rewarding to keep them, since players will be well-established all over the place... but since any race can just pack up and enter the board from somewhere else, elves never run out of gas. The elves don't interact with the game's basic strategy well, and don't introduce a GOOD change of pace, one player can easily keep two players' board positions in check with the elves and still compete with them for victory points.

Example 2: Another game that I like, Dominion (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36218) has a stand-alone expansion, Dominion: Intrigue (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/40834) (another two games you should check out if you can). In Intrigue, there is an attack card, Saboteur. Saboteur is broken, as far as I'm concerned. The first player who gets and plays a Saboteur is in control of the game, each time he plays it, you lose one of your valuable cards for a less expensive card. This basically means that once he gets a loop of them going, he is the only player who can hold on to expensive cards--to the point where you are only hurting yourself to try for expensive cards. Even victory points you've bought aren't safe from the Saboteur, the card is broken.
(Yes, both of these two examples are powerful, but not in a good way. They're powerful because of their unconventional mechanics, to the point where they are the right play. There is no strategic counter because their abilities are outside of the normal mechanics.)

Now, I will not hesitate to point out (when being a critic), that I think certain things are too powerful. I'm drawing blanks on good examples of this, but the card game UFS is where I mostly find discrepancies. I'm not very rigid with my claims, though, and am willing to discuss them.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 12:45 PM
To be at the high points of the optimization curve for druids & clerics, you have to make some pretty weird domain & race choices.

Every cookie-cutter Clericzilla, for instance, runs around worshiping the ideals of Planning & Undeath. And if you really want to be Drudizilla, you go with anthro-bat.

There's also general discouragement of playing certain race & class combos. No orc wizards, for instance. Or the general "hey guys, I want to play X class and do Y" and invariably a few people show up and say "just be a wizard."

Optimystik
2009-10-14, 01:49 PM
Yes- the:

"A player only has enough time and energy to be really good at one or the other" causation argument is a bit weak.

The moreso because it ignores the synergy between roleplay and optimization - character enjoyment. For example, a player who makes an optimized Soulbow is more likely to enjoy his character than one whose Soulbow is mediocre. And if a player enjoys their character, it probably seems more likely that they'll take the time to sit down and make a nice backstory for it.

Flaws are another opportunity for interesting synergy between optimization and roleplay, but players that gloss them over give the others a bad name in this regard.


To be at the high points of the optimization curve for druids & clerics, you have to make some pretty weird domain & race choices.

Every cookie-cutter Clericzilla, for instance, runs around worshiping the ideals of Planning & Undeath. And if you really want to be Drudizilla, you go with anthro-bat.

Why are Planning and Undeath a weird combination? It seems to me that Undeath is the ultimate form of Planning.


There's also general discouragement of playing certain race & class combos. No orc wizards, for instance. Or the general "hey guys, I want to play X class and do Y" and invariably a few people show up and say "just be a wizard."

Truth in Television here - most orcs would likely discourage their peers from taking up wizardry too, through equal parts ridicule and violence.

Wizard is usually the answer for "I want to do X" simply because wizards can do X.

DragoonWraith
2009-10-14, 01:54 PM
Every cookie-cutter Clericzilla, for instance, runs around worshiping the ideals of Planning & Undeath.
That... sounds like every Lich ever. Doesn't seem like a weird combination in the slightest.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 01:55 PM
people are as likely to be good at both or be bad at both as they are to be good at one and bad at the other. This really isn't true in my experience. People are far more likely to be especially good at one or the other than to be good or bad at both.


I wonder if there is a "counter-Stormwind" theory that argues that people who take the time, and have the skills, to optimize well, are likely to be good roleplayers as well?It's possible, but personally, I rather doubt it; I see a lot more "that's the x fallacy" than actual well thought out arguments.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:00 PM
This really isn't true in my experience. People are far more likely to be good at one or the other than to be good or bad at both.

Isn't that what's expected assuming a Gaussian distribution?

DragoonWraith
2009-10-14, 02:01 PM
Isn't that what's expected assuming a Gaussian distribution?
Why would you assume a Gaussian distribution, though? In fact, I strongly doubt it.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 02:02 PM
Isn't that what's expected assuming a Gaussian distribution?Yup, that's pretty much the sort of distribution I'd expect; but sinfire's "people are as likely X as they are Y" is not a Gaussian distribution.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 02:04 PM
This really isn't true in my experience. People are far more likely to be good at one or the other than to be good or bad at both.

That's just it: It takes practice and effort, but a human being can adapt to a skill set over time.

We all start out as a blank piece of paper (maybe construction, maybe wax, but some kind of paper). All it takes is a little writing, and we're whoever we feel like becoming.

I'm really simplifying things here, but that's fairly close to how we work. It just takes time (sometimes more than we can spare, sometimes very little).

Doc Roc
2009-10-14, 02:04 PM
Isn't that what's expected assuming a Gaussian distribution?

Presuming unlinked traits both possessing a Gaussian distribution, yes, fully possessing both is a little unlikely. That said, we have no empirical support for presuming a strict Guassian. Further, given unlinked traits, you should expect the majority of people to be moderately competent in both respects.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:04 PM
Why would you assume a Gaussian distribution, though? In fact, I strongly doubt it.

Null hypothesis. Assume that there is no relationship between the variables, and we should expect about half of everyone to be good at one and not the other, and a quarter to be bad at both or good at both.

If we find a significant difference from that assumption, then we can reject the null and conclude that there is a causative relationship.


Presuming unlinked traits both possessing a Gaussian distribution, yes, fully possessing both is a little unlikely. That said, we have no empirical support for presuming a strict Guassian. Further, given unlinked traits, you should expect the majority of people to be moderately competent in both respects.

The default assumption is always a null- normal distribution of unlinked traits.


Yup, that's pretty much the sort of distribution I'd expect; but sinfire's "people are as likely X as they are Y" is not a Gaussian distribution.

Yeah, and it's precisely because they're NOT related that we see this "fallacy", since half of everyone falls into the middle category- good at one or the other, but not both.


[edit]
My half & quarters example is flawed, as it depends on the actual shape of the distributions and how much overlap between the two you get.

I just treated it as if I was doing a heterozygote cross, which in hindsight, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

DragoonWraith
2009-10-14, 02:10 PM
Null hypothesis. Assume that there is no relationship between the variables, and we should expect about half of everyone to be good at one and not the other, and a quarter to be bad at both or good at both.

If we find a significant difference from that assumption, then we can reject the null and conclude that there is a causative relationship.
OK, my (admittedly weak) statistics is failing me. My doubt of Gaussian here had to do with the Gaussian distribution's symmetry - but now I'm thinking about it and that does sound somewhat reasonable.

Man, I hated statistics. Though to be fair that's probably because I hated my professor. A lot.

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 02:11 PM
A relationship, but not necessarily a causative relationship.

Lets say we discovered that:

25% of people are "Good optimizers"
25% of people are "Good roleplayers"

20% of people are "both good optimizers and good roleplayers"

Leaving 5% of people who are good at optimizing but not especially good at roleplaying

And 5% of people who are good at roleplaying but not especially good at optimizing.

If we discovered this thing- we could say "Good roleplayers are usually good optimizers (and vice versa).

But we could not say either that "Good optimizing causes good roleplaying" or "Good roleplaying causes good optimizing"

To show this would require more work.

These stats are purely hypothetical.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:12 PM
OK, my (admittedly weak) statistics is failing me. My doubt of Gaussian here had to do with the Gaussian distribution's symmetry - but now I'm thinking about it and that does sound somewhat reasonable.

Man, I hated statistics. Though to be fair that's probably because I hated my professor. A lot.

Statistics are awesome. It's an incredibly powerful tool set you can use to unwrap the mysteries of the universe.

And most traits tend to be distributed normally (ie, a gaussian distribution), within a group. For instance, height is a nice bell curve for all humans, or for all Americans, for all Japanese, or for all Masai. But if you put the Masai & Japanese together, you'd get a bimodal distribution.

I think it's reasonable to assume a normal distribution, until evidence suggests otherwise, that within gamers, gaming traits are normally distributed.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 02:13 PM
Null hypothesis. Assume that there is no relationship between the variables, and we should expect about half of everyone to be good at one and not the other, and a quarter to be bad at both or good at both.I'd expect that sort of distribution even if there is a relationships between the 2, as long as the relationship isn't terribly strong. The strength of the relationship certainly skews the graph, but in general the distribution follows a gaussian-like curve.

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 02:14 PM
If handled carefully, and with precautions taken to avoid making overgenerous conclusions from the statistics, yes, they are awesome. :smallamused:

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 02:34 PM
If we discovered this thing- we could say "Good roleplayers are usually good optimizers (and vice versa).

But we could not say either that "Good optimizing causes good roleplaying" or "Good roleplaying causes good optimizing"

This is exactly the point. Cause and Effect. RP and Optimization are the effects, not the causes. It is possible for the two to be connected (very easily), but very unlikely that one could be the cause of the other. Optimization is meta-concept, RP is in character.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:39 PM
It is possible for the two to be connected (very easily), but very unlikely that one could be the cause of the other.

Really?
It is entirely plausible that people who like to optimize don't like to roleplay, and people that roleplay aren't terribly interested in optimizing. It fits pretty well with my, and it seems, many others', experience with human behavior. The kind of person who likes to wear a cape and talk in falsetto while pretending to be a faerie in a gingerbread castle has a very different set of preferences than the guy who likes to kick in the door and do 50d6 to everything.

Godskook
2009-10-14, 02:40 PM
If we find a significant difference from that assumption, then we can reject the null and conclude that there is a causative relationship.

No, we can't. Statistics just don't prove causation.

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 02:41 PM
Now if there turned out to be very strong negative correlation- causation could be a little more feasible: the

"there simply isn't time to do both at once" theory.

another, possibly more likely explanation is that people who use extremely implausible combinations give other optimizers a bad name.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:42 PM
No, we can't. Statistics just don't prove causation.

Who's said anything about proof?

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 02:45 PM
possible example of circumstantial "cause and effect" evidence- would be if we were to find out:

that nearly every time a good roleplayer gets shown how to optimize, say, by reading CharOp forums:

and they start doing it themselves, their fellow players and DMs report their effort to roleplay going way, way down.

I doubt it would be exactly like that though.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 02:48 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fair bit of anecdotal evidence to that effect; I've known people who started focusing on making their character more powerful at the expense of making decisions that made sense in-character (increasing optimization at the expense of roleplaying).

Godskook
2009-10-14, 02:50 PM
Who's said anything about proof?

Uh, you did...maybe not in word, but in sentiment.

But if you need the same statement using words closer to your own:

"No, we can't. Statistics just can't be used to conclude that there is causation."

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 02:52 PM
"No, we can't. Statistics just can't be used to conclude that there is causation."I'd say that's highly untrue... people can use all kinds of things to reach conclusions.

Godskook
2009-10-14, 03:01 PM
I'd say that's highly untrue... people can use all kinds of things to reach conclusions.

That's not what I said. I didn't speak of what people(apparently crazy people) can do. I spoke of the capabilities of statistics as a tool. My statement is synonymous with:

"Statistics is not valid evidence for the use of arriving at conclusions of causality."

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 03:05 PM
Uh, you did...maybe not in word, but in sentiment.

I am always very careful when I use the term "proof" around laymen. The only place you can prove anything is geometry.


But if you need the same statement using words closer to your own:

"No, we can't. Statistics just can't be used to conclude that there is causation."

Yes, they can. They're used all the time to conclude causation. In virtually any field where you can't perform experiments, you use statistics.

Drug trials, Mendelian inheritance, counter-terrorism, economics, astronomy, physics, all use statistics to form conclusions that certain things cause other things.

For instance, in a new drug trial, what do you conclude when your statistics show that people on the drug have a 15% higher chance of heart attack?

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 03:10 PM
Really?
It is entirely plausible that people who like to optimize don't like to roleplay, and people that roleplay aren't terribly interested in optimizing. It fits pretty well with my, and it seems, many others', experience with human behavior. The kind of person who likes to wear a cape and talk in falsetto while pretending to be a faerie in a gingerbread castle has a very different set of preferences than the guy who likes to kick in the door and do 50d6 to everything.

Here's the thing: You didn't disagree with me there at all. RP isn't the cause of the Optimization, and Optimization isn't the cause of RP. That's what I was saying. Its possible to not want to optimize or RP. Neither of them should be able to cause you to not want the other.

"Should" is the key word though. A past DM taught me that mankind is its own exception.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 03:15 PM
I am always very careful when I use the term "proof" around laymen. The only place you can prove anything is geometry.or discrete math.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 03:16 PM
Here's the thing: You didn't disagree with me there at all. RP isn't the cause of the Optimization, and Optimization isn't the cause of RP. That's what I was saying. Its possible to not want to optimize or RP. Neither of them should be able to cause you to not want the other.

"Should" is the key word though. A past DM taught me that mankind is its own exception.

Fair enough.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 03:18 PM
Neither of them should be able to cause you to not want the other.There are definitely times where someone would chose to pick an extremely sub-optimal option for the sake of roleplay; there are definitely times where someone would choose to sacrifice roleplaying for the sake of optimization. In either case, the desire to do one of them has caused the individual not to want to do the other.

I'm not saying that this is by any means universal, but it's not terribly uncommon in my experience.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 03:29 PM
There are definitely times where someone would chose to pick an extremely sub-optimal option for the sake of roleplay; there are definitely times where someone would choose to sacrifice roleplaying for the sake of optimization. In either case, the desire to do one of them has caused the individual not to want to do the other.

I'm not saying that this is by any means universal, but it's not terribly uncommon in my experience.

You misunderstand. Even in your example, Optimization did not directly cause the incident; the person merely forwent optimization for RP's sake or vice versa. What I meant is this:

"I don't like Role Playing, so I'm going to make the most powerful character I can."

"I don't like Optimizing, so I'm just gonna take levels in Commoner."


Neither of these are rational applications of Cause and Effect, and are very poor logic regardless.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-14, 03:30 PM
There are definitely times where someone would chose to pick an extremely sub-optimal option for the sake of roleplay; there are definitely times where someone would choose to sacrifice roleplaying for the sake of optimization. In either case, the desire to do one of them has caused the individual not to want to do the other.

I'm not saying that this is by any means universal, but it's not terribly uncommon in my experience.

The issue with this is that it still has not caused optimization to make the player sacrifice roleplaying in general or vice versa; my character can be very well optimized even if I decide to take Skill Focus (Basketweaving) for the flavor, and it can be terribly optimized even if I've managed to pick up Shock Trooper, they're just not the best possible or worst possible builds. Only if this were the case for every single one of a player's characters could you begin to make assumptions about their playstyle--in fact, someone making RP-focused choices for one character and optimization-focused for another would show an example of exactly the good-RP/good-Op player we're talking about--and often not even then.

Just because I get a banana split today because it's the best value for the amount of ice cream I get doesn't mean I don't like mint chocolate chip or that I think it's somehow worse. It means that today, when I'm feeling like getting ice cream, I want a lot of ice cream for less money, and it doesn't say anything about whether I'll get a banana split, mint chocolate chip, or a third option tomorrow.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 03:36 PM
...so do we now have a gaussian distribution regarding how seriously the people expect a gaussian distributions here?

Nobody Expects The Spanish Distribution!

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 03:40 PM
Somehow I can't imagine an enthusiastic optimizer

"discovering roleplaying" and as a result, their skills appearing to go down.

Maybe because the abilities needed to have a knack for optimizing, don't just go away.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-14, 03:49 PM
Somehow I can't imagine an enthusiastic optimizer

"discovering roleplaying" and as a result, their skills appearing to go down.

Maybe because the abilities needed to have a knack for optimizing, don't just go away.

Or the reverse, someone discovering the joys of Shock Trooper only to find their acting abilities impaired.

Godskook
2009-10-14, 03:50 PM
Yes, they can. They're used all the time to conclude causation. In virtually any field where you can't perform experiments, you use statistics.

Drug trials, Mendelian inheritance, counter-terrorism, economics, astronomy, physics, all use statistics to form conclusions that certain things cause other things.

1.You forgot to list poker. /joke

2.So? Just because people insist on faulty reasonings does not make them non-faulty. The math just doesn't give that information. Statistics can prove correlations, but you need additional evidence to conclude that a correlation is indeed a causation.

3.I've seen situations where, despite having a MoE<1%, the statistic was horribly wrong.


For instance, in a new drug trial, what do you conclude when your statistics show that people on the drug have a 15% higher chance of heart attack?

Not enough information.

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 03:53 PM
Or the reverse, someone discovering the joys of Shock Trooper only to find their acting abilities impaired.

Acting abilities, no.

Ability to come up with a convincing explanation for the backstory for a build of brokenness approaching Pun-pun levels- perhaps that would strain the creativity of even an enthusiastic roleplayer.

That said, I tend to doubt that most "new optimizers who are long-term roleplayers" tend to gravitate toward broken builds anyway.

Skorj
2009-10-14, 03:56 PM
Well, there's some trade-off at the edges for character design for RP vs optimizaion. A perfectly optimized character is rarely very interesting, on paper, to RP. So an optimizer who "suddenly discovered" RP might create less optimal characters as a result.

But in practice that's silly. PnP D&D is simply not that sort of game where an extra 0.5% performance boost matters. Even if you see your character as limited to what's on the character sheet, it's very easy to optimize a particular character concept to "good enough" and still have plenty of room for colorful stuff in the build itself.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 03:56 PM
Somehow I can't imagine an enthusiastic optimizer

"discovering roleplaying" and as a result, their skills appearing to go down.

Maybe because the abilities needed to have a knack for optimizing, don't just go away.

Exactly. It's not possible for this to happen. Its possible for you to slowly get worse at RP or Optimization when you don't exercise that ability regularly, but that's actually natural (and fades after a little practice session or two).

Godskook
2009-10-14, 03:56 PM
Ability to come up with a convincing explanation for the backstory for a build of brokenness approaching Pun-pun levels- perhaps that would strain the creativity of even an enthusiastic roleplayer.

I would think a roleplaying challenge would be desired for roleplayers.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 03:57 PM
2.So? Just because people insist on faulty reasonings does not make them non-faulty. The math just doesn't give that information. Statistics can prove correlations, but you need additional evidence to conclude that a correlation is indeed a causation.

Of course, but the additional information is not always available. Drug development relies heavily on statistics. Just because you don't know the pathway that could be increasing heart attack rates by 15% doesn't mean you keep giving people the drug.

Ozymandias9
2009-10-14, 04:15 PM
Of course, but the additional information is not always available. Drug development relies heavily on statistics. Just because you don't know the pathway that could be increasing heart attack rates by 15% doesn't mean you keep giving people the drug.

Yes, but that does not mean we're assuming a causative effect. It merely means that the correlation is strong enough that it exceeds our threshold risk aversion for the possibility of a causative effect.

Really, this little offshoot is just a language dispute: he said "presume", not "prove", and it would seem he intended to imply "given related information." I think we can all agree that statistics itself cannot demonstrate causation.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 04:17 PM
Somehow I can't imagine an enthusiastic optimizer

"discovering roleplaying" and as a result, their skills appearing to go down.

Maybe because the abilities needed to have a knack for optimizing, don't just go away.The skills don't have to go away, but if the person "discovers roleplaying" and as a result they stop using their optimizing skills then that looks like a cause/effect relationship to me.


You misunderstand.I'm making statements of the form "Item A is able to cause you to not want the Item B." ... which matches the form of "Neither of them should be able to cause you to not want the other." which is what I'm disagreeing with.
Even in your example, Optimization did not directly cause the incident; Yes, it absolutely did. If someone forgoes roleplay for the sake of optimization, or forgoes optimization for the sake of roleplay, then one of them has been able to cause you to not want the other.


I would think a roleplaying challenge would be desired for roleplayers.In my experience, the is a fairly significant number of "rolepalyers" who wouldn't even label what you're suggesting as roleplaying.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 04:23 PM
No, really, I don't think I do; I'm making statements of the form "Item A is able to cause you to not want the Item B." ... which is the what I'm disagreeing with. Yes, it absolutely did. If someone forgoes roleplay for the sake of optimization, or forgoes optimization for the sake of roleplay, then one of them has been able to cause you to not want the other.


You definitely misconstrued my argument there. Let me rephrase it so my intent is clear:


Role Playing cannot directly cause good optimization.
Role Playing cannot directly cause poor optimization.
Optimization cannot directly cause poor Role Playing.
Optimization cannot directly cause good Role Playing.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 04:28 PM
You definitely misconstrued my argument there. Let me rephrase it so my intent is clear:


Role Playing cannot directly cause good optimization.
Role Playing cannot directly cause poor optimization.
Optimization cannot directly cause poor Role Playing.
Optimization cannot directly cause good Role Playing.Yes, I understood that. #2 and #3 are the ones I was disagreeing with. I'm saying that's a direct cause->effect .

You'll also find people who will argue #1 and #4... I'm not entirely convinced of that myself, so I'll let them make their own arguments.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 04:35 PM
Yes, I understood that. #2 and #3 are the ones I was disagreeing with. I'm saying that's a direct cause->effect .

You'll also find people who will argue #1 and #4... I'm not entirely convinced of that myself, so I'll let them make their own arguments.

You overlooked something: It wasn't the Role Playing that caused it, it was the choice of the player that caused it. The Role Playing gave him reason, but his actions are the cause of the poor optimization. The same applies to the Optimization side; it's largely the player's choice to Role Play at all. Optimization has no direct cause over this.

Jayabalard
2009-10-14, 04:41 PM
You overlooked something: Nope, I didn't overlook that, I just don't agree that the distinction you're trying to make here is a valid one. The player, in the course of roleplaying, can choose poor optimization directly because of that roleplay; the player, in the course of optimizing, can choose to roleplay poorly directly as a result of that optimization. One can cause you to not want the other.


Alternately, any statement that implies that the only way someone could disagree with you is because they don't understand you/can't read properly is likewise not allowed.You're coming across this way to me, just FYI.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-14, 05:25 PM
Nope, I didn't overlook that, I just don't agree that the distinction you're trying to make here is a valid one. The player, in the course of roleplaying, can choose poor optimization directly because of that roleplay; the player, in the course of optimizing, can choose to roleplay poorly directly as a result of that optimization. One can cause you to not want the other.

I think when you say "choose poor optimization because of roleplay" you mean to say that the player does this consistently and to the exclusion of the reverse, whereas when Sinfire is saying it he means the player is doing so for a particular feat choice or other decision. In your case, yes, the player would have to choose one over the other because he's only doing one...but how often does a person really pull a complete 180 and decide to stop roleplaying and start solely optimizing or vice-versa?

A good roleplayer deciding to make a more optimized build than his last one? Sure. An optimizer trying to realize a character concept which requires suboptimal mechanics? Sure. A roleplayer refusing to optimize or an optimizer refusing to roleplay? Not so much.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 06:38 PM
An optimizer trying to realize a character concept which requires suboptimal mechanics?

Hell, I can even give a good example of this: my preference toward Totemists over Druids. If I ever want to make a nature-themed character I use the Totemist almost exclusively, even if the Druid would be mechanically more accruate/powerful. Even then, I still optimize it (despite choosing an inferior class with the same flavor).


It has more to do with the Druid than with the optimization though.

shadow_archmagi
2009-10-14, 07:07 PM
For instance, in a new drug trial, what do you conclude when your statistics show that people on the drug have a 15% higher chance of heart attack?

I may conclude that, as originally predicted, it was a poor choice to use the drug only on test subjects over 90 with a high cholesterol level.

And while I command my testers for enthusiasm, I think the "surprise tests" included a bit too much "surprise."

Keld Denar
2009-10-15, 12:19 AM
my preference toward Totemists over Druids.

This. This most of all. I mean, if everyone EVER only optimized to the highest degree, then everyone would be Incantatrix's and Planar Shepherds fighting other Incantatrix's and Planar Shepherds. Period. Sometime you wanna play a stabbity character. Thats fine. You can still do it well. Adventuring is dangerous business, and whatever your role, you should attempt to do it well. That doesn't mean you need only make top tier choices, but you should be mechanically solid and able to pull your own weight in most encounters.

DragoonWraith
2009-10-15, 12:31 AM
The skills don't have to go away, but if the person "discovers roleplaying" and as a result they stop using their optimizing skills then that looks like a cause/effect relationship to me.
Why would they do that?

More to the point, even if they did stop optimizing after "discovering" roleplaying (how does one "discover" roleplaying, anyway?), how on earth does that cause them to stop optimizing?

Your statement is literally "if they stop optimizing because of roleplay, then roleplay caused a decrease in optimization" - it's a circular statement. You've done nothing to even suggest that it is actually possible for one to stop optimizing because of roleplay.

And I would argue that it isn't.

As Keld and Sinfire have said, optimizing does not mean playing the most powerful character possible, period, every time. Otherwise the answer to every single CO thread ever would be "play Pun-Pun" - but it isn't. Optimizing merely means making a particular character concept work as well as it is able to.

only1doug
2009-10-15, 06:57 AM
That's just it: It takes practice and effort, but a human being can adapt to a skill set over time.

We all start out as a blank piece of paper (maybe construction, maybe wax, but some kind of paper). All it takes is a little writing, and we're whoever we feel like becoming.

I'm really simplifying things here, but that's fairly close to how we work. It just takes time (sometimes more than we can spare, sometimes very little).

definately a simplification, I guess this is a nature vs nuture arguement at heart.

I'm bad at learning languages, music and art and good at learning mathmatics, logic, rules systems, progamming, etc.

My "blank piece of paper" is very different from someone elses who might be good at everything I'm bad at (and bad at what I'm good at).

I'm not going to say its impossible for people to learn things that they aren't good at but some people may find specific things so hard to learn that they decide that it isn't worth the effort (like me with music).

Jayabalard
2009-10-15, 07:18 AM
Why would they do that?Lots of reasons; for example: they make all character build decisions based strictly on in-character reasoning rather min/maxing in any way in an effort to play a "real person" , or they decide playing a powerful (or even an effective) character stops being interesting.


More to the point, even if they did stop optimizing after "discovering" roleplaying (how does one "discover" roleplaying, anyway?), how on earth does that cause them to stop optimizing?Your statement is literally "if they stop optimizing because of roleplay, then roleplay caused a decrease in optimization" - it's a circular statement. You've done nothing to even suggest that it is actually possible for one to stop optimizing because of roleplay.[/quote]I'm pretty sure I mention having anecdotal evidence (as in, I've seen it happen to people) somewhere in the thread, and using terms like "in my experience" ... I've been careful to try and not imply that this is universal, but instead show that there are indeed cases where it happens.


As Keld and Sinfire have said, optimizing does not mean playing the most powerful character possible, period, every time. Correct, it means "attempting to derive the maximum benefit for the minimum penalty" (per the forum definitions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512)). That's quite a bit stronger than the "create effective characters" definition that's being thrown around. It certainly applies to someone who takes on a certain set of mechanical flaws and then optimizes from that point; it does not apply to someone who does not weigh the mechanical advantages/disadvantages of the character build choices.


I think when you say "choose poor optimization because of roleplay" you mean to say that the player does this consistently and to the exclusion of the reverse, whereas when Sinfire is saying it he means the player is doing so for a particular feat choice or other decision. In your case, yes, the player would have to choose one over the other because he's only doing one...but how often does a person really pull a complete 180 and decide to stop roleplaying and start solely optimizing or vice-versa?I've seen a good roleplayer do that at least once; his characters became much more mechanically effective, but they all stopped being "real people"... kind of sad, his previous characters had been really inspiring in that way. And I've seen it happen the other way 2 or 3 times where people completely stopped min/maxing. Plus a number of times in both directions where the turn wasn't a 180, but somewhere between 60 and 120.

Zincorium
2009-10-15, 07:58 AM
Jayabalard:

There is the possibility that the people you are playing with aren't getting worse at 'roleplaying' because of optimization, they are simply getting tired of losing combats due to choices made for a very nebulous 'rp value'.

I can't think of many things that make roleplaying harder, unless you have chosen a character archetype which is poorly supported, like a commoner folk hero. Planar shepard is incredibly flavorful, incantatrix has awesome fluff behind it if you actually read it, and so forth. This doesn't reduce their relative power in the slightest.

The trick to not falling into a 'optimization is opposed to roleplaying' trap is to figure out what you mechanically want to do, look through your long list of character ideas you haven't played yet (you have one, right?) and match them up, altering one or the other until you're satisfied on both ends.

Riffington
2009-10-15, 08:00 AM
Jayabalard:

There is the possibility that the people you are playing with aren't getting worse at 'roleplaying' because of optimization, they are simply getting tired of losing combats due to choices made for a very nebulous 'rp value'.

I can't think of many things that make roleplaying harder,

You just contradicted yourself. If people create characters with lots of combat power, they then frequently want to use that combat power. The result is often that the campaign involves more combat and less roleplaying, and the 'rp value' turns into something "very nebulous" instead of the focus of the campaign. This then makes roleplaying harder. Doesn't happen every time, but it does often happen.

DragoonWraith
2009-10-15, 08:15 AM
I've seen a good roleplayer do that at least once; his characters became much more mechanically effective, but they all stopped being "real people"... kind of sad, his previous characters had been really inspiring in that way.
If you don't mind, could you describe exactly what he did?

Because to me, it seems to me that you're saying that the character stopped being "real" just because they lacked, oh, I dunno, "Skill Focus (Basketweaving)" or whatever. Seriously, what did he do differently? Because I cannot imagine any mechanical choice that would kill a character's "reality" like that; even things that are thematic stretches can still be done, with enough suspension of disbelief. If done in the middle of a character, that can be harder to justify, but I don't think there's anything thematically more disbelievable about my 20-class character than any standard single-classed character. Barring potential conceptions of "class" as an in-game concept, anyway. How would someone who always played Sword and Board FIghters suddenly lose all roleplaying skill because he's playing a Batman Wizard? I just don't see it.

In other words, it sounds to me that when you see optimizing, you're already assuming that RP will be diminished and therefore find what you're looking for. It's completely subjective and it seems like you are subjectively just creating your own self-fulfilling prophecy - you don't think they can RP as effectively, so no matter what they do your experience is that their RPing has been diminished.

Jayabalard
2009-10-15, 08:30 AM
There is the possibility that the people you are playing with aren't getting worse at 'roleplaying' because of optimization, they are simply getting tired of losing combats due to choices made for a very nebulous 'rp value'.No; they weren't really losing combats; combat wasn't a really large part of the game; as I recall, he got kind of frustrated with that, where as before that change, because the GM didn't change the game style (since everyone else was happy with it).

In any case, if you're roleplaying less (or not at all) because you've chosen to optimize more, I'd say that there's a direct, causal relationship between your decision to optimize and the decline of your roleplaying.


I can't think of many things that make roleplaying harder, unless you have chosen a character archetype which is poorly supported, like a commoner folk hero. Or a character that's not really a clear cut archetype at all (especially in D&D, or any other class based system, since they're highly archetype oriented).


The trick to not falling into a 'optimization is opposed to roleplaying' trap Keep in mind that I'm not saying that this is the universal, or even the most common case; I'm pointing out cases where it does happen, specifically because I'm arguing against someone who's claiming that it cannot happen.

DragoonWraith
2009-10-15, 09:05 AM
if you're roleplaying less (or not at all) because you've chosen to optimize more, I'd say that there's a direct, causal relationship between your decision to optimize and the decline of your roleplaying.
Again, this is a circular statement. If something happens because of something else, then by definition the latter caused the former. Your statement is true but meaningless. You have still offered nothing but assertion that his optimization caused a decrease in roleplaying. You need to back up your claim, rather than just restate it.

Zincorium
2009-10-15, 12:16 PM
No; they weren't really losing combats; combat wasn't a really large part of the game; as I recall, he got kind of frustrated with that, where as before that change, because the GM didn't change the game style (since everyone else was happy with it).

In any case, if you're roleplaying less (or not at all) because you've chosen to optimize more, I'd say that there's a direct, causal relationship between your decision to optimize and the decline of your roleplaying.

Unless they've said "I'm too busy doing this character optimization to roleplay anymore", anything about their motivation is speculation on your part.

If they're doing it because of something else they're doing, there is a causal relationship. And the only way to know that this is the case is to ask them and their reply indicates such.

Otherwise, there is no causality. Only correlation.


Or a character that's not really a clear cut archetype at all (especially in D&D, or any other class based system, since they're highly archetype oriented).

Can you give some examples of a character that doesn't fit any archetypes from fiction? And still has more flavor than sand?


Keep in mind that I'm not saying that this is the universal, or even the most common case; I'm pointing out cases where it does happen, specifically because I'm arguing against someone who's claiming that it cannot happen.

No one, to my knowledge, has stated that a negative correlation between roleplaying proficiency and optimization ability is impossible. Only that a lack of negative correlation, or a positive correlation between the two, was possible.

So there's either a post I missed, a strawman, or a misunderstanding.