PDA

View Full Version : Stormwind fallacy



Pages : [1] 2

misterk
2010-02-09, 08:00 AM
This fallacy doesn't seem to be much of one to me. It makes the claim that roleplaying and optimisation are utterly independent. Hmm. Optimisation usually takes place during character creation and leveling, correct? Then clearly they're connected.

When creating a character you create a role. This is a very necessary part of roleplaying. While you can start as a blank cypher, this is quite difficult in any system where you must have some kind of back history purely because of childhood. I do like to have my characters evolve into something as the sessions happen, but they do have to start somewhere.

So what role is an optimised character? Well if I am optimising completely, then I am creating someone utterly commited to a role. If I have decided to make a batman wizard, then there are a set of choices for which I must take certain options to ensure that my character is optimum. So in other words my being has decided they want to be a particular type of wizard, and have done absolutely nothing in their life that is not devoted to that role.

Fine. But I would argue that by doing this you are necessarily missing out on a whole host of roles, because most beings are not able to remain commited to one ideal .Thanks to their experiences and choices, they may have other goals, other ideas, that have distracted them from it. Look at the examples in order of the stick- while sometimes one might take spells because its the best choice at that point in time, sometimes you might take spells because of something that has effected you emotionally (neutralize poison being an obvious example). Indeed, even a being comitted to a particular role may be swayed by their experiences as you continue play.

If you remain an optimiser, picking the 'best' options with no thought of the things your character has experienced, then you are sacrificing roleplaying on the altar of optimisation.

So I would not claim that optimisers cannot roleplay, but that optimisation can easily distract from roleplaying.

Annnnd now, rampant disagreement please!

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 08:02 AM
On the other hand, there are some ridiculously powerful builds that have an obvious RP justification. Like Tainted Ur-Theurge hax.

Oslecamo
2010-02-09, 08:06 AM
You're right. The Stormwind fallacy doesn't say anything at all because the creator never bothered to put forth concise definitions of "roleplaying" and "optimization".

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 08:06 AM
Just a warning that the last thread on this subject got locked and ported to the mod forum.


So I would not claim that optimisers cannot roleplay, but that optimisation can easily distract from roleplaying.

This is correct, but the reverse is also true - lack of optimization does not necessarily enhance roleplaying.

Anyway, here's Roland's post on the subject. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40903)

kamikasei
2010-02-09, 08:08 AM
So I would not claim that optimisers cannot roleplay, but that optimisation can easily distract from roleplaying.

I don't believe the Stormwind Fallacy has ever stated that optimization can never be opposed to roleplaying. It states that the two are not necessarily opposed, and that you are not a better roleplayer for playing mechanically weak characters, or a worse one for playing strong characters.

Oslecamo
2010-02-09, 08:11 AM
I don't believe the Stormwind Fallacy has ever stated that optimization can never be opposed to roleplaying.

I talked to Stormwing himself back in the time in the Wotc forums. He claimed that the two things had no connection whatsoever. And so did his most loyal supporters.

Stormwind was also a great adept of refluffling, so you could see him sugest psion for a demonic based character, or cleric for a pure warrior.

Bosh
2010-02-09, 08:13 AM
I think that what you're missing is that people don't try to make the most powerful build possible (they'd just make Pun-Pun every time if that were the case) they try to make the most powerful build possible that fits the sort of character that you have in mind.

So what makes a lot of sense for optimizers is for them to come up with a concept that is fun for RPing reasons and then try to make that concept work mechanically. Often optimization can improve RPing (although the converse is, of course, often the case) by making sure that the abstract character concept and the mechanics of the character actually match up.

For example it is hard to RP a huntsman who feels pangs of guilt over treating intelligent beings like the quarry that most people hunt if he can't mechanically act like a half-way competent hunter.

Likewise if you create a character concept of a non-magical bodyguard who is dedicated to guarding another PC with his life, then it's important to have a good grasp of (and the ability to optimize) the mechanics that lets you keep other people from getting killed in 3.5ed or it'll be hard to actually play out that concept if you have no mechanical ability to throw yourself in front of incoming arrows and whatnot.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 08:17 AM
I talked to Stormwing himself back in the time in the Wotc forums. He claimed that the two things had no connection whatsoever. And so did his most loyal supporters.

"No connection" could mean no causation, rather than no correlation.

kamikasei
2010-02-09, 08:19 AM
I talked to Stormwing himself back in the time in the Wotc forums. He claimed that the two things had no connection whatsoever. And so did his most loyal supporters.

He doesn't seem to have put that claim in to the actual statement of the Fallacy, though.

I'm making the assumption that "the Stormwind Fallacy" is what's described in the original post (which may have vanished in to the ether; found a repost here (http://www.loremaster.org/loremaster-editorials/1084-loremaster-stormwind-fallacy.html)):
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

If we're in fact trying to discuss some abstract thing existing in a) the entire forumgoing history of Tempest Stormwind and some number of people who agree with him, or b) the entire forumgoing history of everyone everywhere who's ever used or heard the term, I doubt any useful discussion is possible.

misterk
2010-02-09, 08:34 AM
"These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other."

Seems to imply they are utterly independent. I argue they are not, that true optimisation limits ones roleplaying choices. I would certainly agree there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play an archer who is good at archery, and most roleplayed characters should usually be fairly good at whatever it is they are trying to do, but optimisation would take this a step further- there will be a corresponding skill set, feat list, excetera (depending on the system under discussion) that is the best for this particular type of character.

There is nothing wrong with saying that your character is an archer, so they will take skill: bow making (say), but if all they ever do is utterly related to that role, then you are making someone who is not quite a character anymore.

Oslecamo
2010-02-09, 08:39 AM
He doesn't seem to have put that claim in to the actual statement of the Fallacy, though.

Really?



I'm making the assumption that "the Stormwind Fallacy" is what's described in the original post (which may have vanished in to the ether; found a repost here (http://www.loremaster.org/loremaster-editorials/1084-loremaster-stormwind-fallacy.html)):

...

A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
...

Indeed, Stormwind Fallacy claims that everybody has infinite time and brain capacity to fully invest in both roleplaying and optimization. Nevermind that he never actualy bothers to give a clear definition of either thing.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 08:45 AM
Indeed, Stormwind Fallacy claims that everybody has infinite time and brain capacity to fully invest in both roleplaying and optimization. Nevermind that he never actualy bothers to give a clear definition of either thing.

Brain capacity is not a finite resource, to be allocated between roleplay and optimization. That's the very definition of a false dilemma.

Sucrose
2010-02-09, 08:45 AM
"These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other."

Seems to imply they are utterly independent. I argue they are not, that true optimisation limits ones roleplaying choices. I would certainly agree there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play an archer who is good at archery, and most roleplayed characters should usually be fairly good at whatever it is they are trying to do, but optimisation would take this a step further- there will be a corresponding skill set, feat list, excetera (depending on the system under discussion) that is the best for this particular type of character.

There is nothing wrong with saying that your character is an archer, so they will take skill: bow making (say), but if all they ever do is utterly related to that role, then you are making someone who is not quite a character anymore.

You and many of the people who call themselves 'optimizers' have different definitions of the term. Several 'optimizers,' including myself, do not have optimization of character effectiveness as a goal in and of itself.

We define our character, and then, within those constraints, we optimize. If we wish to add some roleplaying element, that becomes an additional constraint. Thus, while the roleplaying limits the optimization, the optimization never limits the roleplay.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 08:48 AM
You and many of the people who call themselves 'optimizers' have different definitions of the term. Several 'optimizers,' including myself, do not have optimization of character effectiveness as a goal in and of itself.

We define our character, and then, within those constraints, we optimize. If we wish to add some roleplaying element, that becomes an additional constraint. Thus, while the roleplaying limits the optimization, the optimization never limits the roleplay.

Agreed - and thanks to elements like flaws, none of them has to limit the other.

Sucrose
2010-02-09, 08:52 AM
Agreed - and thanks to elements like flaws, none of them has to limit the other.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that; roleplaying anyone other than Pun-Pun is strictly less than optimal for power purposes. I'll agree that there's almost always a mechanically effective means of playing your character, though.

Drascin
2010-02-09, 08:58 AM
Seems to imply they are utterly independent. I argue they are not, that true optimisation limits ones roleplaying choices. I would certainly agree there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play an archer who is good at archery, and most roleplayed characters should usually be fairly good at whatever it is they are trying to do, but optimisation would take this a step further- there will be a corresponding skill set, feat list, excetera (depending on the system under discussion) that is the best for this particular type of character.

Bolding mine.

The thing is, what you (apparently) think is "true optimisation", and what the world at large thinks is optimizing, aren't the same. "Optimisation" means "finding the most mechanically efficient solution within a given set of rules and constraints". This means that, as Sucrose said, the average optimizer thinks "I want to play a neurotic Elven mage with an obsession for summon spells because he doesn't trust anything that he hasn't enslaved personally. How can I make this idea work in game and be very strong?", then breaks out a dozen manuals and starts scouring for the very best summoning stuff available.

Jayabalard
2010-02-09, 09:01 AM
Indeed, Stormwind Fallacy claims that everybody has infinite time and brain capacity to fully invest in both roleplaying and optimization. Nevermind that he never actualy bothers to give a clear definition of either thing.I think the terms were fairly well understood at the time, and don't really need precise definitions.


You and many of the people who call themselves 'optimizers' have different definitions of the term. Several 'optimizers,' including myself, do not have optimization of character effectiveness as a goal in and of itself.I personally think that this arguing over what precisely the word "optimize" means just kind of clouds the issue, since the people you're arguing against simply aren't going to use the term like that. They're going to continue to use as as a general term for the practice of attempting to derive the maximum benefit for the minimum penalty (min/maxing).

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 09:01 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to say that; roleplaying anyone other than Pun-Pun is strictly less than optimal for power purposes. I'll agree that there's almost always a mechanically effective means of playing your character, though.

Well, we have to distinguish between theoretical limits and practical limits for this discussion. Theoretically, anything less than pun-pun is suboptimal. But in practice, he will never see the light of day anyway, so considering that as a limit isn't very meaningful for discussion purposes.

Oslecamo
2010-02-09, 09:05 AM
I think the terms were fairly well understood at the time, and don't really need precise definitions.


No they weren't. Whenever anyone asked Stormwind what optimization was, he would reply something like "Optimization is like using a screwdriver to put a screw instead of an hammer". Yeah. Really precise.

Sucrose
2010-02-09, 09:11 AM
I personally think that this arguing over what precisely the word "optimize" means just kind of clouds the issue, since the people you're arguing against simply aren't going to use the term like that. They're going to continue to use as as a general term for the practice of attempting to derive the maximum benefit for the minimum penalty (min/maxing).

The issue is, min-maxing without constraints of any kind is a very small subset of the optimization culture. As such, to claim that everyone who plays a sword-swinger as a Warblade rather than a straight-class Fighter is incapable of roleplaying, just because he's engaged in optimizing, is not going to be very helpful.

And just as they're going to continue to misuse the term, I'll continue to use the proper definition. I'm just letting them know why they're wrong.:smallwink:


Well, we have to distinguish between theoretical limits and practical limits for this discussion. Theoretically, anything less than pun-pun is suboptimal. But in practice, he will never see the light of day anyway, so considering that as a limit isn't very meaningful for discussion purposes.

Very well, then. The same point remains if you choose to play a swordsman rather than a wizard. Roleplaying imposes all sorts of constraints on the mechanical effectiveness of a character.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-09, 09:13 AM
It seems to me that Stormwind Fallacy often goes hand in hand with the misconception that 'optimizing' always means 'min/maxing for power', instead of 'min/maxing for concept' as others in this thread argue. The difference is fine but important: if you always go for the most powerful option, of course it limits potential roleplaying choices as well - but that's because you're effectively playing the role of 'power-hungry maniac'.

'Min/maxing for a concept' is different that there is a goal different from having most overall power - you're still powergaming, but within limits imposed by either IC ("Lawful good would never do that") or OOC ("That option is too cheesy and reduces fun of others") concerns.

kamikasei
2010-02-09, 09:25 AM
Seems to imply they are utterly independent.

I disagree.

I think the problem is that you're reading it as an absolute and universal statement ("at no time will optimization and roleplaying ever conflict"), while I read it as a response to such statements ("it's not true that optimization and roleplaying are always in conflict"). In particular I read it as a reaction to the idea that one is either an optimizer or a roleplayer and that if you're ever overheard mulling over what feat or spell to take in terms that pay attention to the mechanics rather than the flavour descriptions, you can be written off as constitutionally incapable of ever portraying an interesting character well.

Killer Angel
2010-02-09, 09:40 AM
Seems to imply they are utterly independent. I argue they are not, that true optimisation limits ones roleplaying choices. I would certainly agree there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play an archer who is good at archery, and most roleplayed characters should usually be fairly good at whatever it is they are trying to do, but optimisation would take this a step further- there will be a corresponding skill set, feat list, excetera (depending on the system under discussion) that is the best for this particular type of character.


Of course there are some abilities that are better for a type of character. If you play a focused archer, you usually don't take Power Attack. If you take it, this don't makes you a better roleplayer.
You choose a type of character. That character can be a relatively weak concept (a dual wielding ranger, a monk, a wizard evoker, etc.), but, withing the bounds of your character, you will try to make him as good as you can for his job.
"Optimize", is different from "power play".

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 09:46 AM
I disagree.

I think the problem is that you're reading it as an absolute and universal statement ("at no time will optimization and roleplaying ever conflict"), while I read it as a response to such statements ("it's not true that optimization and roleplaying are always in conflict"). In particular I read it as a reaction to the idea that one is either an optimizer or a roleplayer and that if you're ever overheard mulling over what feat or spell to take in terms that pay attention to the mechanics rather than the flavour descriptions, you can be written off as constitutionally incapable of ever portraying an interesting character well.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. Kudos.

Sucrose
2010-02-09, 09:49 AM
That would seem to be borne out by the post that the Stormwind Fallacy post was responding to.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 09:53 AM
I will note, as I usually do, that there are optimised characters that make little to no sense and are hence bad RP, like the Jumplomancer and to an extent the Sublime Ur-Theurge. Of course, there are also non-optimised characters that make little to no sense.

BRC
2010-02-09, 09:58 AM
True optimization (As opposed to game-breaking munchkinery) does not hurt Roleplaying. You can play a Scry 'n Die Batman wizard, or a DMM persist Cleric, or an Ubercharger Barbarian, or whatever, and still roleplay very effectively. The Wizard is a cautious paranoid who hates doing things without fully preparing for it, the Cleric calls himself a holy warrior of his diety, the Barbarian failed to save his tribe and now has a death wish.

A clash between Roleplaying and Optimization is usually as a result of mindsets rather than anything inherent in the game. Roleplayers tend to think about their characters in a different way than Optimizers do, and they tend to spend their time thinking about different things. Roleplayers spend their time imagining how their characters would act and writing up backstories while optimizers dig through books.
Now, some roleplayers make unoptimized choices for the sake of fitting their character, and some Optimizers do make choices that go against their characters for the sake of being more powerful, but these are not inevitable. They are the result of specific choices concerning the character's personality and the character's build.

Oslecamo
2010-02-09, 10:06 AM
I think the problem is that you're reading it as an absolute and universal statement ("at no time will optimization and roleplaying ever conflict"), while I read it as a response to such statements ("it's not true that optimization and roleplaying are always in conflict"). In particular I read it as a reaction to the idea that one is either an optimizer or a roleplayer and that if you're ever overheard mulling over what feat or spell to take in terms that pay attention to the mechanics rather than the flavour descriptions, you can be written off as constitutionally incapable of ever portraying an interesting character well.

The fact that the fallacy can be readed both ways just shows how badly it was done, and it ends up revealing itself as a paradox (roleplaying and optimization are never in conflict while they are sometimes in conflict-hey, whot?).

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 10:06 AM
I will note, as I usually do, that there are optimised characters that make little to no sense and are hence bad RP, like the Jumplomancer and to an extent the Sublime Ur-Theurge. Of course, there are also non-optimised characters that make little to no sense.

I fail to see the flavor issue with a Sublime Chord-Ur Priest. They are both after the same thing, after all - the magic behind the magic.


The fact that the fallacy can be readed both ways just shows how badly it was done, and it ends up revealing itself as a paradox (roleplaying and optimization are never in conflict while they are sometimes in conflict-hey, whot?).

Except the fallacy itself doesn't say "never" anywhere. That was solely your contribution, based on some alleged conversation with Stormwind that isn't really relevant to this discussion.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 10:12 AM
I fail to see the flavor issue with a Sublime Chord-Ur Priest. They are both after the same thing, after all - the magic behind the magic.

Hmm. My main issue is that Bards, and hence Sublime Chords, don't really radiate the "POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!" that Ur-Priest does. Wizard (especially Tainted Scholar) fits with that far better.

kamikasei
2010-02-09, 10:17 AM
The fact that the fallacy can be readed both ways just shows how badly it was done, and it ends up revealing itself as a paradox (roleplaying and optimization are never in conflict while they are sometimes in conflict-hey, whot?).

Vague or ambiguous is not the same thing as paradoxical. This criticism makes no sense.

kjones
2010-02-09, 10:20 AM
I fail to see the flavor issue with a Sublime Chord-Ur Priest. They are both after the same thing, after all - the magic behind the magic.

But you must agree - there do exist builds that are very powerful mechanically, but make no sense whatsoever to roleplay. The Jumplomancer is one good example.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 10:23 AM
Hmm. My main issue is that Bards, and hence Sublime Chords, don't really radiate the "POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!" that Ur-Priest does. Wizard (especially Tainted Scholar) fits with that far better.

An Evil Sublime Chord would absolutely be trying to unravel the barrier between music and magic for power's sake. If they didn't intend for there to be any SCs with that motivation, they would have prevented the class from being Evil.


But you must agree - there do exist builds that are very powerful mechanically, but make no sense whatsoever to roleplay. The Jumplomancer is one good example.

Of course the Jumplomancer is a good example of that - hence why I didn't contest it.

But it's as theoretical a build as pun-pun - and like I said there, builds that aren't meant for actual play are totally irrelevant to Stormwind anyway. You don't need a roleplay concept for them because you're not actually going to, y'know, PLAY them.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-09, 10:25 AM
Now I just have to ask: what the heck is a jumplomancer?

Runestar
2010-02-09, 10:29 AM
I could just as easily say that any build can theoretically be roleplayed. The challenge is simply in coming up with a plausible backstory.


Now I just have to ask: what the heck is a jumplomancer?

It is a build which uses the exemplar from complete champion. Lets you use any skill check in place of a diplomacy check. Jump is used as it is supposedly the easiest to boost, though in theory, just about any skill could be used.

So the typical line goes something like this:

I (do something really whacky) and the crowd goes fanatic!

Be it farting, jumping really high, concentrating really hard, hiding really well and so on. :smallcool:

BRC
2010-02-09, 10:29 AM
Now I just have to ask: what the heck is a jumplomancer?
A character that manages to use a Jump check as Diplomacy, so he runs up to some people, jumps really high, and then they fanatically follow him.

Cyclocone
2010-02-09, 10:30 AM
Now I just have to ask: what the heck is a jumplomancer?

The Jumplomancer - are you serious? (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870138/The_Jumplomancer_-_are_you_serious)

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 10:30 AM
The Stormwind Fallacy is one of the worst things to ever hit this hobby, in my opinion. It gets quoted everywhere by people who don't really know what it means, and often probably haven't actually delved to deeply into the role-playing side of things. Yes, Tempest Stormwind contributed some interesting things, but this was something that was perhaps better left unsaid.

If you'll allow me a small tirade on my favorite topic (being role-playing and the art thereof)...



*****
The Djinn's Assertion: Role-Playing Optimization vs. Optimization

The Stormwind Fallacy claims that character optimization is not mutually exclusive with good role-playing, yet ultimate fails to prove anything, because it inadequately discusses the art of role-playing and, more importantly, the role of role-playing within the game.

D&D, like most other RPGs on the market, is just that: a role-playing game. The primary focus is not to play a rules-heavy tactical wargame: other games exist for that. D&D and its ilk exist to provide a framework for the world that these characters live in and interact with. What does this mean? It means that the character is the single most important aspect of your D&D experience.

Now we arrive to the conflict: Role-Playing Optimization vs. Optimization. Optimization is defined as follows: the art of making your character the best that you can make him. Conversely, Role-Playing Optimization is defined as follows: the art of making your character the best that he can be.

The difference is small but significant. Optimization creates a character who is powerful only to the extent of the rules, while Role-Playing Optimization creates a character who is powerful only to the extent of the character. For an Optimizer working on a charging barbarian, taking Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Headlong Rush, and wielding a Valorous weapon are good choices. For a Role-Playing Optimizer trying to craft a convincing barbarian chieftain, the same might possibly apply...and this is where the idea that the Stormwind Fallacy emerged from arises. The chances of a living, breathing character deciding to excel at only one thing (charging) is very non-realistic. To optimize this chieftain, it makes sense that, to optimize him from a role-playing perspective, I might pick up Extra Rage, Leadership, and similar feats that would distinguish him in barbarian society.

The Stormwind Fallacy would say that I'm promoting intentionally weakening a character, but my assertion (the Djinn's Assertion, if we're stupidly naming things :smalltongue:) claims the opposite: I'm not making a mechanically weak character. Instead, I'm taking my concept of my character and making it the strongest representation of my concept that the rules will allow me to make. It certainly may not be the most mechanically powerful character out there, but it will represent my concept better than any of the incredibly optimized builds that are on the market.

So Stormwind? I guess we somewhat agree, but you needed a little more definition. Optimization can be an anathema to role-play, as it can deviate you from your character as you search for raw mechanical power. Role-Playing Optimization, however, can do nothing but strengthen your concept...and whether or not you lose raw mechanical power is entirely dependent on who you're playing, and what the character would do.

That, in my mind, is the strongest character you can have: one who can completely live up to your expectations of him not as a bunch of numbers on a sheet, but to your expectations of him as a living, breathing individual living in a quasi-real world.

In short, be the best that you can be...not the best that the rules can make you.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 10:36 AM
It is a build which uses the exemplar from complete champion.

Exemplar is in Complete Adventurer, actually. [/nitpick]


Now we arrive to the conflict: Role-Playing Optimization vs. Optimization. Optimization is defined as follows: the art of making your character the best that you can make him. Conversely, Role-Playing Optimization is defined as follows: the art of making your character the best that he can be.

That's still a bit vague. And for your example - it's absolutely possible for a "living, breathing creature" to focus on optimizing one thing. For example, Michael Phelps, or indeed any other Olympic athlete.

He might be good at doing other things, but he is definitely focused on honing one.

Sucrose
2010-02-09, 10:41 AM
The Stormwind Fallacy is one of the worst things to ever hit this hobby, in my opinion. It gets quoted everywhere by people who don't really know what it means, and often probably haven't actually delved to deeply into the role-playing side of things. Yes, Tempest Stormwind contributed some interesting things, but this was something that was perhaps better left unsaid.

If you'll allow me a small tirade on my favorite topic (being role-playing and the art thereof)...



*****
The Djinn's Assertion: Role-Playing Optimization vs. Optimization

The Stormwind Fallacy claims that character optimization is not mutually exclusive with good role-playing, yet ultimate fails to prove anything, because it inadequately discusses the art of role-playing and, more importantly, the role of role-playing within the game.

D&D, like most other RPGs on the market, is just that: a role-playing game. The primary focus is not to play a rules-heavy tactical wargame: other games exist for that. D&D and its ilk exist to provide a framework for the world that these characters live in and interact with. What does this mean? It means that the character is the single most important aspect of your D&D experience.

Now we arrive to the conflict: Role-Playing Optimization vs. Optimization. Optimization is defined as follows: the art of making your character the best that you can make him. Conversely, Role-Playing Optimization is defined as follows: the art of making your character the best that he can be.

The difference is small but significant. Optimization creates a character who is powerful only to the extent of the rules, while Role-Playing Optimization creates a character who is powerful only to the extent of the character. For an Optimizer working on a charging barbarian, taking Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Headlong Rush, and wielding a Valorous weapon are good choices. For a Role-Playing Optimizer trying to craft a convincing barbarian chieftain, the same might possibly apply...and this is where the idea that the Stormwind Fallacy emerged from arises. The chances of a living, breathing character deciding to excel at only one thing (charging) is very non-realistic. To optimize this chieftain, it makes sense that, to optimize him from a role-playing perspective, I might pick up Extra Rage, Leadership, and similar feats that would distinguish him in barbarian society.

The Stormwind Fallacy would say that I'm promoting intentionally weakening a character, but my assertion (the Djinn's Assertion, if we're stupidly naming things :smalltongue:) claims the opposite: I'm not making a mechanically weak character. Instead, I'm taking my concept of my character and making it the strongest representation of my concept that the rules will allow me to make. It certainly may not be the most mechanically powerful character out there, but it will represent my concept better than any of the incredibly optimized builds that are on the market.

So Stormwind? I guess we somewhat agree, but you needed a little more definition. Optimization can be an anathema to role-play, as it can deviate you from your character as you search for raw mechanical power. Role-Playing Optimization, however, can do nothing but strengthen your concept...and whether or not you lose raw mechanical power is entirely dependent on who you're playing, and what the character would do.

That, in my mind, is the strongest character you can have: one who can completely live up to your expectations of him not as a bunch of numbers on a sheet, but to your expectations of him as a living, breathing individual living in a quasi-real world.

In short, be the best that you can be...not the best that the rules can make you.

Please see the notes on the previous page regarding the proper definition of optimization. Practical optimization does not limit roleplay. It is simply taking those elements that are necessary to portray your character properly, and then using them as the constraints of your optimization problem.

In short, this,

In short, be the best that you can be...not the best that the rules can make you.

Is precisely what optimization is. If your character is undefined enough that you always just take the strongest theoretical option, rather than the strongest option that fits your character, then you are not simply optimizing. You are power-gaming.

BRC
2010-02-09, 10:52 AM
@ Djinn, you make good points, but a slightly incomplete one, you fail to fully define optimization.
Optimization is, as you said, making the most powerful character you can within the limits of the rules, but also within the limits of the concept you have for the character.

Now, the difference is that a character concept for an Optimizer is "A character who deals lots of damage on a charge", and the character concept for a Roleplaying Optimizer is " A barbarian warrior who was banished from his tribe.
Simply saying "The most powerful character the rules allow" is Theoretical optimization, which says that anything besides a batman wizard is not worth playing.

In addition, there is a difference between building a character for role-playing, and actually role-playing the character. It's possible to take a character designed with nothing but numbers in mind, and roleplay them very well. It's also possible to take a character designed for maximum roleplay potential and play them like a cardboard cutout.

Now, it is possible to build a character for better roleplay, but a character's sheet does not define how well they can be RP'd, or if it does, it's too much less of a degree than it defines how well they can get things done.

Jayabalard
2010-02-09, 10:56 AM
And just as they're going to continue to misuse the term, I'll continue to use the proper definition. I'm just letting them know why they're wrong.:smallwink:Well, then you're arguing semantics rather than actually dealing with the subject. That makes a lot of those discussions kind of pointless.

The definition I used is from the GITP Acronyms and definitions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512) thread, which defines a optimizer as either a poster on the wotc charop forums, or a synonym for min/maxer (which is the definition I quoted). So, for these fora, it's the correct definition.


Very well, then. The same point remains if you choose to play a swordsman rather than a wizard. Roleplaying imposes all sorts of constraints on the mechanical effectiveness of a character.Indeed; it's kind of silly to claim that one cannot have an effect on the other.

DragonKnight
2010-02-09, 10:57 AM
I disagree.

I think the problem is that you're reading it as an absolute and universal statement ("at no time will optimization and roleplaying ever conflict"), while I read it as a response to such statements ("it's not true that optimization and roleplaying are always in conflict"). In particular I read it as a reaction to the idea that one is either an optimizer or a roleplayer and that if you're ever overheard mulling over what feat or spell to take in terms that pay attention to the mechanics rather than the flavour descriptions, you can be written off as constitutionally incapable of ever portraying an interesting character well.

If I'm reading this wrong forgive me, but if you ever consider what feat to take, you suddenly can't roleplay properly?

Anyway, aside from that, it looks like this is showing how dnd has changed. Yes, it is a roleplaying game, but considering most games are high adventure in setting, being a great roleplaying with a suboptimal character(which this Fallacy is implying is necessary to roleplay), is just going to get you killed. If we were playing Dungeons and Dragons: The Sims Edition, it would be great.

Another point, I still say this all relys on the player. I've yet to ever have problems making a strong character and not roleplaying them well, if not better than most(if not all) of my group.

kamikasei
2010-02-09, 10:59 AM
If I'm reading this wrong forgive me, but if you ever consider what feat to take, you suddenly can't roleplay properly?

I think you've mistaken an attitude I'm trying to describe (with a dash of hyperbole) for one I myself hold.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 11:00 AM
Indeed; it's kind of silly to claim that one cannot have an effect on the other.

I never said "cannot"; I said "doesn't have to."


If I'm reading this wrong forgive me, but if you ever consider what feat to take, you suddenly can't roleplay properly?

That's the fallacy...

DragonKnight
2010-02-09, 11:01 AM
As I said, excuse me for taking it wrongly, I just wanted to make sure, hehe

Sucrose
2010-02-09, 11:07 AM
Well, then you're arguing semantics rather than actually dealing with the subject. That makes a lot of those discussions kind of pointless.

Incorrect; the very subject at hand is semantics. If you are looking for an honest discussion of:
"Does building purely for power have an effect on my character,"

then the answer that any sane person would have is,
"Yes. Duh. Pun-Pun is somewhat limited in his roleplaying possibilities."

Therefore, discussing any definition of optimizing as purely min-maxing is pointless. Basically everyone knows that if you powergame, it cuts out quite a bit of your roleplaying ability, because, as was said earlier, you are choosing to take on the role of someone who will do anything for power, and has whatever nonsensical backstory gives the most pluses.

As for the definitions thread, I honestly couldn't care less what the official definitions are. The correct definition is the one that most of the people concerned about the issue use. As you can see by this thread, many (including, I'll note, basically anyone who actually defines himself as an optimizer) take the definition that I've tried to demonstrate, rather than the one proposed by the official thread.

Also, I'm very interested in hearing how the correct definition of optimization could possibly cause issues with roleplaying, given that it is by definition subservient to it.

pres_man
2010-02-09, 11:19 AM
then the answer that any sane person would have is,
"Yes. Duh. Pun-Pun is somewhat limited in his roleplaying possibilities."


Actually given the mechanical advantages he has, he can be roleplayed in just about any form.

Sucrose
2010-02-09, 11:22 AM
Actually given the mechanical advantages he has, he can be roleplayed in just about any form.

Not really. Any definable power-set you give him winds up with the qualifier
"but he's actually an overdeity who's holding back."

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 11:25 AM
An Evil Sublime Chord would absolutely be trying to unravel the barrier between music and magic for power's sake. If they didn't intend for there to be any SCs with that motivation, they would have prevented the class from being Evil.


Ok, I'll concede that it's not inherently ridiculous, like the Jumplomancer. It is, however, less archetypical than and doesn't fall into place quite as neatly as a Tainted Ur-Theurge (while the Tainted Scholar is utterly borked, it does fit the archetype of the power-mad spellcaster perfectly, as does the Ur-Priest). This assuming, of course, that you're RPing somebody with the rough attitude towards magic of Illidan Stormrage.

Kensen
2010-02-09, 11:37 AM
I've never bothered to look into the theory more closely because I can't get over the rather amusing name, Stormwind fallacy. :smallbiggrin: If you want to be taken seriously, don't name your theory after your fictional alter ego. :smallwink:

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 11:39 AM
I've never bothered to look into the theory more closely because I can't get over the rather amusing name, Stormwind fallacy. :smallbiggrin: If you want to be taken seriously, don't name your theory after your fictional alter ego. :smallwink:

Hey, at least his fictional alter ego isn't 5 syllables long.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 11:40 AM
I've never bothered to look into the theory more closely because I can't get over the rather amusing name, Stormwind fallacy. :smallbiggrin: If you want to be taken seriously, don't name your theory after your fictional alter ego. :smallwink:

Well, they all are. Oberoni Fallacy. Drexen's Corollary. Sturgeon's Law. Murphy's Law.

You pick the name you are best known under. (The latter two are actual, non-rpg-message-board conventions.)

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 11:47 AM
The last two are also real names.

Kensen
2010-02-09, 11:51 AM
Indeed. I presume that Tempest Stormwind and Oberoni aren't their real names.

Moreover, Murphy's Law and Sturgeon's Law are tongue-in-cheek theories, they're not supposed to be taken seriously. So they're bad examples.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 11:52 AM
The last two are also real names.

Sturgeon was born Edward Hamilton Waldo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Sturgeon)

Murphy is associated with his law, but it is unknown whether he actually wrote it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law#Association_with_Murphy)

So yeah.


Indeed. I presume that Tempest Stormwind and Oberoni aren't their real names.

Moreover, Murphy's Law and Sturgeon's Law are tongue-in-cheek theories, they're not supposed to be taken seriously. So they're bad examples.

EDIT: addressing the above to you as well.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 11:56 AM
Expanding on what I was saying before, while optimisation (barring stupidity like the Jumplomancer) doesn't necessarily affect the quality of your roleplaying, it restricts the choices you have for characters to roleplay, with the restriction becoming tighter as you add more optimisation. For example, if you're not optimising at all, you can pick any class. As you care more about power, options become closed off to you, starting with Commoner and similar, then non-ToB martial classes, and so on, until at the top levels you're restricted to Tainted Scholar wizards, Beholder Mages, and finally Pun-Pun.

misterk
2010-02-09, 11:56 AM
I am yet to be convinced by the version of optimisation people are giving.. I don't play much 3.5 other than one shots, but the impression I get here at least is that mechanics trump roleplaying when optimising.

Thing is, when I build a character I have relatively little interest in optimisation. I think about who the character is, then make them that. They are not strong because it will cause them to do more damage, they are strong because their character does more damage.. Does that make sense? Function following from form rather than visa versa. Basically, a roleplayer will build a combat effective character purely by the fact that most people are good at the principle thing they do. So their mage will be smart, their fighter will be tough, because mages and fighters are smart and tough- otherwise they wouldn't be those things! Now I'm not suggesting that anyone does that, and I admit to enjoying optimisation, but its just not roleplaying, and technically detracts from it. I don't want to be the perfect roleplayer, and theres nothing wrong with a little bit of an optimisation, but if you are thinking about a choice in terms of making your character stronger rather than how your character has grown then you are not roleplaying.

I am not claiming optimisation is bad in any way shape or form here, its a fine choice and a lot of fun to do sometimes, but I can't help but believe it distracts somewhat from pure roleplaying. You can still play an optimised character to the hilt, and have fun, and you'll still be a good roleplayer. Yet you will have failed at the platonic ideal of the roleplayer. Does that matter? Well no, but that is of course not the point. There is no particular superior form of play, because play is entirely subjective, but I would argue its possible to argue what kind of play people are engaging in. If you start thinking mechanically then you are not thinking as your character would, and so are disengaged. Is this somewhat inevitable? Yes. Is this somewhat minimisible? Certainly, if you want to.

Sorry for the ramblingness, these are thoughts from the top of my head. I certainly suspect that part of the reason I associate D&D with lack of roleplay is because it draws many players who do not, but I do think the system that exists does encourage becoming divorced from your character by spending too much time considering options rather than getting to know your character.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 12:00 PM
But that's just the thing. Fighters aren't tough, at least not in comparison to a DMM Cleric.

Kensen
2010-02-09, 12:03 PM
Well, my point was that you shouldn't use your fantasy name if you want to be taken seriously. The two theories that originated from outside RPG messageboards were not meant to be taken seriously, so they are not eligible to be used as examples.

Drexen I've never heard of, but Oberoni's Fallacy is just another example of amusing names. :smalltongue:

Perhaps I'll come up with "Kensen's [fancy word for a theory]" that states something like that names that sound cool in an RPG context are not necessarily as cool when used in a scientific context. I'll use the name of my theory as an example. :smallwink:

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 12:26 PM
Drexen I've never heard of, but Oberoni's Fallacy is just another example of amusing names. :smalltongue:

Draxen's Corollary is an expansion on Stormwind. I believe it states "using social skill rolls is not necessarily bad roleplaying" or something similar. Meaning that even if you roll Diplomacy/Bluff/etc., you can still RP the result.

(I misspelled it earlier, and as a result this thread is the #1 result for Drexen's. >.< )

Oslecamo
2010-02-09, 12:30 PM
Perhaps I'll come up with "Kensen's [fancy word for a theory]" that states something like that names that sound cool in an RPG context are not necessarily as cool when used in a scientific context. I'll use the name of my theory as an example. :smallwink:

Please let's not start this madness again. Back in the day, people were making up fallacies left and right for anything and everything they could remember.

Most of them were better than the stormwind tough.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 12:40 PM
Been thinking a lot on this today, as I'm working on a treatise on role-playing theory, and this is an important concept for it.

I think that a big part of the problem is that we lack a solid definition of Optimization. If I may suggest some terms...

--Optimization (Optimizing): The process of building a mechanically strong and focused character within the reasonable confines of the rules.

--Min-Maximization (Min-Maxing): The process of building a character to be as strong in a certain quality as possible, at the expense of other qualities (if necessary) and without having to reinterpret the rules (although sometimes abusing those that exist).

--Munchkinization (Munchkining): The process of twisting the rules or exploiting obvious rules oversights (such as most loops, insane stacking bonuses, and the like) in order to make the most powerful character possible. Munchkinization is often used in theoretical exercises.

--Characterization (Characterizing): The process of building a three dimensional character without associated mechanics; crafting his outlook, personality, history, dreams, ambitions, strengths, and so forth without recourse to the rules.

--Char-Optimization (Char-Optimizing): The process of building a mechanically strong and possibly focused character within the reasonable confines of both the rules and your determined Characterization. When Char-Optimizing, abilities and feats that fit your character qualify as "strong" choices.


*****

Now the part that people might disagree with. An example that popped up earlier of optimization meeting a character concept was Michael Phelps, and his excellence in the field of aquatic sports.

Completely optimized (something that can border on Min-Maxing), Mr. Phelps is definitely swimming focused. Yet he's not just a swimmer...there's more to him than that. Char-Optimized he could be the same, but it would be equally valid and no worse optimization-wise to build him with some feats and abilities that reflect things outside his single area of expertise. Perhaps he possesses Iron Will, to demonstrate his intense dedication to his sport, or Endurance to represent the hours spent training. Raw power? Not really. Char-Optimized? Definitely. He's taken choices that emphasize something the character considers part of himself.

And this is where I see the difference between Optimizing and Char-Optimizing. If I was Optimizing a character, I might shuffle between Prestige Classes to get all the nifty bonuses, spend all my feats in a single area, and make sure my character makes choices that will lead me to additional power. If I'm Char-Optimizing, my character (for example) isn't going to shuffle Prestige Classes...if something's that important to him, he's going to pick one and see it through to a logical stopping point, not arbitrarily stop at level 2 because that's where the good abilities end. His feats probably won't be as focused, as I have yet to meet an individual whose abilities are solely defined by a single path.

In Optimization, the path determines the character: I mold the character concept to fit what I have envisioned for the build. In Char-Optimization I'm willing, if necessary, to deviate slightly from what would be most effective in order to let the character do the talking.

Role-Play is present in both possibilities...it just has a lesser role in dictating the character's path in Optimization, and a greater role in Char-Optimization. Depending on your group and your group's mindset, either is a valid choice.

Darklord Bright
2010-02-09, 12:50 PM
The problem with that is that Char-Optimization and Optimization are the same thing (or at least, fall under the same thing.)

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 12:53 PM
The problem with that is that Char-Optimization and Optimization are the same thing (or at least, fall under the same thing.)

Similar, yes. They're both methods of making a character the best it can be, but viewed in different directions. I think the distinction is readily apparent, as using either method gets you a very different result and has a somewhat different end goal.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 12:57 PM
For all that you and Sucrose are accounting for it, Djinn, I don't think anyone actually, in practice, conducts Optimization as opposed to Char Optimization. Nobody says "I want the most powerful character possible, I don't care if its a wizard, cleric, or artificer." We all start with a character concept, even if that concept is mechanical, like "I want a build that can attack by throwing horses at enemies."

So I'm with Darklord - there's no reason to separate the two.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 01:02 PM
For all that you and Sucrose are accounting for it, Djinn, I don't think anyone actually, in practice, conducts Optimization as opposed to Char Optimization. Nobody says "I want the most powerful character possible, I don't care if its a wizard, cleric, or artificer." We all start with a character concept, even if that concept is mechanical, like "I want a build that can attack by throwing horses at enemies."

So I'm with Darklord - there's no reason to separate the two.

Well, Pun-Pun is "the most powerful character" with little regard to how it's done.

Jayabalard
2010-02-09, 01:05 PM
Incorrect; the very subject at hand is semantics.Not at all; the subject at hand is "stop demonizing me for the way that I like to play the game, it's not morally wrong, or inferior to the way that you play the game". It only turns into a semantics argument if you start arguing definitions.


Therefore, discussing any definition of optimizing as purely min-maxing is pointless. Basically everyone knows that if you powergame, it cuts out quite a bit of your roleplaying ability, because, as was said earlier, you are choosing to take on the role of someone who will do anything for power, and has whatever nonsensical backstory gives the most pluses.based on responses that I've seen in this forum alone, I would say that's not obvious.


As for the definitions thread, I honestly couldn't care less what the official definitions are.Likewise, I don't really care what your personal definition is; if you want to argue definitions, start a thread on it, but don't pollute existing threads by insisting that people use your definition over the one in the forum glossary.


For all that you and Sucrose are accounting for it, Djinn, I don't think anyone actually, in practice, conducts Optimization as opposed to Char Optimization. Nobody says "I want the most powerful character possible, I don't care if its a wizard, cleric, or artificer." We all start with a character concept, even if that concept is mechanical, like "I want a build that can attack by throwing horses at enemies."I've known people who were pretty much like that: they picked their class based on what was powerful, and came up with some characterizations after the character was built.

And really, even though the sets aren't entirely disjoint, there are certainly people who are much closer to one side of that than the other.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 01:05 PM
Well, Pun-Pun is "the most powerful character" with little regard to how it's done.

Right, which means that by their definition, "optimization" (rather than "char optimization") will always lead to him. That's just not useful.

lsfreak
2010-02-09, 01:05 PM
Well, Pun-Pun is "the most powerful character" with little regard to how it's done.

By Djinn's definitions, Pun-Pun isn't optimization, but rather min-maxing or munchkinry.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 01:09 PM
Right, which means that by their definition, "optimization" (rather than "char optimization") will always lead to him. That's just not useful.

Correct. It's not useful, because to get anything other than Pun-Pun with optimisation you have to impose constraints, even if those constraints are merely "no infinite power loops".

Jayabalard
2010-02-09, 01:11 PM
Right, which means that by their definition, "optimization" (rather than "char optimization") will always lead to him. That's just not useful.Not necessarily; choosing that path will cause your DM to disallow that character, which makes him not a possible character. So, in practice, if you are looking for the most powerful character possible you need to look for the most powerful character that won't be vetoed by the DM.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 01:12 PM
By Djinn's definitions, Pun-Pun isn't optimization, but rather min-maxing or munchkinry.

And I'll stand by that definition.


For all that you and Sucrose are accounting for it, Djinn, I don't think anyone actually, in practice, conducts Optimization as opposed to Char Optimization. Nobody says "I want the most powerful character possible, I don't care if its a wizard, cleric, or artificer." We all start with a character concept, even if that concept is mechanical, like "I want a build that can attack by throwing horses at enemies."

"I want the most powerful character possible" would be Munkinizing or Min-Maxing, by my definition...or, at best, Optimizing, if said optimizer is a polite, rules-conscious individual with a strong understanding of both the game and balance. Mainly the first two though.

"I want a build that can..." would be Optimizing: putting mechanical concepts and concerns before characterization concerns.

"My character is..." is Char-Optimizing: even that horse-throwing character is defined by more than his horse-throwing, and Char-Optimizing builds from a character concept rather than a mechanical concept. I'm not saying Optimizers only want the most power...they're just coming from a mechanical goal first and foremost, and a character goal secondarily.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 01:14 PM
And I'll stand by that definition.



"I want the most powerful character possible" would be Munkinizing or Min-Maxing, by my definition...or, at best, Optimizing, if said optimizer is a polite, rules-conscious individual with a strong understanding of both the game and balance. Mainly the first two though.

"I want a build that can..." would be Optimizing: putting mechanical concepts and concerns before characterization concerns.

"My character is..." is Char-Optimizing: even that horse-throwing character is defined by more than his horse-throwing, and Char-Optimizing builds from a character concept rather than a mechanical concept. I'm not saying Optimizers only want the most power...they're just coming from a mechanical goal first and foremost, and a character goal secondarily.

But Pun-Pun can do anything. Making your argument fall apart again.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 01:16 PM
But Pun-Pun can do anything. Making your argument fall apart again.

How so? You'll need to elaborate as to how he could be considered anything but a blatant example of everything that the rules were not made to allow. His whole "character concept" is abusing rules exploits and things he couldn't possibly reasonably know about to become an invincible and all-powerful deity...

magic9mushroom
2010-02-09, 01:20 PM
How so? You'll need to elaborate as to how he could be considered anything but a blatant example of everything that the rules were not made to allow. His whole "character concept" is abusing rules exploits and things he couldn't possibly reasonably know about to become an invincible and all-powerful deity...

Exactly. What you term "optimising" is the set that consists solely of Pun-Pun.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 01:22 PM
--Munchkinization (Munchkining): The process of twisting the rules or exploiting obvious rules oversights (such as most loops, insane stacking bonuses, and the like) in order to make the most powerful character possible. Munchkinization is often used in theoretical exercises.


--Optimization (Optimizing): The process of building a mechanically strong and focused character within the reasonable confines of the rules.

I thought I was pretty clear about that one, actually. There is no manner in which Pun-Pun could be considered reasonable, nor do I claim Optimization is focused on the most powerful character...merely that mechanical power is an end goal.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-02-09, 01:33 PM
This fallacy doesn't seem to be much of one to me.
I'm not sure I agree, but I do think that the online community puts way too much words and discussion into all these fallacies.

From a strictly logical perspective, Roleplay vs. Rollplay certainly is a false dilemma so I do sympathize with the 'Stormwind fallacy' as an ideal. But we've all played with gamers who, for whatever reason, can't find the time/energy/disposition to do both. In fact, most gamers in my experience can only participate in roleplay/rollplay to a certain degree before the other suffers, and I've never played with a gamer who did both really well. I include myself in that category.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 01:33 PM
How so? You'll need to elaborate as to how he could be considered anything but a blatant example of everything that the rules were not made to allow. His whole "character concept" is abusing rules exploits and things he couldn't possibly reasonably know about to become an invincible and all-powerful deity...

You said "I want a build that can..." Well, Pun-pun can. Done.

What mushroom and I are saying is that your definition of optimization carries no constraints. Without constraints, you invariably arrive at pun-pun.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 01:36 PM
You said "I want a build that can..." Well, Pun-pun can. Done.

What mushroom and I are saying is that your definition of optimization carries no constraints. Without constraints, you invariably arrive at pun-pun.

The phrase "within the reasonable confines of the rules," which I included, quoted again, and bolded for extra visibility, does nothing to remove Pun-Pun from the running? Yes, it's "I want a build that can..." but the constraints of within the reasonable confines of the rules is still there. Pun-Pun is anything but reasonable...yes, he's almost entirely RAW, but he's still exploiting a HUGE loophole in the rules. Hence, Munchkinery.

And yes...Pun-Pun can be considered Optimizing. But so can Munchkining and Min-Maxing...they're the less desirable aspects of Optimization. Pun-Pun is pure Munchkinery.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 01:43 PM
The phrase "within the reasonable confines of the rules," which I included, quoted again, and bolded for extra visibility, does nothing to remove Pun-Pun from the running? Yes, it's "I want a build that can..." but the constraints of within the reasonable confines of the rules is still there. Pun-Pun is anything but reasonable...yes, he's almost entirely RAW, but he's still exploiting a HUGE loophole in the rules. Hence, Munchkinery.

And yes...Pun-Pun can be considered Optimizing. But so can Munchkining and Min-Maxing...they're the less desirable aspects of Optimization. Pun-Pun is pure Munchkinery.

You have two contradictions here:

1) Pun-Pun is within the confine of the rules. "Reasonable" is a subjective term that varies from DM to DM, so we can't actually use that in an objective definition.

2) If you consider Pun-Pun optimizing, then that means if you don't create him, you i optimizing - because anything else you make will be suboptimal in comparison - bringing you right back to square one.

Jayabalard
2010-02-09, 01:46 PM
I'm not sure I agree, but I do think that the online community puts way too much words and discussion into all these fallacies.Indeed, especially since so few of them really understand what a "fallacy" is in the first place.


From a strictly logical perspective, Roleplay vs. Rollplay certainly is a false dilemmaIt's only a false dillema if you are saying that one precludes the other.


In fact, most gamers in my experience can only participate in roleplay/rollplay to a certain degree before the other suffers, and I've never played with a gamer who did both really well. I include myself in that category.I think this is what most people really when they talk about roleplay vs rollplay as contrasting things.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-02-09, 01:48 PM
You have two contradictions here:

1) Pun-Pun is within the confine of the rules. "Reasonable" is a subjective term that varies from DM to DM, so we can't actually use that in an objective definition.

And levels of allowable optimization vary from DM to DM. If your DM would actually allow Pun-Pun, I guess you have a point. :smalltongue:


2) If you consider Pun-Pun optimizing, then that means if you don't create him, you i optimizing - because anything else you make will be suboptimal in comparison - bringing you right back to square one.

I never did say Optimizing means making the biggest and best. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Also, I don't consider him Optimizing...rather, he falls under the category of Optimizing, but he's Munchkinery. Optimizing is building a powerful character. Munchkinery is abusing rules to build a powerful character. Doing BOTH is Munchkinery.

Is my intent really that unclear? :smalleek:

Ravens_cry
2010-02-09, 01:53 PM
Reasonable is rather subjective. What one group considers being a perfectly ordinary character build could be on par with Pun-pun to another. The terms, optimize, broken, and Munchkin re important but only within the context of one’s individual group. I personally think that the Stormwind Fallacy is pretty accurate. I’ve seen excellent role play, with wonderful characterization, from a set of statistics quite broken by our group’s standards. I have seen incredibly weakly made characters from players will contribute little to the game role play wise. I too see little correlation between the two.

potatocubed
2010-02-09, 01:53 PM
Perhaps I'll come up with "Kensen's [fancy word for a theory]" that states something like that names that sound cool in an RPG context are not necessarily as cool when used in a scientific context. I'll use the name of my theory as an example. :smallwink:

If you name it 'Kensen's Paradox', then you also satisfy the criterion of using a logical term that sounds right, but isn't. :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 01:55 PM
And levels of allowable optimization vary from DM to DM. If your DM would actually allow Pun-Pun, I guess you have a point. :smalltongue:

But there are plenty of levels below pun-pun that some DMs would consider degenerate, and some wouldn't. To be useful, your definition has to avoid such subjective measures.

For instance, pretty much all DMs agree that pun-pun is over the line. But Hellfire Warlock + Strongheart Vest is something that not everyone can agree on. By your definition, it could be both optimization and munchkinry, because it could be both reasonable and unreasonable, by DM.


I never did say Optimizing means making the biggest and best. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I don't recall saying that either, or putting words in your mouth.

I said that your constraints aren't precise enough to separate Optimizers from Munchkins - see above, and below.


Also, I don't consider him Optimizing...rather, he falls under the category of Optimizing, but he's Munchkinery. Optimizing is building a powerful character. Munchkinery is abusing rules to build a powerful character. Doing BOTH is Munchkinery.

Is my intent really that unclear? :smalleek:

I know, or at least think I know, what you're trying to do - you're setting up the premise that "all munchkins are optimizers, but not all optimizers are munchkins." Which I'm fine with - but it's still possible for both groups to stay perfectly within the rules. That's the problem with your definition.

I agree with your conclusion, but not how you're getting there.

Animefunkmaster
2010-02-09, 02:06 PM
Seems to imply they are utterly independent. I argue they are not, that true optimisation limits ones roleplaying choices.

So you are saying that the stormwind fallacy is wrong because you define optimization in such a way that would specifically make the stormwind fallacy wrong.

Riffington
2010-02-09, 03:26 PM
So you are saying that the stormwind fallacy is wrong because you define optimization in such a way that would specifically make the stormwind fallacy wrong.

A fallacy can't be right or wrong. If you get to this point, it's an argument, not a fallacy.

Tavar
2010-02-09, 03:29 PM
Indeed, especially since so few of them really understand what a "fallacy" is in the first place.

It's only a false dillema if you are saying that one precludes the other.


Note that the Stormwind Fallacy is specifically responding to the charge "if you optimize, then you can't be roleplaying". So, yes, it is responding to false dilema.

Also, he recognizes that you can have people who only rollplay and don't roleplay. All he's saying is that the two are not linked automatically. He created it because at the time it was a common charge, so he decided to answer it. Because he created it on the Wizard Forums, he named it after himself, as that was a tradition. Yes, it's only a narrowly applied version of an official fallacy, but from what I understand, he was mainly trying to make a point, not invent a new type of fallacy.

Additionally, it always amuses me that every time this is brought up, some one comes in with a different definition than is used in the document to defeat it, and when they are told, 'no, that's not the definition that's being used', they reply as if the definition was still being used. Getting a concise definition would be nice, but I don't think it will happen, largely because it's difficult to get a standardized set.

Though I do think it's funny that Djinn_In_Tonic's definition seems counter to the definition used on the Char-Op boards. Shouldn't we try and use their definition first? I mean, they are the ones that primarily use it/ are refereed to by it.


A fallacy can't be right or wrong. If you get to this point, it's an argument, not a fallacy.

Well, that's missing the point. I mean, I think we can all agree that 1+1=2. Animefunkmaster is saying that the op is disputing this, as he says 1+1=10, as he is using binary. We're replying that, while that may be true in binary, we are using a base 10 system, and thus our arguments should be evaluated as such.

Riffington
2010-02-09, 03:45 PM
Note that the Stormwind Fallacy is specifically responding to the charge "if you optimize, then you can't be roleplaying". So, yes, it is responding to false dilema.

It is a fallacy to say "if you optimize you can't be roleplaying". It is not a fallacy to say "in most cases, optimizing gets in the way of roleplaying". It may be true or false, but it is not a fallacy.

OP was making a nonfallacious claim: he said "optimisation can easily distract from roleplaying." That is not a fallacy. He was accused of committing the stormwind fallacy, and the frequency with which this name gets applied to nonfallacious arguments should argue for its uselessness as a term.

Tavar
2010-02-09, 03:54 PM
It is a fallacy to say "if you optimize you can't be roleplaying".
Right. And this seems to be what the OP was saying. He's saying that the Stormwind fallacy is wrong, and that Optimization clearly limits one's roleplaying possibilities. While this is true given his definition of optimization, it is not true given the definition that the Stormwind Fallacy uses. He's saying that if you optimize, then you can't preform certain roles. This is false. Optimization is taking a certain number of constraints, among which is character concept, and making the character effective. How can making you character fit his concept make it harder for him to fit his concept?

Jayabalard
2010-02-09, 03:54 PM
Note that the Stormwind Fallacy is specifically responding to the charge "if you optimize, then you can't be roleplaying". So, yes, it is responding to false dilema. I'm aware of this; this is the actual "fallacy" part of the stormwind fallacy. It's an application of the false dilemma or false dichotomy fallacy. (nitpick: 1 L, 2 M's ... means 2 Lemmas)

The fact that this is what he's responding to makes me believe that he's talking about the older definition of "optimize" rather than this new fangled "stays in character" version of optimizing. If you read his text, he's clearly talking about building a character for mechanical power when he says "optimize"


Also, he recognizes that you can have people who only rollplay and don't roleplay.That's good.


All he's saying is that the two are not linked automatically.This is where he making his own arguments rather than talking about the false dilemma. Certainly, he shows that it's possible to roleplay while optimizing, or optimize while roleplaying, but he tries to extend that to mean that there isn't any link at all. That doesn't really follow. The best you can really say is that one doesn't necessarily preclude the other; it's still quite possible that the roleplay and rollplay have an effect on each other.

In fact, some people kind of take it as a given; for example, Sucrose: "Basically everyone knows that if you powergame, it cuts out quite a bit of your roleplaying ability, because, as was said earlier, you are choosing to take on the role of someone who will do anything for power, and has whatever nonsensical backstory gives the most pluses."

Wings of Peace
2010-02-09, 03:59 PM
This is where he making his own arguments rather than talking about the false dilemma. Certainly, he shows that it's possible to roleplay while optimizing, or optimize while roleplaying, but he tries to extend that to mean that there isn't any link at all. That doesn't really follow. The best you can really say is that one doesn't necessarily preclude the other; it's still quite possible that the roleplay and rollplay have an effect on each other.

In fact, some people kind of take it as a given; for example, Sucrose: "Basically everyone knows that if you powergame, it cuts out quite a bit of your roleplaying ability, because, as was said earlier, you are choosing to take on the role of someone who will do anything for power, and has whatever nonsensical backstory gives the most pluses."

But is this happening because the person is a roll player or because they are a bad role player?

Riffington
2010-02-09, 04:03 PM
Right. And this seems to be what the OP was saying. He's saying that the Stormwind fallacy is wrong, and that Optimization clearly limits one's roleplaying possibilities.

Nope. That's not a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if you say that it hampers every plausible instance of roleplaying.

Tavar
2010-02-09, 04:05 PM
Nope. That's not a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if you say that it hampers every plausible instance of roleplaying.
But isn't that what the OP is saying?

Riffington
2010-02-09, 04:09 PM
But isn't that what the OP is saying?

No, because:
1. It limits the set of optimization. This alone changes it to a valid argument (valid is not identical with correct of course).

2. He says it limits choices, which is tautologically true, and that such choices are important to roleplaying, which is a claim that can be verified.

Jayabalard
2010-02-09, 04:10 PM
But isn't that what the OP is saying?No; the op is saying that there is a link. Whereas in Stormwind's argument is asserting that there is no link, even though that doesn't follow from his earlier statements (the part regarding the false dichotomy).


But is this happening because the person is a roll player or because they are a bad role player?Yes. In some cases it's one, some cases it's the other, and in some cases it's both. And in some cases he's a roll player because he's a bad role player, and in some cases he's a bad role player because he's a roll player, and in some cases he's a good role player and a roll player but role playing badly, etc. There are lots of possibilities.

The issue is that there does seem to be a fair bit of a link, enough so that many people take it for granted.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-09, 04:36 PM
No; the op is saying that there is a link. Whereas in Stormwind's argument is asserting that there is no link, even though that doesn't follow from his earlier statements (the part regarding the false dichotomy).


No, Stormwind's argument is there is no direct link: it depends entirely on the person. No two people will be affected by nature/nurture (optimization/roleplaying) issue.

Lycar
2010-02-09, 05:50 PM
Anyway, aside from that, it looks like this is showing how dnd has changed. Yes, it is a roleplaying game, but considering most games are high adventure in setting, being a great roleplaying with a suboptimal character(which this Fallacy is implying is necessary to roleplay), is just going to get you killed. ...

Sorry to be blunt about it, but I have to call bull**** on that.

A character can only ever be 'suboptimal' relative to the other characters in the party. And since you are obviously refering to their 'ability to kill stuff', let me remind you of an important fact:

The Power Level of the party matters diddly squat for what kind of encounters they are supposed to have: Some easy, some 'challenging' and the odd overwhelming one.

The only thing that changes is that some parties can munch eighty kobolds/goblins/dragons in one encounter, while others find eighteen to be a fair fight.

All you achieve by making your statblock more and more bulletproof is giving your DM an ever increasing headache about trying to think up encounters that still challenge the party without provoking a total wipeout with a few bad rolls.

The iconic party of S&B fighter, rogue, H&B cleric and blaster wizard isn't very powerful mechanically, but it is much easier to judge their capabilities and plan accordingly.

Try challenging a party of God, Batman Dzilla and Czilla. Go ahead, see which one is reasonably easy to do and which one is an exercise in frustration.

Making a mechanically viable character is a valid goal. But what is and is not 'mechanically viable' depends on a lot of factors. One is the ability of the DM to deal with the power level of the characters. Another is the ability of the players to deal with certain imbalances in the party.

Some people don't mind being, say, the weak halfling rogue/bard who has to hide behind the mage during a fight, as long as he can shine during the social scenes in an inn or a the king's court or what have you. Others will be unhappy if they can't meaningfully contribute to a battle.

As always, it comes down to one fundamental truth that has not changed since 1st Ed.:

It is a game, dammit! You are supposed to share a fun time with some friends. So don't be a D*ckhead and ruin everything by insisting on being Pun-Pun. Or by making a combat-weak character and then whine about being useless in a fight for that matter.

It is the DM's job to make sure the encounters are tailored to the party's abilitites. And at the same time it is the player's job to not let go those same abilities out of hand.

High-powered games can be fun, but only if everyone if comfortable with this, most of all the DM. Otherwise, less is actually more.

In the end, the wrong kind of optimization has a much better chance of getting you killed then no optimization.

Lycar

pres_man
2010-02-09, 08:08 PM
In order to design a character for a concept (my character is ...) at some point you are going to have to decide on actual mechanics (I need my character to do ... in order to be ...), so the char-optimization and optimization distinction is too vague to really be effective in the long run.

As for optimization in the long run, any time you are given a choice between two or more options and you choose the best/most effective/most powerful one, you have optimized at that point. Maybe the entire character isn't optimized, but you are still doing optimization on some level. The only way to avoid doing that is purposefully avoid making any "good" choices.

As for the connection between optimization and roleplaying, one issue first. "Optimization limits roleplaying", yes that is true because in order to optimize you must make choices and it is choices that ultimately limit roleplaying. If you chose to be a half-orc, you have just limited yourself to only half-orc characters. Chose to be a bard, you've lost some roleplaying opportunities. So it isn't that optimization limits rolelplaying it is making choices that does, even crappy choices limit the types of roleplaying that can occur.

Second, does anyone things themselves a good roleplayer believe that if you were invited to join a game to replace a player that had to quit and they wanted you to use his character. That if when you sat down, you found out his character was optimized, you would find it impossible to roleplay the character? Because that seems to be the argument some are making.

Just a note about the Stormwind, the poster Tempest Stormwind has actually said that he wishes he hadn't named the false dilemna fallacy when applied to roleplaying and optimization after himself. From my understanding, he made up half-jokingly due to people making ridiculous arguments (such as it is impossible to roleplay an optimized character, craptimized characters [characters with the absolutely worst choices] are the best characters for roleplaying).

Thurbane
2010-02-09, 08:21 PM
The funny thing about a lot of fallacies? Despite being a fallacy, they are often accurate! :smallbiggrin:

In my personal experience, min/maxers do tend to spend less time on backstory and RP aspects of their characters, but this is purely anecdotal.

Kish
2010-02-09, 08:27 PM
As for optimization in the long run, any time you are given a choice between two or more options and you choose the best/most effective/most powerful one, you have optimized at that point. Maybe the entire character isn't optimized, but you are still doing optimization on some level. The only way to avoid doing that is purposefully avoid making any "good" choices.

No. You're also avoiding doing that if whenever you have a choice between one or two options, you think, "Which fits my character concept better?" And which is more or less powerful never occurs to you, or it does but you treat it as an irrelevancy.


Second, does anyone things themselves a good roleplayer believe that if you were invited to join a game to replace a player that had to quit and they wanted you to use his character. That if when you sat down, you found out his character was optimized, you would find it impossible to roleplay the character? Because that seems to be the argument some are making.

If I look at the character sheet, see spells and feats which lead to a lot of power but make absolutely no sense for the character concept I was told, ask how the previous player explained his character having those feats/spells, and the reply I get is, "Whenever we asked him questions like that he'd get this confused look in his eyes like we'd started speaking Latin or something"?

I don't know whether I could roleplay a character like that (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0052.html) or not. I am glad to say I doubt I'll ever be in a position to try; my first thought would probably be to see if the DM would let me trade those spells/feats in for ones which made sense.

erikun
2010-02-09, 09:44 PM
Is my intent really that unclear? :smalleek:
Not really. However, you claimed that the original Stormwind quote was unclear because the term "optimization" was not properly defined. Thus, if your own definitions are unclear or questionable, people will want clarification so that your definitions don't become the one thing you are trying to avoid.

As for me, I consider Optimization to be attempting to get the best benefit out of a specific concept, Min/Maxing to be attempting to get the the greatest mechanical benefit within the rules, while Munchkining is trying to for the greatest mechanical benefit, regardless of restrictions.

For example, if you wanted a Barbarian that sends enemies fleeing, optimization might point you towards a Barbarian/CG Paladin who stacks fear auras to terrify opponents. Min/Maxing would point you towards a Tomb-Tainted Dread Necromancer with armies of undead, with the condition "you can roleplay that he comes from a barbarian tribe." Munchkining would result in something closer to a Tainted Ur-Priest, with questionable feats and flaws granting access to spells earlier than normal.

For your definitions, characterization involves building the personality and story of a character. While this can set the concept for optimization, I don't really see it interacting beyond that. From what I can tell, Char-Optimization is just optimization under a different name. You can optimize a barbarian, a barbarian which kills stuff as quickly as possible, a barbarian which terrorizes enemies, a barbarian as a leader of a tribe, or just about any concept you can think of. I'm not sure what the difference between Char-Optimization and Optimization is, as something that is determined by your character concept is basically the difference between optimization and min/maxing.

pres_man
2010-02-09, 09:54 PM
No. You're also avoiding doing that if whenever you have a choice between one or two options, you think, "Which fits my character concept better?" And which is more or less powerful never occurs to you, or it does but you treat it as an irrelevancy.

How you treat it is irrelevant, all that matters is, is the choice the best/most effective/most powerful, if it is you just optimized. Perhaps it was unintentional optimization, but it still was optimization.

EDIT: Basicly, you seem to be arguing that if person A makes choice X because he thinks, "This is pretty powerful", he is optimizing. But if person B makes the exact same choice because he thinks, "I like how this sounds.", then he is not. If it is the exact same "optimal" choice, then both optimized, whether it was intentional or not.


If I look at the character sheet, see spells and feats which lead to a lot of power but make absolutely no sense for the character concept I was told, ask how the previous player explained his character having those feats/spells, and the reply I get is, "Whenever we asked him questions like that he'd get this confused look in his eyes like we'd started speaking Latin or something"?

I don't know whether I could roleplay a character like that (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0052.html) or not. I am glad to say I doubt I'll ever be in a position to try; my first thought would probably be to see if the DM would let me trade those spells/feats in for ones which made sense.

Well, if someone wasn't capable of making a character with a collection of feats and abilities (that were not "cheating"), I'd probably say that is a lack of imagination on their part. Mechanics are infinitely fluffable (no that doesn't mean that a specific mechanic can be describe a specific way, it means that there are infinite ways it could be described just perhaps not as some specific things), so if someone couldn't reflavor the mechanics, I have to ask, why not? Where is the roleplaying skills, then?

misterk
2010-02-10, 03:43 AM
How you treat it is irrelevant, all that matters is, is the choice the best/most effective/most powerful, if it is you just optimized. Perhaps it was unintentional optimization, but it still was optimization.

EDIT: Basicly, you seem to be arguing that if person A makes choice X because he thinks, "This is pretty powerful", he is optimizing. But if person B makes the exact same choice because he thinks, "I like how this sounds.", then he is not. If it is the exact same "optimal" choice, then both optimized, whether it was intentional or not.


I would argue against this, indeed this is part of my point against the more general optimisation people are refering to here. If I pick a character at random and they happen to be optimal, I have not optimised. I've randomised, and happened to have gained an optimal character. If I roleplay a character into creation and they have some optimal choices I have not optimised, I happen to have picked optimal choices here and there.

Does this matter? Of course not, and the finishing character is really only a small part of roleplaying on the whole. It still is a bit of roleplaying though, and if you don't do it, you are somewhat detracting from roleplaying.

People have argued effectively in my favour here, and have succintly reiterated my thoughts on this. I suppose I am making a minor point on the stormwind fallacy, but its always incredibly tiresome during arguments on the internet where someone quotes someone else and thinks thats argument over. Its always more complicated than that.

Kish
2010-02-10, 05:51 AM
How you treat it is irrelevant, all that matters is, is the choice the best/most effective/most powerful, if it is you just optimized. Perhaps it was unintentional optimization, but it still was optimization.
At which point, your argument seems to be, "Everyone optimizes, and I'll redefine the term 'optimize' as necessary to make that true." If you want to "win," go ahead. If you want to communicate, on the other hand, I'd suggest considering that maybe some of the other people in this thread consider the word "optimize" to mean "design a build to be powerful" rather than, "design a build which is powerful," and that there is no authority declaring your definition the right one.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-10, 06:09 AM
Optimization is not on/off thing - it's a matter of degree. There s such thing as 'partial optimization' - this is why not every optimizer goes for Punpun. Difference between 'munchkinism', 'min-maxing' and 'char-optimizing' isn't in quality, it's in quantity. I guess this is what Djinn tried to say.

pres_man
2010-02-10, 06:13 AM
At which point, your argument seems to be, "Everyone optimizes, and I'll redefine the term 'optimize' as necessary to make that true." If you want to "win," go ahead. If you want to communicate, on the other hand, I'd suggest considering that maybe some of the other people in this thread consider the word "optimize" to mean "design a build to be powerful" rather than, "design a build which is powerful," and that there is no authority declaring your definition the right one.

From the online dictionary Merriam-Webster.

Main Entry: op·ti·mi·za·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌäp-tə-mə-ˈzā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1857
: an act, process, or methodology of making something (as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible; specifically : the mathematical procedures (as finding the maximum of a function) involved in this

Kish
2010-02-10, 06:14 AM
That's nice. And I see winning is all you're interested in, so I won't engage with you further.

pres_man
2010-02-10, 06:32 AM
Frankly, I find most of these optimization vs. rolelplaying discussions a bit humorous and bewildering. As Frozen_Feet points out, everyone optimizes to one extent or another (ok, maybe not everyone, some might purposefully pick inferior choices only, going against their stated purpose). I find the idea of someone saying, "If you can't give an incharacter reason to justify a feat or class choice, then that isn't roleplaying!" Ok, but feats and class choices are usually metagame concepts. I could take the ranger class and reflavor it in game as a knight. The fact that I am not a outdoorsy nature lover, doesn't mean I am not using the actual mechanics of the ranger class. Unless the feat or class has a specific roleplaying requirement to it, then demanding a roleplaying reason for it just seems to be illogical. It is nice to have it, but not necessary, nor should it be. Roleplaying shouldn't be about what feats or class choices you have made about the character, but instead what is actually being played out during game time. Optimization deals with out-of-game choices, roleplaying deals with in-game choices.

Tokiko Mima
2010-02-10, 06:39 AM
I always thought of optimization as a goal-oriented process. You optimize in order to obtain a better end result, and sacrifice unneeded qualities to get it. If you optimize for power and nothing else the ideal result is Pun-Pun of course, because you discard everything else along the way, i.e. playability, versatility, group-friendliness, challenge, versimilitude, rules consistency, having roles you aren't good at, etc. In exchange you get the most powerful character possible by the rules.

If you optimize for power, but let's say you also want to be group friendly, you want to not have to be a caster and research spells/keep a spell list. Well, Tome of Battle is good for that, so pick up a Warblade and the White Raven school. Figure out what the best maneuvers/feats/PrCs are for your group and select them. That's optimization too.

Say you want to be an unarmed fighter, but you want to be weak offensively, speedy so you can run away from encounters, and lack synergy in all your class features. In this case, the monk base class would actually be an optimum solution for your requirements.

Roleplay, at least the way I do it, is something I derive my requirements from before I start optimizing a new character. The optimization process will shape the roleplay for a character as well, for example I may add a PrC or feat that adds an element to the characters story. Because experience is gained and levels are accrued the character will continue to be developed from an optimization and roleplay standpoints at all times. So to me, they are seperate processes that affect each other, but do not effect each other. If that makes sense, which I hope it does. :smallsmile:

pingcode20
2010-02-10, 07:04 AM
From the online dictionary Merriam-Webster.
Main Entry: op·ti·mi·za·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌäp-tə-mə-ˈzā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1857
: an act, process, or methodology of making something (as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible; specifically : the mathematical procedures (as finding the maximum of a function) involved in this

In fact, this speaks a lot more to what optimisation really is than it's been given credit for.

For example, optimising a function. If you're optimising a function, you don't go 'Infinity is the biggest number, so my answer is infinity', you figure out where the maximum is and say 'This is the set of parameters that will give me the maximum Y given my function'.*

In DnD terms, the character concept is like the function. An optimiser doesn't say 'Okay, most powerful, use a TO build'. The optimiser says 'My concept is an XY with a little Z, so this is the build that will let me do XY to the best of my ability with as much Z as I can fit in'.

*Can't for the life of me remember what the name was for the function used for optimisation. Using maximum for the heck of it, could be a minimum too.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-10, 07:35 AM
I always thought of optimization as a goal-oriented process. You optimize in order to obtain a better end result, and sacrifice unneeded qualities to get it. If you optimize for power and nothing else the ideal result is Pun-Pun of course, because you discard everything else along the way, i.e. playability, versatility, group-friendliness, challenge, versimilitude, rules consistency, having roles you aren't good at, etc. In exchange you get the most powerful character possible by the rules.


But Pun-Pun is versatile. He can do anything he sets his mind to do (except tell how they make cinnimon toast crunch according to Word of God/Author).

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 07:45 AM
But Pun-Pun is versatile. He can do anything he sets his mind to do (except tell how they make cinnimon toast crunch according to Word of God/Author).

Exactly. With the wrong definition of "optimization," all roads lead to him - the same point I made to Djinn earlier.

That includes the dictionary definition posted above. As nice as it is to argue from the dictionary, it's the term as used by the playerbase that matters, not the term as used by Merriam-Webster.

Zen Master
2010-02-10, 08:14 AM
I recommend the classical sylogism. Is it spelled that way in this strange and incomprehensible language?

Anyways. The Stormwind Fallacy.

In any case where the time devoted to playing roleplaying games is not unlimited, it will be true that:

If both optimizing (character creation, item selection, book reading and so on) and roleplaying (backstory, mannerism, morals and ethics, family and friends, and so on) both take measurable amouts of time, and

If the time available is not unlimited, then

It stands to reason that overall, time spent on one will detract from time spent on the other.

In other words, you can roleplay and optimize, yes. But no, you cannot roleplay 100% and optimize 100% at the same time.

Stormwind Fallacy, thus I refute thee.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-10, 08:18 AM
Exactly. With the wrong definition of "optimization," all roads lead to him - the same point I made to Djinn earlier.

That includes the dictionary definition posted above. As nice as it is to argue from the dictionary, it's the term as used by the playerbase that matters, not the term as used by Merriam-Webster.

No, once you get into functions, you're safe.

Once you have other parameters than "follows the rules" involved in your function, you can remove the singularity that is Pun-Pun while still being able to find maxima by use of partial differentiation.

[/mathsnerd]

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 08:23 AM
Why do people cite Stormwind Fallacy? It's a very limited case. If the opponent's reasoning is fallacious, refute it using the same argumentative steps that Tempest_Stormwind used, rather than just throwing his name around. If the opponent's reasoning isn't fallacious, agree to disagree (or change your fallacious reasoning).

Tokiko Mima
2010-02-10, 08:24 AM
But Pun-Pun is versatile. He can do anything he sets his mind to do (except tell how they make cinnimon toast crunch according to Word of God/Author).

Well, what I meant was versatile from a roleplaying standpoint. He's pretty much God++. He can be roleplayed as a farmer or even as a rock, but then you gave him all those abilities for nothing. Pun-Pun basically rewrites the laws of the cosmos by stretching the rules framework to it's absolute most absurd limits, and that's his one and only schtick. There's no need for him to be 'versatile' i.e. possessed of various abilities when his one ability can be use to replicate any other ability.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-10, 08:30 AM
I recommend the classical sylogism. Is it spelled that way in this strange and incomprehensible language?

Anyways. The Stormwind Fallacy.

In any case where the time devoted to playing roleplaying games is not unlimited, it will be true that:

If both optimizing (character creation, item selection, book reading and so on) and roleplaying (backstory, mannerism, morals and ethics, family and friends, and so on) both take measurable amouts of time, and

If the time available is not unlimited, then

It stands to reason that overall, time spent on one will detract from time spent on the other.

In other words, you can roleplay and optimize, yes. But no, you cannot roleplay 100% and optimize 100% at the same time.

Stormwind Fallacy, thus I refute thee.

You only refuted yourself by arguring with a strawman. Stormwind says there is nothing inherit in either optimizing and roleplay that makes focusing on one mess with the other. The player's skill is what matters. Thus you agreed with him. Ergo you don't refute him.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 08:31 AM
No, once you get into functions, you're safe.

Once you have other parameters than "follows the rules" involved in your function, you can remove the singularity that is Pun-Pun while still being able to find maxima by use of partial differentiation.

[/mathsnerd]

I agree with you completely m9m, but neither merriam-webster nor Djinn's definition included such parameters - or at least, attempted to spell them out.

Zen Master
2010-02-10, 08:41 AM
You only refuted yourself by arguring with a strawman. Stormwind says there is nothing inherit in either optimizing and roleplay that makes focusing on one mess with the other. The player's skill is what matters. Thus you agreed with him. Ergo you don't refute him.

Erm - I don't agree with him.

What I'm doing is I'm presenting the problem in absolutes. 100% roleplaying and 100% optimizing is only possible with infinite time. Possibly you also need infinite dimensions. But anyways, in any situation where ressources aren't infinite, any given instant in time can be devoted to only the one, or the other.

There are several problems with the argument - but not the one you seem to think. For instance, 100% roleplaying might not be necessary or desirable. You might easily be satisfied with 10%, leaving you a lot of time to achieve whatever percentage of optimizing you'd like.

However, the logic of the argument holds. You cannot apply all your time to both aspects.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 08:48 AM
However, the logic of the argument holds. You cannot apply all your time to both aspects.

Where did Stormwind say you could?

magic9mushroom
2010-02-10, 09:07 AM
I agree with you completely m9m, but neither merriam-webster nor Djinn's definition included such parameters - or at least, attempted to spell them out.

Merriam-Webster did, sorta. Djinn's didn't really.

To expand on that a little, the set of possible characters is an n-dimensional curve, with useful axes being cheesiness, ease of roleplaying, role that they do play, required sources, versatility, and power. Optimisation is taking set values for the first four, and maximising the last two. Pun-Pun is a singularity in the last two, but has a high value of cheesiness and requires the reasonably obscure (and setting-specific) source Serpent Kingdoms, so if you set your cheesiness parameter below what's required for Pun-Pun, and/or set your sources to not include Serpent Kingdoms, then optimisation will not return Pun-Pun.

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 09:11 AM
Where did Stormwind say you could?

here:
Essentially, roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other. The implication of "they are independant of each other" is that one does not influence the other. Acromos is saying that he believes that this is not the case (specifically that bolded part), that choosing to do one prevents you from doing the other with that particular moment in time. So these are not totally independent, there is some relationship between them.

This particular bolded part is stormwinds own logical fallacy, and oddly enough it also seems to be based on a false dilemma. He sets up 2 lemmas

It's impossible to roleplay and optimize at the same time
Roleplaying and optimization are independent of each other.


He presents counter arguments to disproves the first lemma, and shows that it depends on a false dichotomy; he then uses that and his own false dilemma to assume that the 2nd is true. This ignores the possibility: that Roleplaying and Optimization are related in some ways (time was Acromos' example, but there are other ways that they're related), even if one doesn't totally preclude the other.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:22 AM
here:

I'm not sure where you got that from. The quote I have of Stormwind's post says nothing like that.

Here's the full, original fallacy.


I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

He didn't say anything about min/maxing vs. roleplay as far as I can see, except to condemn the extremes on both sides. He even points out that optimization and roleplay go hand in hand at the end, the exact opposite of your interpretation. And your quoted line is not in the passage.

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 09:31 AM
I'm not sure where you got that from. The quote I have of Stormwind's post says nothing like that.That particular quote is from one of his updated versions; I've seen it quoted several different places (I seem to recall that it made an appearance in the recently deleted stormwind thread among other places). It's a belief that Stormwind espoused quite often.

You can find some references to that particular version of "the stormwind fallacy" (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Essentially%2C+roleplaying+and+min%2Fmaxing+ can+easily+coexist+since+they+are+independent+of+e ach+other) if you look around for them.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:36 AM
You know, I can spot a lmgtfy without clicking on it. How very mature of you.

As I have only your word to go on and you are clearly biased, I think I'm going to stick with the actual fallacy here.

It is quoted (and timestamped) verbatim here (http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-redux.html) and here. (http://www.loremaster.org/loremaster-editorials/1084-loremaster-stormwind-fallacy.html)

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 09:47 AM
You know, I can spot a lmgtfy without clicking on it. How very mature of you. you asked where stormwind said that; 2 seconds of Googling that particular phrase would have given you some idea of where he said that. I'm sorry that you don't like lmgtfy links, but I generally think it's appropriate if someone is really being that lazy.


As I have only your word to go on and you are clearly biased, I think I'm going to stick with the actual fallacy here.Likewise, I'll just use the more recent posting from that particular author, and continue to take into account other things that he's said so that it's kept in it's full context.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:48 AM
Likewise, I'll just use the more recent posting from that particular author, and continue to take into account other things that he's said so that it's kept in it's full context.

Well, if we're debating the actual fallacy, alleged "recent postings" are pretty irrelevant.

Edit: Oh look, the very first google result for your "quote" is your own post. What a surprise!

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 09:50 AM
Well, if we're debating the actual fallacy, alleged "recent postings" are pretty irrelevant.not really, additional writings that the author has made give a better understanding of the context, and are totally relevant. Especially when those further rewritings are referred to as updated or revised versions by the author.


Edit: Oh look, the very first google result for your quote is your own post. What a surprise!Yeah, that tends to happen, GITP gets a lot of google traffic, and when you search for roleplaying related topics it tends to weigh in quite high. It's because there are so many other roleplaying related hits on the site, and google's algorithms are smart enough to take that into account.

How about the 2nd, 3rd , 4th and 5th?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 09:51 AM
Why in the Hells are we arguing over this? Do we really need to decide which version of the Stormwind fallacy we're going to use?

Well, then you're arguing semantics rather than actually dealing with the subject.

If we could all just stop using "Stormwind!" shorthand and individually dissect fallacious arguments, things would be a lot clearer.
[/rant]


Oh look, the very first google result for your quote is your own post. What a surprise!

Yeah, it's pretty damn surprising how much Google prioritizes giantitp.com results.

I generally think it's appropriate if someone is really being that lazy.

A link like this (http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=%22Essentially%2C+roleplaying+and+min%2Fmaxing+c an+easily+coexist+since+they+are+independent+of+ea ch+other) would communicate the message just as well without being quite as rude.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:56 AM
How about the 2nd, 3rd , 4th and 5th?

They aren't the Fallacy, and are thus irrelevant.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 09:56 AM
not really, additional writings that the author has made give a better understanding of the context, and are totally relevant. Especially when those further rewritings are referred to as updated or revised versions by the author.
However, if those "updated or revised" versions don't come into wide circulation (which they haven't: see Optimystik's reaction), they're irrelevant. "Updates" to the Stormwind Fallacy cannot be made by Tempest_Stormwind alone: the fallacy now exists in the communal internet culture, in a specific form - one that usually does not contain these additional writings.

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 09:58 AM
A link like this (http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=%22Essentially%2C+roleplaying+and+min%2Fmaxing+c an+easily+coexist+since+they+are+independent+of+ea ch+other) would communicate the message just as well without being quite as rude.
[/serious]I'm not totally convinced that it communicates "hey, don't be so lazy, take a couple of seconds and just go google it rather than sitting there with a [citation needed] poster" quite as well.


"Updates" to the Stormwind Fallacy cannot be made by Tempest_Stormwind aloneWhy not? If he posts it again as a result of it being pruned off of a forum, with updates that more clearly show his stance, that seems like he's updated it alone.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:59 AM
I'm not totally convinced that it communicates "hey, don't be so lazy, take a couple of seconds and just go google it rather than sitting there with a [citation needed] poster" quite as well.

Why exactly should I waste time Googling irrelevant comments?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 10:00 AM
They aren't the Fallacy, and are thus irrelevant.


Tempest Stormwind wrote:

Here's the new definition I use, since the old one got pruned.
If someone says something to the extent of any of the following:
I am a roleplayer; thus I do not min-max.
I purposely make all my characters weak in at least some ways; that makes them better roleplayed.
You're dishing out thousands of damage per hit! You're not roleplaying, you're min/maxing!

...And so on and so forth. If those things come up, then they are committing the Stormwind Fallacy: Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean he cannot also roleplay well. Just because a player plays his character well does not mean he cannot be optimized.
As a corollary, characters who are min/maxed are not automatically played worse than those who are not, and characters who are deliberately handicapped are not automatically played better than those who are not. It's easy to imagine players who are good at either one of those things, or bad at both, or good at both.

Essentially, roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other.
I'm not sure if crazysamaritan is a reliable source, but there you go. It's from one of the links (I can't blame you for not finding it; navigating the WotC forums is horrible)


I'm not totally convinced that it communicates "hey, don't be so lazy, take a couple of seconds and just go google it rather than sitting there with a [citation needed] poster" quite as well.

Since I had to dive through multiple links before I found an actual full quote attributed to Tempest_Stormwind (let alone written by him), this particular case isn't the most trivial.


Why not? If he posts it again as a result of it being pruned off of a forum, with updates that more clearly show his stance, that seems like he's updated it alone.

If nobody cares (since it's so hard to find the repost, nobody does), he hasn't updated it alone. He's updated his interpretation of the fallacy - but at this point, the fallacy (despite having his name attached to it) is not his alone to interpret.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-10, 10:03 AM
Exactly, it was a strawman since you said: taken to extremes. When Stormwind never argued that at all.

The player matters if he is 100% optimizing but 0 roleplay (impossible to not roleplay at all), but another player can be 100% of each (if either was possible).

Nothing about the two inherently blocks the other.

As stormwind says: There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

It is all up to the player.
Now you can make an arguement that doing too much of one will limit the other due to time, but that isn't what Stormwind is talking about. He isn't talking about player skill.

The better your player skill the faster one can do both. Thus time function is limited only by player skill.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 10:03 AM
I'm not sure if crazysamaritan is a reliable source

And neither am I. But even if it is, that post explicitly references the original fallacy ("They are commiting the Stormwind Fallacy") so that is what this thread should be deferring to. Digging up and discussing every vagrant post of Stormwind's is meaningless, as we'll have no common ground.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 10:05 AM
To clarify (and extend this semantic argument. :P)...

The most easily accessible (search "stormwind fallacy") version of the fallacy, the most widely circulated one (by extension), and the most universal one (it was on a Magic: the Gathering site), is as follows:


Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind
Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 10:05 AM
Why exactly should I waste time Googling irrelevant comments?Because it takes less time to find out the answer than responding with a snippy 6 word response like "Where did Stormwind say you could?" and waiting for a response.


They aren't the Fallacy, and are thus irrelevant.Yes, those all contain that particular update of his fallacy (reposted from where it was evident ally pruned), quoted, attributed to him.


And neither am I. But even if it is, that post explicitly references the original fallacy ("They are commiting the Stormwind Fallacy") so that is what this thread should be deferring to. Digging up and discussing every vagrant post of Stormwind's is meaningless, as we'll have no common ground.You asked where he said that; I referenced where he said that.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 10:06 AM
The most easily accessible (search "stormwind fallacy") version of the fallacy, the most widely circulated one (by extension), and the most universal one (it was on a Magic: the Gathering site), is as follows:

Yes, that is the very one I posted and linked to.


Because it takes less time to find out the answer than responding with a snippy 6 word response like "Where did Stormwind say you could?" and waiting for a response.

Except it isn't the answer, because it's not part of the Fallacy. We're discussing "The Stormwind Fallacy" not "Every post by Stormwind that contains the word 'fallacy.'"

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 10:09 AM
Yes, those all contain the his fallacy, quoted, attributed to him

1) Some don't have the full text of the "updated" fallacy, and the rest have it in difficult-to-find locations on the page (yes, even after using the find function).
2) The "updated" fallacy, as it has not been widely circulated, is irrelevant...
Much like this whole debate. And, arguably (I'd say), the whole fallacy.

Roland's summary of the fallacy was as follows

It's an application of the false dilemma fallacy in the gaming context.

Why do we need to keep falling back onto Stormwind? We all know logic, hopefully. Quoting Stormwind doesn't solve problems; it just shifts the terms in which they are worded. The fallacious parts of the old-school v. new-school argument are still going strong. 'Twould be far better for us all if we stopped yellign STORMWIND and just individually dissected each false dilemma.

Oslecamo
2010-02-10, 10:10 AM
The better your player skill the faster one can do both. Thus time function is limited only by player skill.

On the other hand, the stormwind fallacy is many times thrown against players who claim themselves to not be very skilled at D&D or just doesn't have the time to dig trough the books, and thus would prefer to focus on the roleplaying aspect of the game. When this happens, it's almost inevitable that someone will bring up the stormwind fallacy, claiming that the player should also be perfectly able to develop his optimization skills despite his limited time and ability.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-10, 10:14 AM
On the other hand, the stormwind fallacy is many times thrown against players who claim themselves to not be very skilled at D&D or just doesn't have the time to dig trough the books, and thus would prefer to focus on the roleplaying aspect of the game. When this happens, it's almost inevitable that someone will bring up the stormwind fallacy, claiming that the player should also be perfectly able to develop his optimization skills despite his limited time and ability.

True, this is a kinda false application when that happens. I mean yes, the false dilemma falacy is true, but does it apply there is question.

Yes, new players are still building their player skill: I remember when I had to look up spell descriptions for MM, fireball, glitterdust, etc. That took time.

Oslecamo
2010-02-10, 10:22 AM
True, this is a kinda false application when that happens. I mean yes, the false dilemma falacy is true, but does it apply there is question.

But that's the problem. The stormwind fallacy is a twisting of the false dilemma falacy, wich has been twisted over and over again over the years. Like many people pointed, there's a dozen or more of diferent versions.

So, better to scrap and bury all of them and use an actual fallacy, aka the false dilemma one, wich wouldn't create so much confusion.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-10, 10:24 AM
But that's the problem. The stormwind fallacy is a twisting of the false dilemma falacy, wich has been twisted over and over again over the years. Like many people pointed, there's a dozen or more of diferent versions.

So, better to scrap and bury all of them and use an actual fallacy, aka the false dilemma one, wich wouldn't create so much confusion.

Wait, blame the users not the fallacy. I mean, it is like the gun debate: guns don't kill people (they help though). Neither is the fallacy bad.

Should the blame be on one using them wrong?

Oslecamo
2010-02-10, 10:33 AM
Should the blame be on one using them wrong?
There wouldn't be so many people using it wrong if the fallacy was properly written and conserved to begin with.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 10:34 AM
So, better to scrap and bury all of them and use an actual fallacy, aka the false dilemma one, wich wouldn't create so much confusion.

It's actually a subset (or application, as Roland termed it) of the False Dilemma fallacy - making the general fallacy more relevant to a roleplaying context. So by discussing this application, we are discussing the more general False Dilemma.


There wouldn't be so many people using it wrong if the fallacy was properly written and conserved to begin with.

It has been properly conserved; people just feel the need to try and counter it using third-party interpretations, reposts and other vagaries rather than discuss what he actually codified as the fallacy.

Also: depending on people to apply terminology correctly? In my internet?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 10:35 AM
So, better to scrap and bury all of them and use an actual fallacy, aka the false dilemma one, wich wouldn't create so much confusion.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!?!!!!

But seriously, people, use honest logic, rather than falling back on shorthand that is often inappropriate for the situation.

Amphetryon
2010-02-10, 11:46 AM
Also: depending on people to apply terminology correctly? In my internet?


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ln_ta8qbvYg/SKY2VJyuyeI/AAAAAAAAAAU/XPeVGCDtZZw/s400/20070314.gif

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 11:47 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ln_ta8qbvYg/SKY2VJyuyeI/AAAAAAAAAAU/XPeVGCDtZZw/s400/20070314.gif

SMBC ftw :smalltongue:

The Rose Dragon
2010-02-10, 11:49 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ln_ta8qbvYg/SKY2VJyuyeI/AAAAAAAAAAU/XPeVGCDtZZw/s400/20070314.gif

I love you.

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 02:05 PM
I love you.shouldn't that be "I lobe you (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=666#comic)" in this context?


Why do we need to keep falling back onto Stormwind?It's because some people like to invoke authority, even when they have no idea what said authority actually said. I'd say that really high proportion of invocations of the "Stormwind Fallacy" are a result of this, and, as such, wind up actually being an "Appeal from authority" fallacy.


We all know logic, hopefully.I highly doubt it; some people perhaps, but certainly not "we all"


Quoting Stormwind doesn't solve problems; it just shifts the terms in which they are worded. The fallacious parts of the old-school v. new-school argument are still going strong. 'Twould be far better for us all if we stopped yellign STORMWIND and just individually dissected each false dilemma.Indeed.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 02:07 PM
The fallacious parts of the old-school v. new-school argument are still going strong.

Because I want to clarify (and raise my post count, I suppose), there are many non-fallacious parts of the old v. new argument. It's just that the few fallacious parts have come to blend in too well. :(

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 02:08 PM
I just want to discuss the actual fallacy. Foryn, we both linked it - let's talk about it. What is wrong with it, how can we refine it, etc.

Go.

pres_man
2010-02-10, 02:13 PM
Erm - I don't agree with him.

What I'm doing is I'm presenting the problem in absolutes. 100% roleplaying and 100% optimizing is only possible with infinite time. Possibly you also need infinite dimensions. But anyways, in any situation where ressources aren't infinite, any given instant in time can be devoted to only the one, or the other.

There are several problems with the argument - but not the one you seem to think. For instance, 100% roleplaying might not be necessary or desirable. You might easily be satisfied with 10%, leaving you a lot of time to achieve whatever percentage of optimizing you'd like.

However, the logic of the argument holds. You cannot apply all your time to both aspects.

The flaw with this logic is that you have to assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence to the time available for optimization as there is for roleplaying. That every minute used for optimization could also be used for roleplaying. This is often not true. Take for example, a person sitting on the crapper or taking a shower. That is time is not available for roleplaying, for most people. But that is time that a person could spend thinking about ways they could optimize their character. That time is available for one use (or more if you count the actual acts being performed besides just the thinking), but not available for use with the other. Likewise, in the middle of a roleplaying session, one rarely has time to consider what types of optimization are available for a character 5 levels higher.

Now can be there be some overlap, where time could be spend on rolelplaying or optimization, sure. But I would think that is the exception and not the rule. And often, a player wouldn't have taken adventage of one of them even if the other wasn't available. That is, a player might not have spend anytime optimizing even if the option to do roleplaying wasn't available, or a player might not have roleplayed even if they didn't have the option to go over optimization options. The choice might not be optimization vs. roleplay, but instead optimization vs. do nothing or rolelplay vs. do nothing.

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 02:14 PM
Because I want to clarify (and raise my post count, I suppose), there are many non-fallacious parts of the old v. new argument. It's just that the few fallacious parts have come to blend in too well. :(I'm not sure that they actually blend in all that well: people tend to ignore them because they have an authority who says that all of those arguments are fallacious, even though the stormwind fallacy only addresses a very specific part of those arguments.


Take for example, a person sitting on the crapper or taking a shower. That is time is not available for roleplaying, for most people. But that is time that a person could spend thinking about ways they could optimize their character. This doesn't make any sense; I can spend that time thinking of background, motivations, etc of a character (roleplaying, meaning "how to play that role") far more easily than I can think through ways of optimizing it in those situations. All that takes is my imagination; working on optimization would generally require reference materials. I don't have waterproof books, paper (for math) or computers... but I do have a waterproof imagination.

Kish
2010-02-10, 02:20 PM
Both "my character is weak, therefore I'm roleplaying" and, "I say I'm roleplaying, therefore it doesn't matter whether my feat and skill choices fit the character concept or make any internal sense" are fundamentally wrong ideas which some people on the Internet argue for.

Time spent has nothing to do with it. If you attack an enemy with your family's ancestral greatsword, which you had enchanted to +5 undead bane capability, and all your feats are pointed toward you using a greatsword, you're both optimized (in that using any other weapon that is likely to be available will generally be tactically inferior) and roleplaying (both the feats and the enchantment are motivated by your character concept, rather than working against it). Attacking the enemy is still one action. (I will, however, note as an aside that you can just as well spend time in the shower thinking about "what would my character do?" as, "what can I do to make my character more powerful?")

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 02:22 PM
I just want to discuss the actual fallacy. Foryn, we both linked it - let's talk about it. What is wrong with it, how can we refine it, etc.

The thing is, I don't want to discuss the actual fallacy, for two main reasons.
1) Too much work. :/
2) It won't be awfully productive. The point of having a Stormwind Fallacy (rather than a "person-you're-arguing-against-today fallacy") is that it can be referenced by a large variety of people and used as a common basis for discussion. Unfortunately, for a statement to stick into the common culture like that, it has to be necessarily restricted. Even if we manage to pump a Refined Stormwind Fallacy into the world, fallacious people will just adapt the terms of their argument to not fall directly into the new fallacy.

The current Stormwind Fallacy is too specific. The Complete Stormwind Fallacy with Corollaries isn't catchy enough. The simple, universal assertion that one ought to think before establishing false dilemmas is A) already part of logic, and B) not worth attributing to Tempest_Stormwind.

IMO the only thing Stormwind Fallacy is good for is an example of a decently-constructed argument. At its conception, it was good for shutting down many fallacious arguments; but at this point, Stormwind's targets have shifted the goalposts so that the fallacy does not directly apply. Better for people to just learn logic.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 02:53 PM
In that case, I'll defer to Kish's post, as I have nothing to add that she hasn't already covered.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-10, 02:57 PM
It's because some people like to invoke authority, even when they have no idea what said authority actually said. I'd say that really high proportion of invocations of the "Stormwind Fallacy" are a result of this, and, as such, wind up actually being an "Appeal from authority" fallacy.


He was a decent guy. Well, he was a jerk to Harry Potter book series, but that was his only flaw I knew.

faceroll
2010-02-10, 02:58 PM
fallacious parts

Heh heh heh heh heh. Fallacious. Heh heh heh.


Errrr, um, I mean,
Why do we need a "Stormwind Fallacy" or a "Oberoni Fallacy"? Can't we just use the generic name for those fallacies? Just point out that rollplaying vs. foleplaying is a false dilemma. No need to appeal to authority.

pres_man
2010-02-10, 03:02 PM
This doesn't make any sense; I can spend that time thinking of background, motivations, etc of a character (roleplaying, meaning "how to play that role") far more easily than I can think through ways of optimizing it in those situations. All that takes is my imagination; working on optimization would generally require reference materials. I don't have waterproof books, paper (for math) or computers... but I do have a waterproof imagination.

Well, maybe I'm just weird I guess. I figure if I started a character at 1st level, and it is a year (in real time) later and the character is now 10th level. I probably am not spending alot of time thinking about background or motivations of the character. If I haven't figured that out during the last year, then it is likely I am not interest enough in it to bother. But considering that I may be gaining a new level in a few sessions, I might want to consider what actual optimization options there available at this point and if they are optimal choices for my character concept. Yes, I would need the actual materials for the specifics, but the general goals of the optimization do not require them.

Besides, I would think that "roleplaying" would be closer defined as "playing a role" and not so much "thinking about how to play a role at some point in the far distant vague future". But like I said, I'm probably weird like that.

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 03:19 PM
"I say I'm roleplaying, therefore it doesn't matter whether my feat and skill choices fit the character concept or make any internal sense"I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually argue something like this; I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, just that I've never seen it and it sounds suspiciously like a strawman.

The closest I've seen to this is "I'm roleplaying, therefore it doesn't matter if there is a better set of feat/class/skill choices that would make my character more powerful as long as it makes sense for my character to have them."


Time spent has nothing to do with it.Your example doesn't really back up this assertion very well, because you don't actually say enough about the character to show roleplaying, and the optimization that you give is sketchy at best.

Time involved is very much an issue; someone has 2 hours to spend on creating a character, and spend 1 hour and 55 minutes working on the character, and then about 5 minutes on presenting that in game terms; someone else may have done the reverse. I'd posit that the optimization of the character in one case is going to have suffered as a result of lack of time, as has the roleplaying of the other character is going to have suffered for the same reason. This isn't to say that either character is totally unoptimized, or totally unroleplayed (they might be, or might not be) just that there are often time constraints involved, and when combined with the player's priorities, the player may have to make a sacrifice in order to continue to focus on their priorities.


Besides, I would think that "roleplaying" would be closer defined as "playing a role" and not so much "thinking about how to play a role at some point in the far distant vague future". But like I said, I'm probably weird like that.I'd say that (generally) what people are talking about in a roleplay vs rollplay discussion, especially when they are talking about time involvement, is strictly preparation based.

So, back to "working on roleplaying while showering" ... there are lots of specific incidents that are part of a character background that don't need to be defined up front, and I know several people who enjoy coming up with these over time. Some of these events wind up revealing themselves over time, but in most cases they just subtly influence what kind of person that particular character is.

Riffington
2010-02-10, 03:22 PM
The current Stormwind Fallacy is too specific.

It has to be too specific in order to be a fallacy (really, it just exposes a fallacy in a specific strawman). In general, arguments about the precise interactions between optimization and roleplaying tend to be valid but to lack sufficient evidence.

Kish
2010-02-10, 03:47 PM
I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually argue something like this; I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, just that I've never seen it and it sounds suspiciously like a strawman.
The link I posted earlier in this thread is not exactly the same (the flaws fit the character, the player just didn't intend to actually play them). However, I will say what I have seen a lot around the Internet is, "If you're playing a wizard who doesn't try to be Batman/playing a cleric primarily because you like healing/playing a monk or fighter ever, you're DOING IT WRONG."

pres_man
2010-02-10, 04:06 PM
I'd say that (generally) what people are talking about in a roleplay vs rollplay discussion, especially when they are talking about time involvement, is strictly preparation based.

So, back to "working on roleplaying while showering" ... there are lots of specific incidents that are part of a character background that don't need to be defined up front, and I know several people who enjoy coming up with these over time. Some of these events wind up revealing themselves over time, but in most cases they just subtly influence what kind of person that particular character is.

Ok, you know what, I don't really agree with the definition for roleplaying that includes things that are akin to writing a story, but you know what, it doesn't even matter.

Let's assume you are right, that time in the shower is effective "roleplaying" time and not "optimizing" time, that just proves the point I was initially making. That the idea that "optimizing" takes away from time that could be spent on "roleplaying" isn't likely to happen because different situations favor one over the other. Yes, again there may be some overlap, but it is likely that even if the person wasn't doing the action they are involved with (whether roleplaying or optimizing), they probably wouldn't have been doing the other anyway and would likely have been doing something else entirely or doing nothing. In fact the only people that really would find a situation where time is being pulled by both optimizing and roleplaying are the people that do both in large quantity (and hopefully quality).

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 04:32 PM
The link I posted earlier in this thread is not exactly the same (the flaws fit the character, the player just didn't intend to actually play them). However, I will say what I have seen a lot around the Internet is, "If you're playing a wizard who doesn't try to be Batman/playing a cleric primarily because you like healing/playing a monk or fighter ever, you're DOING IT WRONG."I don't think that this is talking about the same argument that I quoted above.


That the idea that "optimizing" takes away from time that could be spent on "roleplaying" isn't likely to happen because different situations favor one over the other. Yes, again there may be some overlap, but it is likely that even if the person wasn't doing the action they are involved with (whether roleplaying or optimizing), they probably wouldn't have been doing the other anyway and would likely have been doing something else entirely or doing nothing. No, I'd say that most situations are overlapping; it's quite common for people to have time that can be spent on either, and they choose what to spend their time on based on their priorities. I just thought that your particular example was a bad one, since I could use that time for furthering my character's roleplaying in some way, but there's not way I could personally use that time for optimization. So I don't see how it helps that particular point.

Story isn't the only thing involved by the way, I just figured it was the simplest, most intuitive example.

One of the reasons that really made your "in the shower" example stand out is that I know someone who has, on occasion, used his shower time to practice "the voice" . It's a good spot to do that due to the acoustics, and the fact that the noise of the shower kind of drowns it out so noone else can hear him. He's been known to do it elsewhere (say, in one of the music dept practice rooms, where he could also have been working on charop if he so desired).

Not that talking in character with a funny voice is necessary, but there are people who use that as a tool to get more deeply into character

Riffington
2010-02-10, 05:06 PM
Ok, you know what, I don't really agree with the definition for roleplaying that includes things that are akin to writing a story

Surely roleplaying must include things akin to writing a story?

Caphi
2010-02-10, 05:25 PM
Surely roleplaying must include things akin to writing a story?

For sufficiently low values of "akin". Roleplaying is dialogue, reactions, and a certain measure of creativity. Story writing is partly that, but it's as much setting up and controlling, causing circumstances and seeding drama and Chekov's Gun and all kinds of other things that are very far above the scope of writing the thoughts, actions, and words of a single character, or even two.

Most of the "story writing" to a character is loaded into the background, the size of which is dependent on the GM, player, and campaign environment. Actual roleplaying is different.

Riffington
2010-02-10, 05:35 PM
For sufficiently low values of "akin". Roleplaying is dialogue, reactions, and a certain measure of creativity. Story writing is partly that, but it's as much setting up and controlling, causing circumstances and seeding drama and Chekov's Gun and all kinds of other things that are very far above the scope of writing the thoughts, actions, and words of a single character, or even two.

Most of the "story writing" to a character is loaded into the background, the size of which is dependent on the GM, player, and campaign environment. Actual roleplaying is different.

I believe good roleplaying is more proactive than you do. A good player does not just react. A good player helps with story arc, introduces background, works in plot hooks, etc (all in conjunction with the DM).

Jayabalard
2010-02-10, 05:37 PM
Roleplaying is dialogue, reactions, and a certain measure of creativity. It's also about "being able to immerse yourself into the role" ... and there are certainly people who spend time preparing for that, not just by writing background or story elements, but by thinking about the character extensively. In film/theatre, I think the general term for that is "Method Acting"

You read about movie actors that go to incredible lengths to get themselves into the skin of a particular character... well, there are RPG players that do the same sort of thing albeit usually on a much smaller scale.

Siegel
2010-02-10, 05:45 PM
Do you know what is the best part about the Stormwind Fallacy ?
I learned the word fallacy from it :smallredface:

Darrin
2010-02-10, 05:51 PM
Surely roleplaying must include things akin to writing a story?

Possibly, if it weren't for the fact that you only have very limited control over maybe one page out of four/five/six pages, the other co-authors keep scribbling and writing over your pages, and that depraved monkey screaming behind that screen keeps tearing up all your pages so he can shove *HIS* infantile Donaldson/Eddings/Tolkien ripoff down everybody's throat.

I'm not all that comfortable to comparing RPGs to fiction-writing. I think it's closer to a weird mashup of improv theatre and watching an episode MST3K.

pres_man
2010-02-10, 05:54 PM
No, I'd say that most situations are overlapping; it's quite common for people to have time that can be spent on either, and they choose what to spend their time on based on their priorities. I just thought that your particular example was a bad one, since I could use that time for furthering my character's roleplaying in some way, but there's not way I could personally use that time for optimization. So I don't see how it helps that particular point.

Story isn't the only thing involved by the way, I just figured it was the simplest, most intuitive example.

One of the reasons that really made your "in the shower" example stand out is that I know someone who has, on occasion, used his shower time to practice "the voice" . It's a good spot to do that due to the acoustics, and the fact that the noise of the shower kind of drowns it out so noone else can hear him. He's been known to do it elsewhere (say, in one of the music dept practice rooms, where he could also have been working on charop if he so desired).

Not that talking in character with a funny voice is necessary, but there are people who use that as a tool to get more deeply into character

But you are just showing that they do not in fact overlap. By your own admission, you would never use shower time to optimize, thus there is no conflict with that time. For there to be a real conflict of time, both things must be applicable at the same time. Since as you prove repeatedly, this is not always the case, thus the idea that roleplaying and optimization conflict based on time is at least not completely accurate. There may be certain times where there may be a time when a person is just as willing to roleplay as optimize and thus a time constraint conflict, but usually this is not the case. Usually the time one spends on roleplaying wouldn't be spent on optimization anyway, likewise the time one spends on optimization would not likely be spent on roleplaying. Thus the two are not in conflict, even if we say that a certain amount of time could potentially be spent on either one. If the person is not motivated to spent that time on both, then there is no conflict.

pres_man
2010-02-10, 05:59 PM
Surely roleplaying must include things akin to writing a story?

Only if you think improv acting as akin to writing a movie script.

Riffington
2010-02-10, 06:01 PM
Only if you think improv acting as akin to writing a movie script.

Ok, what particular things important to storywriting do you think don't get to go into roleplaying.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 06:02 PM
Usually the time one spends on roleplaying wouldn't be spent on optimization anyway, likewise the time one spends on optimization would not likely be spent on roleplaying..

While I disagree with the specific way in which pres_man argues it, I'd have to second this assertion. Let's say I have some free time. I can use this free time to either optimize mechanics or think about my character. Based on my emotional state, I feel inclined to optimize. But I feel like I'm focusing too much on mechanics, so I don't optimize at this point in time.

The thing is, based on said emotional state, I'm not going to think about my character by not-optimizing. I'm going to do some work or something. Similarly, if I'm in an appropriate state to think about my character, and I choose to not think; I'll probably philosophize rather than optimize.

More clearly: "roleplaying time" and "optimizing time" are differentiated by my emotional state. The emotions that lead to optimizing are different than those that lead to roleplaying. Therefore, indulging in one activity will not harm the other, as my emotional state necessarily precluded the other.

Riffington
2010-02-10, 06:24 PM
I think it should be clear that the "divided time" theory isn't quite right. Surely people who lose their jobs do not become much better at roleplaying as a result. But what I think is at the heart of Jayalabard's assertion is something related: a character (and, indeed, a human) has a certain amount of "mental space". If you get too used to thinking of a woman as "my landlady is always bothering me about the rent", it makes it much harder to see her as "she's really funny and her stories about Russia are endearing". Conversely, it's pretty hard to haggle with a friend you respect. Different ways of looking at a person interfere with one another.

So there is a way in which figuring out "how can I increase the power level of this character" interferes with thinking about "what is he thinking now". But it's not exactly time-related.

Jayalabard, if you think this is off track, let me know.

Lycar
2010-02-10, 07:31 PM
Hrm, this discussion is drifting off into semantics. :smallannoyed:

What really matters is that you have two aspects that gouvern what your character sheet represents:

Fluff and Crunch.

Fluff is basically what you want to be. Crunch are the mechanics that should (ideally) match up with what you want it to be.

'Master Swordsman' is the fluff. But whether you give that concept live by taking levels in fighter, or swashbuckler or ToB classes or whatever leads to dramatically different results in terms of crunch.

Now some people are all about the crunch. They only see class features and totally ignore any fluff attached to it, because 'fluff is freely exchangeable and therefore irrelevant'.

These people build a skeleton out of class features and then end up with a T-800 instead of a character.

People who ignore the crunch (i.e., don't optimize at least to some degree), however, find that their alter ego can not really live up to their expectations if the other players did optimize.

You can be a mighty warrior with fighter levels. As long as the others are rangers, non-DMM clerics and blaster wizards. It is all a matter of intra-party balance. It is just that your fighter will, say, only be able to heroically defeat eighteen kobolds, while an optimized warblade/psychic warrior/codzilla can wipe out eighty.

It is just that some people care more about the numbers game then others.

And some people have that weird notion that fluff actually should be worth something. Those are the ones that like to call themselves roleplayers and get upset when others... disrespect the fluff.

So that is what it boild down to: Some people revere fluff, others despise it. And the two kinds usually don't play well together.

Lycar

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 07:38 PM
Now some people are all about the crunch. They only see class features and totally ignore any fluff attached to it, because 'fluff is freely exchangeable and therefore irrelevant'.

These people build a skeleton out of class features and then end up with a T-800 instead of a character.

Some people like the crunch. They only see class features and totally ignore any fluff attached to it, because the creative vision in their heads is superior to the genericized concepts WotC sticks on the classes as a baseline.

These people build a skeleton out of class features and then attach their own fluff, ending up with a nice little fluffy effigy of a person a unique and individualized character.


And some people have that weird notion that fluff actually should be worth something. Those are the ones that like to call themselves roleplayers and get upset when others... disrespect the fluff.
And some people have the notion that the basic, bland fluff attached to classes by WotC should be worth something. Those are the ones that like to call themselves roleplayers (and snobbily imply that those who disagree with them are not roleplayers). They get upset when others "disrespect" the stereotypical fluff attached to the metagame constructs called "classes".


So that is what it boild down to: Some people revere fluff, others despise it. And the two kinds usually don't play well together.
Some people revere fluff, and others despise it. However, the vast majority of people neither despise fluff nor have the requisite devotion to revere it. Some parts of this vast majority don't like unnecessarily polarized arguments.

Pyro_Azer
2010-02-10, 08:17 PM
Some people revere fluff, and others despise it. However, the vast majority of people neither despise fluff nor have the requisite devotion to revere it. Some parts of this vast majority don't like unnecessarily polarized arguments.

This is probably the truest statement said in this entire thread.

Kantolin
2010-02-10, 10:03 PM
People who ignore the crunch (i.e., don't optimize at least to some degree), however, find that their alter ego can not really live up to their expectations if the other players did optimize.

I dunno about Stormwind, but that sure bugs /me/ personally. :P

I mean, I can accept some people like number crunching. I can also accept that a lot of people don't. I can then accept that an optimizer could, for example, take a look at the incredibly under-optimized rest of his group and build accordingly.

But, in practice, most optimizers I've seen in fact force everyone else to go do number crunching due to having builds more powerufl than everyone else's.

I mean, if the strongest character in a game is almost unquestionably the party's really unoptimized paladin due to smite damage, and the strong NPC is I dunno another Paladin, then that works fine.

But when, into your party where the underoptimized paladin was the best, you add an incantrix or a hundreds-of-damage ubercharger or some shenanigans... then everyone must catch up. Plus, the DM must now change the enemies you were going to fight from unoptimized kobold rogues to hyperoptimized kobold swordsages or something, and now everyone powerful is a wizard.

So meh.

Now granted, I can accept the 'I want to make a game where my character can go tearing through the MM goblin or the MM Balor', in which someone making a character who can't do that isn't playing with the game. This could still be okay - I mean, an underoptimized character isn't stealing anyone's thunder - but bugs some people. Okay sure.

But generally, people still want to be challenged, and that means instead of the enemies having 10HP and doing 10 damage as you have 100HP, they now have 50HP and do 50 damage and you have 500HP, and take a heck of a lot more work from everyone than 'rogue 20'... even people who don't want to.

[Or maybe now they still have 10HP and you still have 100HP, but they do 100 damage, which is a few games I've been in and I consider that kind of rocket tag far less fun than not].

So peh. ^_^ I sense a lot of people who get Stormwind invoked against them don't want to sit there and come up with a higher tier build to do the same idea.

misterk
2010-02-11, 05:15 AM
The whole crunch fluff thing is where I guess I'm going. The more you think mechanically the less you roleplay. Also the notion of keeping up with optimisers is what attracts me to more random systems like wfrp, or systems that discourage optimisation like wod or l5r (typically the social aspect of both systems would ruin any character optimised for one particular task)

Lycar
2010-02-11, 05:33 AM
... because the creative vision in their heads is superior to the genericized concepts WotC sticks on the classes as a baseline. ...

... They [rolepalyers] get upset when others "disrespect" the stereotypical fluff attached to the metagame constructs called "classes".

In other words, the people at WoTC are a horde of blithering idiots. What else is new? How dare they demand an Assassin to be evil? How dare they limit my endless imagination? How dare they tell me that it is evil to go kill people for a living? Just because some idiot once said 'Thou shalt not kill:' and killing people has been considered a bad thing aver since? What the hell do I care about what the rest of the world thinks?

Or hey, why should a holy warrior be expected to adhere to some totally arbitrary code of conduct? Just because it builds on millenia of what people, who hug trees for a pasttime, call morality? I dodn't need anyone to tell me what is right and good, because my own version is superior and the only valid one. So everybody who does not agree with me is an idiot obviously.[/sarcasm]

Yes, you can divorce fluff and crunch. It is just so that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on doing so are powergamers. Or worse.

Other people play nice and accept what the game designer tried to do.


Some people revere fluff, and others despise it. However, the vast majority of people neither despise fluff nor have the requisite devotion to revere it. Some parts of this vast majority don't like unnecessarily polarized arguments.

Too bad it is a silent majority. I don't see much in this thread, or the whole damn board that is not about polarization. So sue me for going with the flow...

'Either you are a roleplayer or a rollplayer.'

'Either you are a optimizing or you are not doing it right.'

'LOL, only a total noob takes fighter, what a waste of my time!'

'Hey drat, I can't attack your argument, what to do? Oh I know: I will just tell you that your definition of optimization/powergaming/roleplaying is a total pile of bull****.'

'Either you are with me, or you are against me.'[/hyperbole]

...

This whole 'discussion' is flooded, heck, drowned in absolutes. There is no compromise on either side of the argument (or if there is, I didn't find it in this quagmire of entrenched 'points of view').

What happened to thesis + antithesis = synthesis?

All I see is people rehashing the same old arguments and positions that were as true (and stale) back when a certain someone said that liking fluff and crunch does not have to be mutually exclusive.

People here seem to only ever argue for the sake or arguing, not to learn something new or *gasp* change their view on anything!

Yeah, let's keep polarizing, people love that obviously. Or why else would they do it so much?

Lycar

pingcode20
2010-02-11, 06:26 AM
It's because the 'Golden Mean' is generally agreeable, and doesn't inspire the idea that you must fight against other people to correct the inherent wrongness in their ideas. It's one of those things where you drop in, read it, think 'hey, that's not a bad notion' and wander off, maybe referencing it once or twice in another thread.

One day, someone's going to figure out how to hook up a power turbine to forums, and solve world energy issues by harnessing the constant churning of internet debates.

At any rate, I think it's a mistake to come in championing a mean and then expressing views marking you as being on one 'side' of the debate.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-11, 06:42 AM
In other words, the people at WoTC are a horde of blithering idiots. What else is new? How dare they demand an Assassin to be evil? How dare they limit my endless imagination? How dare they tell me that it is evil to go kill people for a living? Just because some idiot once said 'Thou shalt not kill:' and killing people has been considered a bad thing aver since? What the hell do I care about what the rest of the world thinks?

Actually, that was thou shall not murder. But then the media want you to think the king james is correct version when the Tanakha is for that line.

Some scholar thought hey murder and killing are the same thing, right?

The reason that people still believe it means killing is same thing with world thinking "people back in the day thought earth was flat" when neither was true. Majority knew earth was round since Greeks.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 08:56 AM
How dare they tell me that it is evil to go kill people for a living? Just because some idiot once said 'Thou shalt not kill:' and killing people has been considered a bad thing aver since? What the hell do I care about what the rest of the world thinks?
Getting uncomfortably close to an assault on my faith here. :smallmad: If you weren't being [/sarcastic] I'd shoot out some flames.


Yes, you can divorce fluff and crunch. It is just so that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on doing so are powergamers.
Really?
I suppose I just know some rather bizarre people, then. It happens; my experience is hardly representative of the whole.


Other people play nice and accept what the game designer tried to do.
Since the game works just as well with generic fluff filed mostly off, I think that the game designers tried to make a flexible system. Using that flexibility is playing nice IMO.


People here seem to only ever argue for the sake or arguing, not to learn something new or *gasp* change their view on anything!
You see near-omnipresent polarization. I see a few spots of annoying polarization. I suspect that on one or both sides of this discussion, there's quite a bit of confirmation bias affirming these views on polarization.

Tytalus
2010-02-11, 09:31 AM
It is just so that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on doing so are powergamers. Or worse.

[...]

Too bad it is a silent majority.


Claims about the "overwhelming majority" (what is that even?) or "majority" of gamers are completely baseless. Unless you are referring to your own experiences, which are anecdotal at best and of little significance when discussing roleplayers as a whole.



Other people play nice and accept what the game designer tried to do.


And thus limit their flavor options and roleplaying possibilities?



Yeah, let's keep polarizing, people love that obviously. Or why else would they do it so much?


I'm afraid I don't understand your motivation. You apparently are against polarization, yet you contribute significantly to it with your sarcastic comments, hyperbole arguments and questionable statistics.

Kzickas
2010-02-11, 09:48 AM
How dare they tell me that it is evil to go kill people for a living? Just because some idiot once said 'Thou shalt not kill:' and killing people has been considered a bad thing aver since? What the hell do I care about what the rest of the world thinks?

No one's saying that killing people for a living isn't evil. They want to be able to decide for themselves why their character kills people. For exemple in a D&D world you're going to have large areas of wilderness where there is no law. In such a situation it would make perfect sense to have for instance a lawful good assassin who kills murderers and rapists and the like, so what does a game gain from saying "no, you can't play that!"

Riffington
2010-02-11, 10:30 AM
For exemple in a D&D world you're going to have large areas of wilderness where there is no law. In such a situation it would make perfect sense to have for instance a lawful good assassin who kills murderers and rapists and the like, so what does a game gain from saying "no, you can't play that!"


You could be a vigilante but not a lawful good one. You couldn't be an assassin at all without a societal framework.

Kzickas
2010-02-11, 11:02 AM
You could be a vigilante but not a lawful good one. You couldn't be an assassin at all without a societal framework.

you can't be a lawful good vigilante in a society with laws and some means of enforcing them. where there is no law a vigilante could be any alignment. I fail to see how someone who's very good at killing people stealthily requires a societal framework.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 11:42 AM
just how much societal framework is needed?

Even at the level of a highly chaotic "might makes right" orc tribe, it's not too hard to imagine the lieutenants of the tribe's leader paying the sneakiest (but weediest) guy in the tribe to kill the boss in his sleep, or poison his food.

According to Complete Scoundrel, Batman is an example of a Lawful good character- and he's famous for being a vigilante among other things.

So Lawful Good + Vigilante is a feasible combination.

Stephen_E
2010-02-11, 11:49 AM
The whole crunch fluff thing is where I guess I'm going. The more you think mechanically the less you roleplay. Also the notion of keeping up with optimisers is what attracts me to more random systems like wfrp, or systems that discourage optimisation like wod or l5r (typically the social aspect of both systems would ruin any character optimised for one particular task)

"The more you think mechanically the less you roleplay"
Care to provide a shread of objective evidence to back this up.

As for the notion of having to keep up with optimisers. I'm reminded of a 2nd Ed Warhammer fantasy roleplay game. 1 player started as a noble, and in the starting equipment for the Noble was a foil. So he used a foil in combat, and endlessy bitched about how crap the weapon was (which it was). But he was what u would call a "Roleplayer" so he continued using this crap weapon and been unhappy because he contributed so little in fights.

Amd yes, I also know a "optimiser" who'll tell u that everyone has to have the most powerful build possible for their concept or the letting the party down, while often getting upset if his chracter is the most powerful (in his mind).

Both types tend to be similiar in that while they talk a good talk there's a awful lot of hypocrisy in there.

As for the silly argument that a earlier poster was putting out about time spent on crunch detracts from fluff and visa versa. Excuse me, some of us do other things in our life beside work on our characters. There is an approx max time I will spend on mucking around with crunch, and an approx max time I'll spend contemplating fluff. As a general rule I hit those, at which point I'm not wasting more time on the character.



No one's saying that killing people for a living isn't evil.

I am. Stupid modern day emo pseudo-ethics. Neither soldiers in general, nor snipers and special forces units specifically, are evil by default.:smallmad:


Stephen E

PS. Lycar: There have been a number of middle-ground people here. Unfortunately as extremists are inclined to do, they get labeled as the opposite extreme. "If you aren't with us, you're against us":smalltongue:

The Big Dice
2010-02-11, 11:58 AM
you can't be a lawful good vigilante in a society with laws and some means of enforcing them. where there is no law a vigilante could be any alignment. I fail to see how someone who's very good at killing people stealthily requires a societal framework.

An assassin kills people for money. That implies that there's a society surrounding that assassin for their to be a need for his particular skills and services. Assassins also tend to be political tools, as people with wealth and power are the ones most likely to want their rivals removing permanently and quietly.

Killing people stealthily isn't really a Good thing to use to try and support the notion that an assassin could be good. Especially when the signature ability of the class requires watching the target for three rounds without being detected, then killing with a single blow delivered without you being seen. That doesn't really fit in with the black and white absolutes of D&D's Alignment system.

To get back to the original point of this thread, there's a fundamanetal problem with D&D in particular these days. Back when I started playing RPGs, no form of life was more despised than the rules lawyer. At some point, rules lawyers became respectable. Then people started applying CCG mentality to RPGs. In other words, they looked for power combos.

In theory, this is fine. It's an excercise in seeing just how broken things can get, which results in things like Pun-Pun and the Jumplomancer. The problem is, people then start applying those priciples to their gaming table. And then they atart assuming that because they can make incredibly powerful characters, they must make them. And that's fine if that's where they find their fun.

But what about the other people at the table? Not everyone bothers with charop forums, and in my experience the guy who makes a character that's too powerful for the table ends up either retiring it out of a desire not to overshadow everyone ese, or not being invited back to play.

And honestly, youstart a campaign at 1st level with an idea for a build. That's got you loced in to a set progression until 20th level. Who wants to play a character that's mapped out in advance for a year or two of play? I've played a character that was planned out from 1st to 12th level and got bored of it by the time I hit 4th.

What I'm trying to say is, theoretical optimisation is fine, but at a real gaming table, it's pretty boring in my experience.

Pyro_Azer
2010-02-11, 11:58 AM
How dare they tell me that it is evil to go kill people for a living?


Isn't this what most adventurers do for a living? Funny how there are 9 alignments in the phb.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 12:25 PM
As for the notion of having to keep up with optimisers. This is not an equivelent to his example. In his example, none of the characters are useless, and none have any problems with being weak until after someone comes in and starts an arms race with the GM by bringing a vastly more optimized character into the group. Your example is not a valid counter example.


Both types tend to be similiar in that while they talk a good talk there's a awful lot of hypocrisy in there.I have no idea what you're talking a bout here.


As for the silly argument that a earlier poster was putting out about time spent on crunch detracts from fluff and visa versa. Excuse me, some of us do other things in our life beside work on our characters. There is an approx max time I will spend on mucking around with crunch, and an approx max time I'll spend contemplating fluff. I don't see how this is a counter to his argument about the time issue; you admit that there is a maximum amount of time that you are willing to spend on creating a character; so you choose to spend less time on roleplaying prep in order to optimize, and vice versa.

So, given that there is a maximum amount of time you'll spend on a character: If you spent more time optimizing, you'd have less time to prep for roleplaying, but you could have a more powerful character. If you spent more time on roleplaying prep, you would have less time to optimize, but you'd be better able to step into that character's role.


Isn't this what most adventurers do for a living? Funny how there are 9 alignments in the phb.No, I think that this is a particular subset of adventurers. There are quite a few that this would not sum up what they do.

Take, for example, a group of people who make their living mapping unexplored territory; they hunt animals, exterminate animal intelligence monsters, destroy nonliving entities such as undead or constructs, and negotiate with any intelligent beings that are involved rather than kicking down the door, killing them, and taking their stuff.


According to Complete Scoundrel, Batman is an example of a Lawful good character- and he's famous for being a vigilante among other things.yeah, well, I'm skeptical at best at some of the examples of alignments given in the books. They're very inconstant, and extremely biased based on some of the perceptions of the writers involved, some of whom have a poor understanding of the characters that they are talking about.

For one thing "batman" is really several different characters; he's portrayed in widely different ways, even in the same media, so any statement of "batman is X alignment" really needs to qualify exactly what batman they are talking about.

Stephen_E
2010-02-11, 12:40 PM
This is an equivelent to his example. In his example, none of the cahracters are useless, and none have any problems with being weak until after someone comes in and starts an arms race with the GM by bringing a vastly more optimized character into the group.


No it's not.
He chose a crap option for the fluff and then complained because he was ineffective compared to the other stock characters that were far from overpowering the game module. A bad workman blames his tools. Players aren't wxpwctwed to have to optimise, but they are reasonbaly expected to produce viable characters that the DM doesn't have to power the game down for.



I don't see how this is a counter to his argument about the time issue; you admit that there is a maximum amount of time that you are willing to spend on creating a character; so you choose to spend less time on roleplaying prep in order to optimize, and vice versa.

Try reading what I said.
There is a max time I'm willing to spend on Fluff, and a max amount of time I'll spend on Crunch.
If I reach that maximum for both (which I generally do) there is no robbing Peter to pay Paul. If I spend less than max time on Crunch, I'm not increasing the max time I'll spend on Fluff.


So, given that there is a maximum amount of time you'll spend on a character: If you spent more time optimizing, you'd have less time to prep for roleplaying, but you could have a more powerful character. If you spent more time on roleplaying prep, you would have less time to optimize, but you'd be better able to step into that character's role.

And you show your unwillingness or incapacity to read what I wrote when it doesn't fit your argument.

Stephen E

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 12:55 PM
I think it should be clear that the "divided time" theory isn't quite right.Oh I agree that there's problems with that particular argument; it's generally presented far too simplisticly. That's why I generally try to approach it kind of tangentially, since I think there's some level of truth to it.

Time is one factor, and it mostly applies when you're talking about small* time frames rather than large time frame. For the most part, this is because, in both cases, spending more time past a certain point** has diminishing returns. That's why someone who loses job doesn't necessarily become amazing at roleplaying.

* Small is different for different people. For some people that might be 30 minutes, and others that might be 100 hours.

** Again, this point is different for different people.


But what I think is at the heart of Jayalabard's assertion is something related: a character (and, indeed, a human) has a certain amount of "mental space". If you get too used to thinking of a woman as "my landlady is always bothering me about the rent", it makes it much harder to see her as "she's really funny and her stories about Russia are endearing". Conversely, it's pretty hard to haggle with a friend you respect. Different ways of looking at a person interfere with one another.That's certainly another part of it.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 12:59 PM
No it's not.
He chose a crap option for the fluff and then complained because he was ineffective compared to the other stock characters that were far from overpowering the game module. A bad workman blames his tools. Players aren't wxpwctwed to have to optimise, but they are reasonbaly expected to produce viable characters that the DM doesn't have to power the game down for.Yeah I left off the "not" ... and I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying because of that. To reiterate: Your example is not a valid counter to his example, because you're talking about totally different situations. Your example is not analogous to his.



Try reading what I said.I did, I just don't agree.

There is a max time I'm willing to spend on Fluff, and a max amount of time I'll spend on Crunch. Then you have chosen the amount of roleplaying that you are willing to sacrifice for optimization, and the amount of optimization that you are willing to sacrifice for roleplaying.


And you show your unwillingness or incapacity to read what I wrote when it doesn't fit your argument.
Just a friendly reminder:

Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1):

Tell a poster that they clearly didn't read what you wrote. 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.

Zen Master
2010-02-11, 01:03 PM
Exactly, it was a strawman since you said: taken to extremes. When Stormwind never argued that at all.

The player matters if he is 100% optimizing but 0 roleplay (impossible to not roleplay at all), but another player can be 100% of each (if either was possible).

Nothing about the two inherently blocks the other.

As stormwind says: There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

It is all up to the player.
Now you can make an arguement that doing too much of one will limit the other due to time, but that isn't what Stormwind is talking about. He isn't talking about player skill.

The better your player skill the faster one can do both. Thus time function is limited only by player skill.

Taking it to extremes is just to exemplify. I'm almost continually surprised when people look at an example - then take it literally. If it was literal, it would not be an example.

But really, it holds very well. In any situation where two jobs need to be performed within the same time slot, spending more time on one means spending less time than the other.

Only when there is time enough to complete both, then go have tea and biscuits, all within the alotted time, can you do both to the full extent.

So putting it into literal terms, I play one session a week, for around 5 hours. Now that's playtime. In that time I both roleplay, and roll dice. Within those 5 hours, the more time I spend on rolling dice, the less I spend on character interaction, story building and so on. I also spend something like maybe 3-4 hours every week preparing - making plans for my character, the campaign, and so on. That time is also divided between time spent refining my build, and building my character and story.

Every time I chose to do the one - I chose not to do the other.

Now, the real point is this: There is no fallacy. Stormwind got it wrong, because logically, the two are dependent on each other, and one reduces the other, in any case what so ever where time isn't overly abundant.

Amphetryon
2010-02-11, 01:13 PM
Are friendly reminders of board policy allowed, under board policy?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 01:17 PM
Are friendly reminders of board policy allowed, under board policy?

At most, you may courteously link to this thread. But whatever you do, do not tell other posters what to do, what rules they have broken, that they are "spamming", etc. Posters who do so excessively will be issued an Infraction for their actions.
Jayabalard's action was not a courteous link (as it was not a link at all). It arguably told other posters what rules were broken. It was arguably not excessive.
But really, it's up to a mod to decide.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 01:28 PM
Are friendly reminders of board policy allowed, under board policy?I'm not entirely sure; It seemed like the most courteous sort of response I could make. I've made it a link; I kind of wish there was a way to link to a section, not a specific rule, just a general area; the rules are pretty long and just linking to them isn't very helpful, but I can see how that sort of thing might be abused.

If it bothers you, or you think it's violating the rules, you should report my post. The mods are pretty good about taking care of such things.

huttj509
2010-02-11, 02:48 PM
Separating the description from the mechanics:

I think there are definitely ways to do it well. Most of the examples I can think of involve DM involvement, such as "I like the radiant servant of Pelor class, but we're in a custom world, there's no Pelor, can we reflavor this a bit?" Or "I think the assassin class could work well without being evil, how about *this* idea?"

The times I've seen it willy nilly are things like "Well, just go X/Y/Z and call yourself a swashbuckler. Does everything you want to do without using the swashbuckler class you dislike the mechanics of." As long as X, Y, and Z are not tied to a specific group (and would thus need to be re-flavored with DM input, as above), I thoroughly approve of this. I view the descriptions of classes as default suggestions, malleable in order to fit character concept, but not infinitely so. If you try to play, say, a default paladin who goes around being evil all the time and didn't clear any rules changes with your DM, you shouldn't be surprised when he decrees that you fall. Heck, if you play any Paladin and don't go over an actual code with your DM, you fail, cause the suggestions in the book are just that, and too open to interpretation.

I think on these boards the assumption is towards a permissive DM in terms of refluffing. We can either assume that the DM will insist that to call yourself a swashbuckler you need to have a swashbuckler class if there is one, or he'll agree that X/Y/Z lets you cary across the feel just fine. If the former, it vastly restricts options and discussions, so I think many folks here tend towards the latter.

Riffington
2010-02-11, 02:50 PM
According to Complete Scoundrel, Batman is an example of a Lawful good character- and he's famous for being a vigilante among other things.

So Lawful Good + Vigilante is a feasible combination.

Batman is neither a Vigilante (he doesn't mete out his own Justice; he lets the cops do that) nor Lawful (he is too flighty, hooks up with too many random women, and shirks too many of his responsibilities. Fortunately he has Alfred to help). Pick a better example.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 02:56 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilantes_in_popular_culture

Batman is regularly cited.

Now he may not hand out the whole punishment, but merely restrain criminals and leave them to be arrested by cops, but any extralegal crime-fighter is a vigilante- they don't have to mete out their own punishments as well.

In the same way- while not all incarnations of Batman are especially Lawful, many do have strong Lawful traits.

Terazul
2010-02-11, 02:59 PM
Batman is neither a Vigilante (he doesn't mete out his own Justice; he lets the cops do that) nor Lawful (he is too flighty, hooks up with too many random women, and shirks too many of his responsibilities. Fortunately he has Alfred to help). Pick a better example.

I thought it was universally agreed upon that Batman is whatever alignment whoever is writing him wants. (http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1271/hn7hanyes8wqvgijmbzs4ie.jpg)

Riffington
2010-02-11, 03:01 PM
I think on these boards the assumption is towards a permissive DM in terms of refluffing. We can either assume that the DM will insist that to call yourself a swashbuckler you need to have a swashbuckler class if there is one, or he'll agree that X/Y/Z lets you cary across the feel just fine. If the former, it vastly restricts options and discussions, so I think many folks here tend towards the latter.

This is not quite right. There are few-if-any DMs who insist that to call yourself a swashbuckler you need to have a swashbuckler class. There are, however, plenty who feel that if you take the swashbuckler class you should actually go out and rescue some fair maidens. You can't take levels in it if your actual behavior is "I sit in the dark meticulously planning minor improvements in my slave shipping business. I keep fit with my exercise routine, but when I see a hint of danger I flee."
I don't think there's necessarily a tendency towards the "refluffer" side: there's plenty of people who get squicked out when you tell them your swashbuckler should be a "Sorcerer and just refluff your Shivering Touch cheese to call it Rapier Thrust. You have to make witty banter anyway, so just call that your verbal component".

Riffington
2010-02-11, 03:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilantes_in_popular_culture

Batman is regularly cited.

Now he may not hand out the whole punishment, but merely restrain criminals and leave them to be arrested by cops, but any extralegal crime-fighter is a vigilante- they don't have to mete out their own punishments as well.



The "pop culture" section of Wikipedia is one of the most flawed. See Black's Law Dictionary for an actual understanding of vigilantism.
Vigilantism requires one to "try and/or punish others without any legal authority". Batman:
1. Does not try anyone. He leaves that to Gotham.
2. Does not punish anyone. Again, leaving that to Gotham.
3. Has some legal authority anyway, delegated by Gordon.


Now, it is true that you can have an LG vigilante, you just need them to do so much lawful stuff that it outweighs their (rare) acts of vigilantism.

The Glyphstone
2010-02-11, 03:12 PM
This is not quite right. There are few-if-any DMs who insist that to call yourself a swashbuckler you need to have a swashbuckler class. There are, however, plenty who feel that if you take the swashbuckler class you should actually go out and rescue some fair maidens. You can't take levels in it if your actual behavior is "I sit in the dark meticulously planning minor improvements in my slave shipping business. I keep fit with my exercise routine, but when I see a hint of danger I flee."
I don't think there's necessarily a tendency towards the "refluffer" side: there's plenty of people who get squicked out when you tell them your swashbuckler should be a "Sorcerer and just refluff your Shivering Touch cheese to call it Rapier Thrust. You have to make witty banter anyway, so just call that your verbal component".

What happens, though, when you completely boil everything fluff-related from the class, even the name? Let's say, for example, that you wanted to play a highly honorable knight-errant who happened to be slightly infirm and/or scrawny, so he engaged in an intense program of study to recognize signs of weak points in opponent's armor or bodies to maximize the effect of what little force he could apply every time he landed a blow. This could be represented by the Insightful Strike class feature of the Swashbuckler mechanical base class. He neither Swashes nor Buckles, not calling himself a swashbuckler or acting like one, the player only chooses Class Feature Package #26 as the best mechanical representation of the classic 'brains over brawn' archtype while retaining a front-line melee capability.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 03:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilantes_in_popular_cultureWikipedia is not really a very good source for that sort of information; it tends to be highly colored by people's opinions.

I don't personally agree that he's a vigilante, and certainly he's doesn't fit the same definition of the word as the individual that is being described by that particular word above, specifically "a lawful good assassin who kills murderers and rapists and the like" which explicitly is about punishment. The argument is that this individual is not an assassin, because there's no societal structure (it's in the hinterlands) so he's a vigilante, someone meting out vengeance.

Certainly, there's no version of batman that meets this same definition of vigilante (meting out vengence, including killing the wrongdoers) that I would agree is "lawful good" so he is a terrible counterexample.


In the same way- while not all incarnations of Batman are especially Lawful, many do have strong Lawful traits. Having some strong lawful traits does not make you lawful.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 03:21 PM
The earliest incarnation of Batman killed people.

That said, there is a strong suggestion that the beating up of criminals counts as his extra "punishment" of them- in addition to getting them arrested by the police.

A vigilante that never kills, is still a vigilante.

"strong Lawful traits" in this case, means enough lawful traits to arguably be of Lawful alignment.

Its not that hard to be Lawful-aligned in D&D.

I would agree though, that Lawful Good + Vigilante, usually implies the less lethal kind. In fact, the Vigilante PRC in Complete Adventurer explicitly requires that you be nonevil- but has no restrictions on the law-chaos axis.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 03:26 PM
He neither Swashes nor Buckles, I don't think he's fits the "knight-errant" mold very well though... using light melee weapons doesn't fit very well. And his fighting style does seem pretty shashy, at least to me. I'm not sure that's a really great example.

Lycar
2010-02-11, 03:26 PM
Actually, that was thou shall not murder. But then the media want you to think the king james is correct version when the Tanakha is for that line.

Sorry, my bad. I forgot to append the [/sarcasm] tag to that paragraph.


Getting uncomfortably close to an assault on my faith here. :smallmad: If you weren't being [/sarcastic] I'd shoot out some flames.

Heh, I suppose that is what I deserve. Those annoyance-fueled carpet-bombings of sarcasm/hyperbole sure cause a lot of collateral damage... :smallconfused:


Since the game works just as well with generic fluff filed mostly off, I think that the game designers tried to make a flexible system. Using that flexibility is playing nice IMO.

Well... maybe that is just me but I consider 'playing nice' to be playing nice with the other human beings at the table and not with the rules set.

Don't force everyone to adopt your standard of 'mechanical effectivenes'.
Don't force everyone to adopt your standard of 'proper roleplaying'.

Just work together, compromise. Contrary to what some people seem to be thinking making a compromise is not a sign of weakness.


You see near-omnipresent polarization. I see a few spots of annoying polarization. I suspect that on one or both sides of this discussion, there's quite a bit of confirmation bias affirming these views on polarization.

What annoys me is that few of the people who just want to powergame a bit feel personally attacked when they are caled out for it. There is no harm in optimizing or powergaming, as long as you and everyone else at the table knows what you are doing and doesn't mind.

Heck, I do the odd bit of powergaming myself every now and then. Or optimizing. Although it may be arguable how optimal it is to give a rogue a level of psychic warrior to get that nifty Conceal Thoughts power ... :smallwink:

But I am under no illusion that deviating from his con-man concept with a level of a fighting class is anything but grabbing for that +10 to bluff checks.



Claims about the "overwhelming majority" (what is that even?) or "majority" of gamers are completely baseless. Unless you are referring to your own experiences, which are anecdotal at best and of little significance when discussing roleplayers as a whole.

All I can say is that whenever someone (on these boards or elsewhere) fawns about a specific combination of classes that, in the context of the fluff associated with these classes doesn't make sense, and that someone gets called out for it, the response is almost invariably that 'fluff is irrelevant'.

Yeah sure, as sure as something gets in their way they claim it is 'irrelevant'. Sadly enough, since they always repeat that ad nauseam, people eventually grow aphatic and start to believe it. :smallannoyed:

And just for the record: The 'silent majority' are these people:

Originally Posted by Foryn Gilnith
Some people revere fluff, and others despise it. However, the vast majority of people neither despise fluff nor have the requisite devotion to revere it. Some parts of this vast majority don't like unnecessarily polarized arguments.[/qoute]
Too bad they don't get many posts in between the trenchfighting.

Maybe it is just because they know better then to charge into a slugfest. :smallamused:

[QUOTE=Tytalus;7867096]And thus limit their flavor options and roleplaying possibilities?
Exactly.

It is a sacrifice they make so that the fluff remains relevant.

After all, since so many people cite RAW as the only basis for a sensible discussion, then why does RAW declared irrelevant as soon as they refer to the supposed fluff of a given class? I find that to be quite a bit of a double standard really.


I'm afraid I don't understand your motivation. You apparently are against polarization, yet you contribute significantly to it with your sarcastic comments, hyperbole arguments and questionable statistics.
Ah, I shall clarify...

Thesis: D&D is a roleplaying game. You can not properly roleplay if you 'optimize', that is, sacrifice internal consistency for mechanical power.

Antithesis: D&D is a wargame with some RP elements attached. You play a set of mechanics first and foremost. Therefore, getting most out of the building blocks provided by the system is the game. The rolepalying is just window dressing.

Possible Synthesis: D&D is a RPG that has it's roots in a wargame. Therefore it has a strong dependence on mechanical aspects. Those can be detrimental to the roleplaying aspect. Therefore, both aspects need to be balanced against each other to create an enjoyable playing experience for all participating entities.

Of course that would require the more vocal opponents of either extremes of the spectrum to actually compromise. I'm not holding my breath.

Lycar

EDIT: Ugh, did I accidently turn this into an alignement debate?!?
I plead temporal insanity! :smalleek:

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 03:29 PM
The earliest incarnation of Batman killed people.Yes, and I would label him neither lawful, nor good.


"strong Lawful traits" in this case, means enough lawful traits to arguably be of Lawful alignment. I would say that most of those versions of batman also has "strong chaotic traits" ... meaning enough case to be arguably chaotic alignment. That's one of the reasons I'm saying he's a terrible example.


I would agree though, that Lawful Good + Vigilante, usually implies the less lethal kind. That's not the character that's being discussed here though... it's guy who tracks down murderers and rapists in the wilderness for money. He's a vigilante all right, but not a lawful good one.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 03:29 PM
in Exemplars of Evil, the example given of a Sympathetic villain is a Lawful Neutral character who hunts down and murders everyone who destroyed her village- and also kills innocent people who witness her in action, so her mission is not compromised.

If that's Lawful Neutral, how much more restraint is needed to make a character Lawful Good?

Technically, the "Writ of outlawry" concept in DMG2, means any adventurer can be the "hunt down and kill rapists and murderers in the wilderness, for money" type.

The difference being, money is not the sole motive.

There's also the Slayer of Domiel in BoED- assassin skillset, must be Lawful good in alignment. However, in this case, I suspect they may only kill with the sanction of their Order, and never for money alone.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-11, 03:32 PM
in Exemplars of Evil, the example given of a Sympathetic villain is a Lawful Neutral character who hunts down and murders everyone who destroyed her village- and also kills innocent people who witnesses her in action, so her mission is not compromised.

If that's Lawful Neutral, how much more restraint is needed to make a character Lawful Good?

What? She destroys evil (which is good), but destroys thus who would expose her so she is evil.
Good + evil is neutral according to Exemplars of evil.

The Glyphstone
2010-02-11, 03:33 PM
I don't think he's fits the "knight-errant" mold very well though... using light melee weapons doesn't fit very well. And his fighting style does seem pretty shashy, at least to me. I'm not sure that's a really great example.

Wanna-be knight-errant then, someone who aspired to become a knight but failed out because he couldn't lift a lance or broadsword. It's not the best example, but it was mainly a counterpoint to the idea that to you couldn't take swashbuckler levels if you didn't engage in witty banter and save maidens in over-the-top dramatic fashions - i.e., engage in the behavior attributed to 'Swashbucklers' the concept, as opposed to simply being able to accurate land blows.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 03:37 PM
Good + evil is neutral according to Exemplars of evil.

It doesn't actually say that anywhere in the book.

Heroes of Horror states that good motives + evil deeds, if the character strikes the right balance, can be neutral rather than evil- vengeance is a dangerous motive though. Protecting others, is safer.

And Champions of Ruin makes it clear that committing evil acts routinely- causes a character to slip all the way into Evil.

There might be a Sliding Scale of Vigilantes- so to speak :smallamused:

Vigilante member of secret organization- who kills really evil and dangerous people on the orders of their bosses, without consulting local law- but not for money, and not on their own initiative- Lawful Good.

Vigilante who kills on their own initiative, more for vengeance than to protect others- Lawful Neutral.

Vigilante who tortures especially evil people to death, and is very organized- Lawful Evil.

Something like that- with neutral and chaotic counterparts.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 03:40 PM
Thesis: D&D is a roleplaying game. You can not properly roleplay if you 'optimize', that is, sacrifice internal consistency for mechanical power.I don't think anyone in this thread is making this claim, and you're using an extremely loaded definition of optimize.

Now, if you say something like "if you choose to optimize to the point that you are sacrificing internal consistency in the name of mechanical power, it's going to hurt how well you can roleplay that character" you might have something that isn't totally out of line with the arguments that people are actually making.


Antithesis: D&D is a wargame with some RP elements attached. You play a set of mechanics first and foremost. Therefore, getting most out of the building blocks provided by the system is the game. The rolepalying is just window dressing.I don't think anyone has made this claim here either.


Wanna-be knight-errant then, someone who aspired to become a knight but failed out because he couldn't lift a lance or broadsword. It's not the best example, but it was mainly a counterpoint to the idea that to you couldn't take swashbuckler levels if you didn't engage in witty banter and save maidens in over-the-top dramatic fashions - i.e., engage in the behavior attributed to 'Swashbucklers' the concept, as opposed to simply being able to accurate land blows.Oh, yeah, that's fine, I just thought it was a bad example if you were saying: "you can just totally throw away the fluff and call it a knight errant". There are places where the mechanics of the class (light weapons, tumbling and so on) just don't match up with what people expect out of a "Knight-errant".

Starbuck_II
2010-02-11, 03:44 PM
It doesn't actually say that anywhere in the book.

Heroes of Horror states that good motives + evil deeds, if the character strikes the right balance, can be neutral rather than evil- vengeance is a dangerous motive though. Protecting others, is safer.

And Champions of Ruin makes it clear that committing evil acts routinely- causes a character to slip all the way into Evil.

One author wrote that entry and the other wrote the second?

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 03:47 PM
Yes.

Still- the theme that "especially evil acts, committed regularly, result in an evil alignment- regardless of how bad the victims were" runs through most of the alignment books.

Both BoVD and BoED state "killing creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, for profit, is not an evil act, though its not a good act"

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 04:18 PM
We're on an alignment discussion now? How very surprising :smallamused:

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 04:37 PM
yes- it was going off track once people started asking "why can't there be Lawful Good assassins?"

Riffington
2010-02-11, 04:39 PM
There might be a Sliding Scale of Vigilantes- so to speak :smallamused:

Vigilante member of secret organization- who kills really evil and dangerous people on the orders of their bosses, without consulting local law- but not for money, and not on their own initiative- Lawful Good.

Vigilante who kills on their own initiative, more for vengeance than to protect others- Lawful Neutral.

Vigilante who tortures especially evil people to death, and is very organized- Lawful Evil.

Something like that- with neutral and chaotic counterparts.

All those people are going to need a huge number of lawful traits or they're Chaotic.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 04:44 PM
In your opinion.

The first fits the BoED Slayer of Domiel- Lawful Good.

The Imaskari Vengeance Taker PRC from Underdark, is very similar- but have a much looser definition of who deserved to be targeted, and has as a requirement "Any Lawful"

Canonically, Artemis Entreri's alignment in the FRCS, is Lawful Evil.

Being Lawful is not that hard in D&D. A D&D assassin does not need "a huge number of lawful traits or they're Chaotic."

Riffington
2010-02-11, 04:58 PM
Lawful involves a strong respect for tradition and society and the law. But society's (and indeed the law's) primary claim to significance is that it dictates who is punished and who is not. A vigilante sidesteps this. He says that society and the law are doing an inadequate job, and thus displays his lack of regard for it. That means that punishing people outside of society's rules is going to be (in general) a chaotic act.

Now, society, tradition, and the law may be at odds. If you have a deity in whose name you rightfully act, that deity may have (by tradition and Right) a greater claim to loyalty than the mere laws of men. Following Domiel is a different story than following a merely charismatic boss. You are not a vigilante, you are following the Law if not the law.
If you are a member in good standing of one nation (say the Imaskari) you may well act lawfully according to their laws and traditions and society while in anothers' territory. This probably means war, of course, but that's a separate issue.
Entreri is a bizarre set of attributes, and is as often listed as chaotic as he is lawful. He's so far from a standard person that he gives no real data on lawfulness or chaoticness. He's also more an assassin for hire than a vigilante.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 04:59 PM
The first fits the BoED Slayer of Domiel- Lawful Good.

Also Pelor's Shadow Guard (CC).

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 05:04 PM
If you are a member in good standing of one nation (say the Imaskari) you may well act lawfully according to their laws and traditions and society while in anothers' territory. This probably means war, of course, but that's a separate issue.

While the leaders of the organization are based in Deep Imaskar, the organization itself recruits from all over.

"obeying the superiors in your group" isn't that much different from "obeying the dictates of the deity or angel you serve"

Riffington
2010-02-11, 05:09 PM
While the leaders of the organization are based in Deep Imaskar, the organization itself recruits from all over.

"obeying the superiors in your group" isn't that much different from "obeying the dictates of the deity or angel you serve"

If you're just randomly willing to join a fanatic group (for money?) you're in a whole different category than if you are actually from that tradition.

If a group has Authority over you, that's one thing. Merely drawing a paycheck doesn't mean you should follow some random guy's dictates over society's. Being an actual part of a different society is a different story.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 05:09 PM
yes- it was going off track once people started asking "why can't there be Lawful Good assassins?"That piece, in and of itself, is on track though; it's part of the topic "is fluff always totally mutable" which is one of the arguments in the roleplay vs rollplay argument. So as long as people discuss the alignment talk in that context, it's a little bit tangential, but still more or less on topic.

Though, since it's starting to blow up a bit out of proportion, it'd probably be best to spin it off into it's own thread :smallwink:

Lycar
2010-02-11, 05:11 PM
I don't think anyone in this thread is making this claim, and you're using an extremely loaded definition of optimize.

...

I don't think anyone has made this claim here either.

Yes, these two were intentionally taken to the extremes of either side of the spectrum. Few real-life people are that extremist in their views, but for the sake of providing a stark contrast I deliberately chose to exaggerate.

And again just another post that keeps on rechewing the same old arguments instead of even trying to adress a possible synthesis... :smallsigh:

Lycar

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 05:14 PM
Yes, these two were intentionally taken to the extremes of either side of the spectrum. Few real-life people are that extremist in their views, but for the sake of providing a stark contrast I deliberately chose to exaggerate. If noone is arguing them, then they're not exaggerations, they're just incorrect statements. There's no point in trying to find a synthesis in that case. Starting from strawmen just clouds the issue.


And again just another post that keeps on rechewing the same old arguments instead of even trying to adress a possible synthesis...Since noone takes those stances, a synthesis of those 2 stances is not relevant to the discussion, nor is it useful.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 05:16 PM
Maybe take we could take the alignment questions to the Lawful! thread.

as to mutability of mechanics- might depend how far it is taken.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 05:19 PM
as to mutability of mechanics- might depend how far it is taken.I kind of think so too; a lot of the fluff is mutable, but some of it really is built right into the mechanics.

horseboy
2010-02-11, 05:24 PM
yeah, well, I'm skeptical at best at some of the examples of alignments given in the books. They're very inconstant, and extremely biased based on some of the perceptions of the writers involved, some of whom have a poor understanding of the characters that they are talking about.

For one thing "batman" is really several different characters; he's portrayed in widely different ways, even in the same media, so any statement of "batman is X alignment" really needs to qualify exactly what batman they are talking about.Yeah, in the original B&W Saturday Matinee B&R are actually CIA agents protecting Gotham from "The Yellow Menace". In the campy 60's they're duly deputized members of Gotham Police Department.

Antithesis: D&D is a wargame with some RP elements attached. You play a set of mechanics first and foremost. Therefore, getting most out of the building blocks provided by the system is the game. The rolepalying is just window dressing.
I don't think anyone has made this claim here either.
I will.

In fact that's why I don't consider D&D to be an RPG as it forces one to choose between mechanical effectiveness and expressing of character. Let's say I'm playing a fighter.

"I'm playing a fighter."

Now while exploring some elven ruins I come across a magic musical instrument. There are no bards in the party, so no one has any musical skill. I pick it up and decide to learn to play it. The question is how is this mechanically expressed?
In a detail light system like AD&D I just tell the GM "Hey, I'm going to learn to play this thing while we're on the road."
In a detail heavy system like Rolemaster I just drop 2 of my 30+ points into buying a rank in Play Instrument: Wind.
For D&D I'm not looking to become a musician here, so don't really want to pick up bard and all the bard baggage just to learn a couple songs on this kazoo to see if it summons a genie or something. (No it didnt' btw, it was just a +15 kazoo.) So my choices are either a natural, horizontal growth of the character or continuing the mechanical effectiveness of my Rohirrim fighter's Ride and Animal Handling. This is a choice I shouldn't have to make.

Riffington
2010-02-11, 05:40 PM
Now while exploring some elven ruins I come across a magic musical instrument. There are no bards in the party, so no one has any musical skill. I pick it up and decide to learn to play it. The question is how is this mechanically expressed?
In a detail light system like AD&D I just tell the GM "Hey, I'm going to learn to play this thing while we're on the road."
In a detail heavy system like Rolemaster I just drop 2 of my 30+ points into buying a rank in Play Instrument: Wind.
For D&D I'm not looking to become a musician here, so don't really want to pick up bard and all the bard baggage just to learn a couple songs on this kazoo to see if it summons a genie or something. (No it didnt' btw, it was just a +15 kazoo.) So my choices are either a natural, horizontal growth of the character or continuing the mechanical effectiveness of my Rohirrim fighter's Ride and Animal Handling. This is a choice I shouldn't have to make.

How should this choice be avoided?
*Kazoos shouldn't require any skill?
*There shouldn't be skill points at all?
*There should be a division between "highly useful skills" and "flavor skills"?
*You should just get everything that makes sense, and learning the Kazoo shouldn't interfere with learning anything else?

Gametime
2010-02-11, 05:50 PM
Yeah, in the original B&W Saturday Matinee B&R are actually CIA agents protecting Gotham from "The Yellow Menace". In the campy 60's they're duly deputized members of Gotham Police Department.

I will.

In fact that's why I don't consider D&D to be an RPG as it forces one to choose between mechanical effectiveness and expressing of character. Let's say I'm playing a fighter.

"I'm playing a fighter."

Now while exploring some elven ruins I come across a magic musical instrument. There are no bards in the party, so no one has any musical skill. I pick it up and decide to learn to play it. The question is how is this mechanically expressed?
In a detail light system like AD&D I just tell the GM "Hey, I'm going to learn to play this thing while we're on the road."
In a detail heavy system like Rolemaster I just drop 2 of my 30+ points into buying a rank in Play Instrument: Wind.
For D&D I'm not looking to become a musician here, so don't really want to pick up bard and all the bard baggage just to learn a couple songs on this kazoo to see if it summons a genie or something. (No it didnt' btw, it was just a +15 kazoo.) So my choices are either a natural, horizontal growth of the character or continuing the mechanical effectiveness of my Rohirrim fighter's Ride and Animal Handling. This is a choice I shouldn't have to make.

Having learned to play an instrument myself, I'm skeptical that you could train yourself to play one even adequately well without taking time away from your training as a warrior. It shouldn't detract from whatever skill you already have, of course, but in D&D it doesn't. It will make your future progress in other endeavors less rapid, however, which seems perfectly in line with verisimilitude.

If you want to learn an instrument as a fighter, more power to you. I don't, however, see why that is a better expression of character than a fighter who decides his time is more wisely spent doing training drills.

Lycar
2010-02-11, 05:56 PM
If noone is arguing them, then they're not exaggerations, they're just incorrect statements. There's no point in trying to find a synthesis in that case. Starting from strawmen just clouds the issue.

Since noone takes those stances, a synthesis of those 2 stances is not relevant to the discussion, nor is it useful.

The two statements are meant to be extremes. I already mentioned that almost no-one takes the views described by these statement to these extremes. But everybody has a stance somewhere between these polar opposites.

Unless you argue, that, since these two are merely extreme points on the same scale, they really aren't different thesis, but rather varying interpretations of one, they therefore can not be combined into a meaningful synthesis, your claim that they are not relevant is simply false.

If we perceive the conflicting aspects of mechanics and 'fluff' to be a problem that distracts from the core function of the game, which is to enjoy playing it, then what other use should discussing these points have then to arrive at a compromise about just what balance between the requirements of 'roleplay' vs. 'rollplay' is required to achieve an enjoyable gaming experience?

Again, both statements are the extreme ends of the spectrum. Those who disregard mechanics (and thus would be happier with a 'storyteller' system to begin with) are on one end, those who approach the game from a wargaming mindset and don't care if the fighting units are Orks vs. Space Marines, 10th SS Panzer vs. US Paratroopers or, for that matter, (Druidzilla, God, Batman & Clericzilla) vs. (Monster Manual II, pp. 12-236), are on the other.

If all players in a given group are reasonably close together on the scale between those extremes, there is no problem, percieved or otherwise.

If the positions are too far apart, friction between the different mindsets will cause trouble.

If the discussion should ever yield a happy medium, where both optimizers and roleplayers can agree upon what is and what is not 'properly optimizing your roleplaying experience', then this happy medium could the basis from which all discussions about 'role' vs. 'roll' can start from, in the same vein as RAW is used as a basis to discuss just how much D&D sucks. :smallamused:

However, most people seem to be happy to dig in at their 'place of comfort' along the 'role' vs. 'roll' axis and are content to merrily argue away all attacks at their entrenched position.

Well, I guess it is just another hobby... :smallamused:

Lycar

Lycar
2010-02-11, 06:21 PM
Having learned to play an instrument myself, I'm skeptical that you could train yourself to play one even adequately well without taking time away from your training as a warrior. It shouldn't detract from whatever skill you already have, of course, but in D&D it doesn't. It will make your future progress in other endeavors less rapid, however, which seems perfectly in line with verisimilitude.

If you want to learn an instrument as a fighter, more power to you. I don't, however, see why that is a better expression of character than a fighter who decides his time is more wisely spent doing training drills.

If I read Horseboy correctly, he does not complain about the fact that training with a musical instrument will cut into his fighter's sword-training time, but rather that D&D forces almost binary choices in that matter.

If you only get 2 or 3, maybe 4 skillpoints and you are forced to spend them at a rather discouraging 2 for 1 ratio, then you are being very effectivly discouraged from doing anything but pumping figthing skills. And only fighting skills.

More granular systems offer more flexibility here. Certainly, whatever effort you invest into mastering an instrument will cost you somewhere, but as in his example, diverting 2 of 30 or so skill points to learn a minor skill on the side is a price that is much easier to pay then to, say, fail to max out skills like Jump or Climb or what have you, or worse, miss any chance to achieve a 20 BAB ever!


How should this choice be avoided?
*Kazoos shouldn't require any skill?
*There shouldn't be skill points at all?
*There should be a division between "highly useful skills" and "flavor skills"?
*You should just get everything that makes sense, and learning the Kazoo shouldn't interfere with learning anything else?

That is the question, isn't it?

* No skill required
- That would work, if not for the fact that there are actual game mechanics that depend on a Perform skill check. And never mind that there are actual magic items in the form of instruments, which require a number of ranks in Perform (Lyre/etc.) to work. It can still be done if there are no other characters that have class features depending on perform though. No harm, no foul...

*There shouldn't be skill points at all?
- Uhm... well... I may be wrong but the addition of actual non-combat related skills into rulesystems is usually regarded as a positive developement? Most game have, if not skill points per se, some mechanic of adjucating non-combat tasks. Their merit lies into enabling, for example, shy players to play bold charcters, even if only by falling back onto a mechanical crutch. But certainly you don't begrude a man with a broken leg his crutch? :smallamused:

*There should be a division between "highly useful skills" and "flavor skills"?
- There are systems that charge variable amounts of skill points or experience points to advance different skills. Since everybody wants combat skills, those are usually the most expensive. Also, Demolitions, Psi, Spells and other high-power or high-prestige skills. Others, which are considered to be more fluff then critical, are cheaper, thus making investing into them a lot more affordable then D&D does it.

*You should just get everything that makes sense, and learning the Kazoo shouldn't interfere with learning anything else?
- No, I don't think that really works, unless we assume that learning the Kazoo will be nothing but a flavor skill. Because otherwise, someone is going to complain about being treated unfairly because he didn't get to learn, say, fireworking for free. I would recommend to leave that can of worms unopened.

But again, the 'role' vs. 'rule' divide. The roleplayer is more likely to accept a hit on combat efficiency, if he can get something desireable in return. For some people, having a fighter that is more then just a very efficient deadbeat is worth a lost point of BAB. Others will either not see the value, or only invest into Perform (Kazoo) if said Kazoo can... I dunno, cast Otto's Irresistible Dance 3/day, but only if you have 5 ranks in Perform...

Lycar

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 06:45 PM
However, most people seem to be happy to dig in at their 'place of comfort' along the 'role' vs. 'roll' axis and are content to merrily argue away all attacks at their entrenched position.


GOALDEN MEANS FALACY RAWR LULZ :smallwink:


Maybe it is just because they know better then to charge into a slugfest.
That's why I left/am leaving the thread.

pres_man
2010-02-11, 06:47 PM
One thing to consider though, when looking at say the 2-for-1 skill costs, is that many skills actually max out on efficiency early on. Really only opposed skills require continous growth in them most of the time. It might be that losing a few skill points wouldn't actually impact the functionality of the character in a real fashion.

Amphetryon
2010-02-11, 07:15 PM
All I can say is that whenever someone (on these boards or elsewhere) fawns about a specific combination of classes that, in the context of the fluff associated with these classes doesn't make sense, and that someone gets called out for it, the response is almost invariably that 'fluff is irrelevant'.My own observation is that the phrase 'flavor is mutable' is used vastly more often than 'fluff is irrelevant.' While similar, these two sentiments are not synonymous, and I personally find the difference to be an important one.

Stephen_E
2010-02-11, 07:46 PM
I'm not entirely sure; It seemed like the most courteous sort of response I could make. I've made it a link; I kind of wish there was a way to link to a section, not a specific rule, just a general area; the rules are pretty long and just linking to them isn't very helpful, but I can see how that sort of thing might be abused.

If it bothers you, or you think it's violating the rules, you should report my post. The mods are pretty good about taking care of such things.

Eh, it doesn't bother me.

What annoys me is that you are reading something from my post that I didn't put there, and don't beleive is there.

For your argument to work reducing time spent on 1 would have to result an increase on time spent on 2.
Since it doesn't your argument falls apart.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2010-02-11, 07:52 PM
The "pop culture" section of Wikipedia is one of the most flawed. See Black's Law Dictionary for an actual understanding of vigilantism.
Vigilantism requires one to "try and/or punish others without any legal authority". Batman:
1. Does not try anyone. He leaves that to Gotham.
2. Does not punish anyone. Again, leaving that to Gotham.
3. Has some legal authority anyway, delegated by Gordon.


Now, it is true that you can have an LG vigilante, you just need them to do so much lawful stuff that it outweighs their (rare) acts of vigilantism.

Since Black's Law Dictionary is a dictionary of US law and legal thought it fails as a definitive definition source.

US =/= the World.

Stephen E

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 08:01 PM
For your argument to work reducing time spent on 1 would have to result an increase on time spent on 2.No, it doesn't require that; it requires that "reducing time spent on 1 gives you the option to increase on time spent on 2" ... and it does.

You still have a choice whether to take that option up or not.


Since Black's Law Dictionary is a dictionary of US law and legal thought it fails as a definitive definition source.
Well, given that "The term vigilante was introduced into English from the northeast United States" I think that the US version of the term is probably the definitive version of exactly what that term means, eh?

pres_man
2010-02-11, 08:06 PM
No, it doesn't require that; it requires that "reducing time spent on 1 gives you the option to increase on time spent on 2" ... and it does.

You still have a choice whether to take that option up or not.

If he has already maxed out option 2, then he is not going to spend more time on it even if given more potential time to do so. That is the flaw with your viewpoint. More likely he is going to use that additional time for some other option that has not been maxed out, like sleep or watching TV/movie or sex or whatever.

Stephen_E
2010-02-11, 08:24 PM
What I find interesting is that in play/RL I find the "Crunch power is all important and fluff should be slapped on at the end" are as common as "Fluff/roleplaying is all important and Crunch detracts" (although neither are exactly common).

On the internet in discussions on it Fluffers are far more common IME.
I wonder if it's because the "Optimisers" gain a mechanical advantage in game and take this as proof of the superiority of their view and generally simply ignore the "Fluffers", while the "Fluffers" gain a mechanical disadvantage in game and resent that, so try and balance it by convincing everyone that they have to take the "fluffer" approach (thus removing the mechanical disadvantage) under the treat of been an "inferior player". The Stormwind fallacy seriously undercuts this approach and therefore is an enemy of "Fluffers". "Optimisers" generally don't care, because they'll optimise no matter what and generally don't suffer a mechanical disadvantage no matter what the "Fluffers" do.

The main problem as I see it is that "Fluffers" generally object to mechanics having any significant impact on their characters abilities. Unfortunately for them 3.5 is a Lego type RP system that works on the assumption that everyone has a reasonable degree of mechanical apptitude for the purpose of playing. Not a requirement to be a "optimiser", but merely a reasonable degree apptitude with crunch to put your various bricks together. You can't just leave the lego bricks in a pile and say "it's a powerful knight" because the pack has a knight picture on it. 3.5 doesn't work trhat way, and if you can't stand it play another system.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2010-02-11, 08:30 PM
If he has already maxed out option 2, then he is not going to spend more time on it even if given more potential time to do so. That is the flaw with your viewpoint. More likely he is going to use that additional time for some other option that has not been maxed out, like sleep or watching TV/movie or sex or whatever.

Ta da. The prize goes to Pres Man for actually understanding what I wrote.

Stephen E