What things would you make forum rules if you could?

[aleucard]

Just shooting the breeze on what you think could be codified to make this particular forum better. Keep in mind that this topic is focused on this specific section only. My ideas;

1) Any time you post something that calls out the rules of whatever system you're talking about, you are to post a resource title and page number (or a link, in the case of online resources) along side it. This is obnoxious for those of us who haven't memorized the entire (for instance) 3.5 library, and the entirety of the web material, and the entirety of Dragon Magazine, and probably a sizable chunk of 3rd party material for good measure. That goes double since the fall of a certain site we all know and love, and now we can't just google the names of things and expect to be able to find a source without doing some diving.

That's all I got at the moment, really. I'll edit the original post to link to any other suggested ideas I personally like if this topic gets that big. Fire away!

EDIT: Clarified something in #1.

[Flickerdart]

Rule 1 of the Playground: Do not talk about the Playground.
Rule 2 of the Playground: If it's your first day in the Playground, you have to post.

[nedz]

All posts have to be witty — bugger, failed that one already.

[Oracle_of_Void]

Can't derail a thread by debating a rule inconsistency that doesn't affect the topic at hand, i.e., whether drowning can heal you on a topic about optimizing two weapon fighters. Exaggerated example, but I've seen some pretty silly derailing of a similar nature.

[nedz]

Can't derail a thread by debating a rule inconsistency that doesn't affect the topic at hand, i.e., whether drowning can heal you on a topic about optimizing two weapon fighters. Exaggerated example, but I've seen some pretty silly derailing of a similar nature.

But some of our best threads have featured multiple derails. We even had a spambot's random words kick off an interesting discussion once: This is an obvious derail — also monkeys and Shakespeare perhaps ?

[Fax Celestis]

#1 is already a thing. Quoting material through fair use and or providing citations is not a rule violation.

[eggynack]

But some of our best threads have featured multiple derails. We even had a spambot's random words kick off an interesting discussion once: This is an obvious derail — also monkeys and Shakespeare perhaps ?
All of the this. My favorite example is probably bardic psychosis (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?312164-Bardic-Psychosis!!!!), which started about some bardic questioning (poisoned by poor rhetoric), and ended with Disney princesses and rope bridges. Great stuff.

[aleucard]

#1 is already a thing. Quoting material through fair use and or providing citations is not a rule violation.

Seeing people cite the location of whatever PrC, spell, feat, or other thing of comparable nature is the exception, not the rule. We've all been the newbie at some point, and even now I sometimes don't like having to do the two extra steps of 1) putting the term into a search engine and 2) play russian roulette with whatever sites the engine spits out. You're already looking at whatever it is you're citing more often than not, why not take the extra 5 or so seconds to type down what book and page it's on so we don't have to either dumpster-dive or just write it off as homebrew?

[torrasque666]

Seeing people cite the location of whatever PrC, spell, feat, or other thing of comparable nature is the exception, not the rule. We've all been the newbie at some point, and even now I sometimes don't like having to do the two extra steps of 1) putting the term into a search engine and 2) play russian roulette with whatever sites the engine spits out. You're already looking at whatever it is you're citing more often than not, why not take the extra 5 or so seconds to type down what book and page it's on so we don't have to either dumpster-dive or just write it off as homebrew?

This. I think I can count the number of times I haven't provided at least the book on one hand.

For my contribution #whatever: Don't automatically decry dandwiki if the link has the SRD tag in it. Those are taken verbatim from the SRD so its not wrong.

[Fax Celestis]

You want to codify citation etiquette as a rule? And what, I'm going to get a warning if I don't say "Power Attack (PHB 52)"?

That's preposterous.

[Doc_Maynot]

Default text must be Comic Sans.

Yes, I'm that kind of *******.

[eggynack]

You're already looking at whatever it is you're citing more often than not, why not take the extra 5 or so seconds to type down what book and page it's on so we don't have to either dumpster-dive or just write it off as homebrew?
I'm very often not looking at the book in question. I have a great memory for the game objects themselves, a reasonable memory for the books they're in, and a pretty bad memory for page numbers, so I can trivially give advice without having a book out in some cases (especially because I tend to feel more comfortable giving advice if I know what I'm working with without having to look it up), and can give out a book name a good majority of the time without checking for it, and the page number usually requires looking things up, especially because I don't usually trust my memory on this stuff.

All in all, the extra time for a full citation can easily be half a minute, especially if I'm working with a non-druid topic, and it can sometimes take longer if the book is out of the way in some fashion. However, even five seconds can add up over a long post. Someone asks for a full and solid spell list up to 3rd level spells with full book access, and putting together citations could take crazy time. I sometimes do it anyway, especially with someone I perceive as somewhat new to the game/boards, but it's not something I do every time, particularly post-dndtools.

Edit:
You want to codify citation etiquette as a rule? And what, I'm going to get a warning if I don't say "Power Attack (PHB 52)"?

That's preposterous.
I don't think it's meant to be taken entirely seriously. It's just a pet peeve of some folk.

[icefractal]

Exactly. If someone says "I want to make a Dwarf that's super durable, what's a good PrC to take?", I might answer Deepwarden. Now I don't offhand remember which book that's from (Races of Stone, maybe?), I don't remember a page number, and I'm certainly not looking at the book. Possibly I'm not even posting from home. I just remember that Deepwarden gives Con to AC and maybe some other defensive stuff.

I'd say that's the case for most answers I give. No offense, but I'm not generally going to go get out my books and search through them to answer a random question on a forum; it's going to be stuff I already remember.

[Fax Celestis]

However, someone should make a script that looks for terms and inserts mouse over citations and/or short non-rule descriptions. ("Power Attack" reads "pg 52, trade attack bonus for damage in melee")

[gooddragon1]

You want to codify citation etiquette as a rule? And what, I'm going to get a warning if I don't say "Power Attack (PHB 52)"?

That's preposterous.

If it's something on the SRD, no. You can google that and you'll get it. In fact, power attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack), is good form but hardly necessary (I don't even take power attack because I don't like losing accuracy when attacking). However, if you talk about Unquenchable Flame of Life, Love's Pain, Arboreal Transformation, or that one prestige class I can't remember that's bound to a city and is usually better for NPC's... you might want to link the sources. Oops, just violated the rule 3 (maybe 4) times.

EDIT: Honestly, I don't think a page number is necessary. Just the name of the book should work fine since they segment them into sections already. If it's a rules reference then a page number becomes more important.

[eggynack]

Monkday should be mandatory. If someone posts a monk thread on a not-monkday, then that person gets an infraction. If no one posts a monk thread on monkday, then everyone on the 3.5 board gets an instant infraction. We should have a constant yet slow moving supply of monk threads, brought reliably to our door. There could be some allowance for continuing monk threads to satisfy the mighty monk loving mods, but perhaps the mods would be capricious in their enforcement of that provision.

Separately, power attack's on 98. It was just vaguely bugging me.

[Fax Celestis]

Oh. I just grabbed 52 because it vaguely sounded like the first half of the book-ish.

[gooddragon1]

Monkday should be mandatory. If someone posts a monk thread on a not-monkday, then that person gets an infraction. If no one posts a monk thread on monkday, then everyone on the 3.5 board gets an instant infraction. We should have a constant yet slow moving supply of monk threads, brought reliably to our door. There could be some allowance for continuing monk threads to satisfy the mighty monk loving mods, but perhaps the mods would be capricious in their enforcement of that provision.

Separately, power attack's on 98. It was just vaguely bugging me.

We don't talk about monks on these forums for the same reason we don't suggest pressing f10 in a steam game or alt+f4 in a computer game in general. It raises awareness of an imbalance in the system that we don't want people to abuse. In the case of games it allows cheat codes. In the case of D&D it raises awareness of a character is in the top 5 of the tiers of D&D.

EDIT: This entire post is sarcastic. Do not use f10 or alt+f4 in a game as they will close your game. There are 6 tiers in d&d (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)... guess where the monk is (hint, its not 1-4).

[Red Fel]

If I could make a forum rule? I'd say "Be specific when feasible."

Example? Not everyone tags their stuff with PF or 3.X. Now, that's fine if you're talking about something that's clearly one or the other, like Warblade or Champion of Irori, or if you include a link to their respective SRDs. But it's a bit of a nuisance if you're talking about "a multiclass Monk/Paladin" and not saying what's available.

If you mention something outside of PHB? At least give a book citation. Pages are helpful, but the table of contents is a thing. Books, however, help immensely when you're citing a non-PHB source. (I say non-PHB, because if you don't know Extend Spell by now, you have bigger problems than needing to know the book source for Ur-Priest to make your three-9 caster.)

And speaking of what's available - and this is a big pet peeve of mine - stop saying "Core" like it means something. Just stop. Right now, I want you to look up which book is labeled "Core Book I." Take as much time as you need.

Yeah. There's not one. And people need to stop talking as if there is. It really, really irks me when somebody says "Core only," and expects me to know what they mean. I have seen the term "Core" mean: PHB only. PHB and PHB II. PHB and DMG. PHB, DMG, SPC and MIC. All of the above, plus Completes.
Yeah. That last one throws me a bit as well. Point is, if I could write a rule, it would be "Be specific when feasible," with the corollaries, "Cite a book if it's not from PHB," and, "If you use the term 'Core,' be sure to define it."

[(Un)Inspired]

Monkday should be mandatory. If someone posts a monk thread on a not-monkday, then that person gets an infraction. If no one posts a monk thread on monkday, then everyone on the 3.5 board gets an instant infraction. We should have a constant yet slow moving supply of monk threads, brought reliably to our door. There could be some allowance for continuing monk threads to satisfy the mighty monk loving mods, but perhaps the mods would be capricious in their enforcement of that provision.

Separately, power attack's on 98. It was just vaguely bugging me.

I love all of this

[eggynack]

Oh. I just grabbed 52 because it vaguely sounded like the first half of the book-ish.
Sure. I was just all like, "Oh man, I wonder if that citation is accurate," and then I was vaguely disappointed when it wasn't.

We don't talk about monks on these forums for the same reason we don't suggest pressing f10 in a steam game or alt+f4 in a computer game in general. It raises awareness of an imbalance in the system that we don't want people to abuse. In the case of games it allows cheat codes. In the case of D&D it raises awareness of a character is in the top 5 of the tiers of D&D.

No. We must give people this knowledge, but only in a heavily regulated manner associated with a play on words that most that would produce monk threads would have no way of knowing about. People learning about monks too much would be bad for the monk thread business, but we similarly can't just let the monk threads die out.

Edit:

Yeah. There's not one. And people need to stop talking as if there is. It really, really irks me when somebody says "Core only," and expects me to know what they mean. I have seen the term "Core" mean: PHB only. PHB and PHB II. PHB and DMG. PHB, DMG, SPC and MIC. All of the above, plus Completes.
Don't forget everything in the d20SRD, and jeez, I think I might've seen someone include frostburn once.

[Red Fel]

Don't forget everything in the d20SRD, and jeez, I think I might've seen someone include frostburn once.

Yeah, I can get behind people including UA in "Core." That makes sense to me, although really UA is "a big fat bunch of variants," but I can understand it.

But you come to my door asking me to build you a house, and you can't even tell me whether you want straw, wood, or brick? That ain't cricket. I've actually had people get angry at me for asking for a definition. I'm not being facetious - I really don't read minds. Sad, but true, the person at the keyboard does not have levels in Psion (Telepath).

[Venger]

There would be a separate subforum restricted exclusively to arguing about alignment. What is Law/Chaos?, what is Good/Evil?, what alignment is (popular character)?, I'm arguing with my table about (act) my character did when his alignment is X when his action is TOTALLY Y: who is right?

All of it.

Elsewhere.

[eggynack]

There would be a separate subforum restricted exclusively to arguing about alignment. What is Law/Chaos?, what is Good/Evil?, what alignment is (popular character)?, I'm arguing with my table about (act) my character did when his alignment is X when his action is TOTALLY Y: who is right?

All of it.

Elsewhere.
Yes, perfect. And everyone must spend a mandatory half hour a week participating in these alignment threads. This is the best plan.

[Doc_Maynot]

Yes, perfect. And everyone must spend a mandatory half hour a week participating in these alignment threads. This is the best plan.

Do you want us all to go chaotic stupid?

[Nettlekid]

I know this is fairly vitriolic, but I'd like the creator of a thread to be able to kick/request other users to leave their created thread if they felt that user's additions were counterproductive to the intent of the thread. Maybe it's being derailed, or that user keeps insisting something about RAW/RAI that the creator of the thread has declared isn't what they're playing with, or simply that that user's contributions are repeatedly not what the creator of the thread is hoping for (be it through misinterpretation of the original post or a more deliberate "You don't actually want what you say you want, you want this instead" mentality.) I know that's highly counter to the nature of this site as being very open, but I've seen many situations where this would save dozens of pages of bickering.

[Duke of Urrel]

… 1) Any time you post something that calls out the rules of whatever system you're talking about, you are to post a resource title and page number (or a link, in the case of online resources) along side it.

I like to cite source material, both because it is an academic habit and because I believe it is a courtesy to my readers. However, I think we can all agree that there are limits. Most of us have a good idea where a lot of references to rules come from, and it would be tiresome to have to quote a text and a page number for every rule that we mention.

On the other hand, there are newbies, and we should be nice to them. We shouldn't complain or make fun of them when we are asked to give the source for something that we've just mentioned. We should encourage them to ask questions by helping them out when they do. It feels pretty good to do this, too.

But there's no getting around the requirement to be brave and ask when you don't know something. I am myself a newby about many things, and I would never learn anything: if I didn't ask questions, if I didn't often try to answer questions, if I didn't frequently make mistakes, and if I didn't frequently admit that I was wrong. Everybody needs the self-assurance to admit that he or she doesn't know everything. I'm a geek, but I'll never out-geek the geekiest among us.

My pet peeve is occasionally not knowing the meaning of some abbreviation that I've never seen before. However, there's no way we can prohibit abbreviations. The only solution, for me, is to ask: "What does that mean?" and to expect a helpful answer.

Postscript: In regard to abbreviations, I was happy to discover this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18512-Common-Acronyms-Abbreviations-and-Terms).

[Snowbluff]

@Nettlekid: HAHAHAH! **** no. That would be the worst rule ever. Might as well say we can't allow reasonable discourse. NO kicking people from threads. Asking them to leave, maybe. But kicking? People would abuse it when they can't handle an argument.

Making me a mod would solve all of these issues, though. I'd throw all of those dumb "I know you said that's what's assumed..." posts into a separate thread. Actually, yeah. Just tell the mods.

[The Grue]

How about "Posters are REQUIRED" to tag new threads as Pathfinder, 3.X, etc to avoid confusion.

I should keep a scorecard of every time someone asks "How to I optimize my [SRD Core Class]", recieves a series of comprehensive answers, then responds with "Actually I'm playing Pathfinder/3.5(whichever the answer wasn't)".

[aleucard]

Alright, how about an addendum to my proposed rule; if whatever it is shows up in the SRD or another official and accepted source as at least one of the first 5 things shown on a google search, then posting a source for it is not necessary. To be fair, this only really started being a problem after a certain site got taken down and now the only things that mention them are random posts on equally random forums (again, a crapshoot more often than is comfortable). If you're not able to take the 5 seconds it takes to put down at least what book it's in, then maybe you should reconsider posting, since you "obviously" can't remember if it's actually an official part of the system or not. The burden of proof that your advised item is legit is not on the reader, nor should it be put there. Forcing people to ask you to cite your sources just wastes time and posts on something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

[Nettlekid]

@Nettlekid: HAHAHAH! **** no. That would be the worst rule ever. Might as well say we can't allow reasonable discourse. NO kicking people from threads. Asking them to leave, maybe. But kicking? People would abuse it when they can't handle an argument.

Making me a mod would solve all of these issues, though. I'd throw all of those dumb "I know you said that's what's assumed..." posts into a separate thread. Actually, yeah. Just tell the mods.

Well consider, no one who would resort to doing that at the slightest instance of opposition is actually open for reasonable discourse anyway. If the unreasonable person is the OP and the fair-minded person gets kicked, it just saves the time of the fair-minded person who wouldn't have swayed the unreasonable OP. And if it's the other way around, then the OP doesn't have to deal with the troublemaker making a mess of what might have been a good conversation with someone else.

For example, picking something totally random out of thin air, what if someone made a thread about why they hate Tome of Battle and burn the books and everyone should hate it right? And people appear to say why they think it's balanced to these degrees and defend it. And the OP kicks them from the thread. Their time will now no longer be wasted by the OP who really just wanted to argue with someone in the first place.

EDIT: Argh, how do I ALWAYS manage to make my post the first post of the second page? And it's always a post that I think is like kinda good but not good enough that I want everyone reading it, but being the first post of the second page it's just right there for everyone.

[Duke of Urrel]

I know this is fairly vitriolic, but I'd like the creator of a thread to be able to kick/request other users to leave their created thread if they felt that user's additions were counterproductive to the intent of the thread. Maybe it's being derailed, or that user keeps insisting something about RAW/RAI that the creator of the thread has declared isn't what they're playing with, or simply that that user's contributions are repeatedly not what the creator of the thread is hoping for (be it through misinterpretation of the original post or a more deliberate "You don't actually want what you say you want, you want this instead" mentality.) I know that's highly counter to the nature of this site as being very open, but I've seen many situations where this would save dozens of pages of bickering.


@Nettlekid: HAHAHAH! **** no. That would be the worst rule ever. Might as well say we can't allow reasonable discourse. NO kicking people from threads. Asking them to leave, maybe. But kicking? People would abuse it when they can't handle an argument.

Making me a mod would solve all of these issues, though. I'd throw all of those dumb "I know you said that's what's assumed..." posts into a separate thread. Actually, yeah. Just tell the mods.

On the one hand, I believe the creator of a thread has the right to judge what is derailing and what is not, and contributors to the thread should have some respect for this judgement, even if they disagree with it and would rather talk about something else. If you really want to talk about something else, then you should start your own thread rather than bother the people who actually want to talk about the topic that the creator of the thread has proposed.

On the other hand, I agree with Snowbluff that giving the creator of a thread the power to block other contributors would be overkill. That's the right and the responsibility of the moderators. Usually, it should be possible, as the creator of a thread, just to tell the offending contributors, politely, that you think their comments are derailing and you would prefer that they return to the topic that you proposed – or take their off-topic discussion elsewhere. (Of course, nothing that you say or do can prevent them from getting bored with your topic and refusing to comment upon it at all.) After you make this polite request, if some contributors refuse to listen to you and continue to derail your thread, just to annoy you, then you can alert the moderators, and they'll take care of it. But I think it's common courtesy to tell people they're bothering you first, before you call the cops on them. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course – if commenters are extremely prejudiced, insulting, or abusive in their remarks, then you may call the moderators immediately; there's no need to be courteous toward people who are extremely rude to you.)

In any event, I think when the creator of a thread is silent – and when others who share this person's interests are also silent – then that silence is interpreted as consent. Often, it really is consent. As others have pointed out, some people don't mind when one topic is replaced by another, and another, and another… It's okay when that happens and everybody enjoys it. But it's not okay when some people would rather talk about the original topic and find all the intervening off-topic posts annoying – particularly when they're disrespectful or obviously intended to annoy.

[Venger]

Yes, perfect. And everyone must spend a mandatory half hour a week participating in these alignment threads. This is the best plan.

>implying we would need to be forced
>implying we could resist the allure of an alignment subforum

yeah, it'd be pretty much perfect. it would give us a place to spin our wheels and it would neatly excise all alignment stuff from threads where they have no relevance to the topic.

[Duke of Urrel]

How about "Posters are REQUIRED" to tag new threads as Pathfinder, 3.X, etc to avoid confusion.

I should keep a scorecard of every time someone asks "How to I optimize my [SRD Core Class]", recieves a series of comprehensive answers, then responds with "Actually I'm playing Pathfinder/3.5(whichever the answer wasn't)".

I like this rule, but of course enforcing it would require some reminding – and some courtesy – like everything else. There are always newbies who will make the mistake of not tagging their threads appropriately.

[aleucard]

>implying we would need to be forced
>implying we could resist the allure of an alignment subforum

yeah, it'd be pretty much perfect. it would give us a place to spin our wheels and it would neatly excise all alignment stuff from threads where they have no relevance to the topic.

Would also do a nice and clean job of shunting all the Paladin Falls threads somewhere else. It's practically cliche at this point.

[Venger]

Would also do a nice and clean job of shunting all the Paladin Falls threads somewhere else. It's practically cliche at this point.

exactly. wouldn't that be great?

they're worse than monkdays because, while they're usually not as long, they can pop up in almost any thread.

[(Un)Inspired]

exactly. wouldn't that be great?

they're worse than monkdays because, while they're usually not as long, they can pop up in almost any thread.

Are you saying that posting a Monkday thread should make a paladin fall?

[Psyren]

Nothing. I like it here. This is already one of the best gaming forums on the web.

I would like a blanket necromancy permission for handbooks and similar curator/compilation-style threads by the original creator I guess.

[Extra Anchovies]

Nothing. I like it here. This is already one of the best gaming forums on the web.

I would like a blanket necromancy permission for handbooks and similar curator/compilation-style threads by the original creator I guess.

This would be a very nice thing. Somewhat more lenient necro rules would be a good thing in general, IMO.

[A_S]

+1 for "less harsh on thread necromancy." I frequently see old threads brought back with a post asking a totally topic-relevant followup question that would absolutely be a great way to revive the discussion, except that the next post after that is the thread being locked.

I get that sometimes it's better to let old threads die (e.g., posting answers to questions that were asked months ago by people who are probably no longer checking for responses), but it seems like it might be nice to let some of them live too...

[Psyren]

I do get it for discussions - if you have something new to say on the subject, it's not that hard to just start a new thread and mention whatever salient points piqued your interest from the old one.

Handbooks however take a long time to format, and if a handbook thread gets locked then porting all that work to a new one becomes a pain. Even if you get a mod to unlock the thread temporarily so you can hit Edit and do all that work, then make a brand new thread and reserve the same number of posts so you can bring all that material over, you end up confusing search engines that are still pointing to the old thread. For Pathfinder handbooks in particular, new material is still being printed, so a major release that contains a bunch of new feats and spells (e.g. Advanced Class Guide) is a very good reason to bump a handbook that may have been originally created months if not years ago.

However, I will say that I have noticed the mods are being a bit more lenient with handbook necromancy than with other threads; I would just prefer to have that policy in writing (if it's not posted up in the mod lounge somewhere for the newer members of the team.)

[Kurald Galain]

Just shooting the breeze on what you think could be codified to make this particular forum better. Keep in mind that this topic is focused on this specific section only. My ideas;

People should get an Infraction for violating the Oberoni fallacy.

[Kazyan]

Having the ability to tag optimization threads as "TO" or "PO" would save me a lot of frustration.

[eggynack]

Do you want us all to go chaotic stupid?
Wanted to try out a new thingamajig in this thread. Seemed like it worked reasonably well. I'd call it something more like chaotic lawful (stupid), incidentally. Absolutely ridiculous laws enforced in an arbitrarily focused and harsh manner.

>implying we would need to be forced
>implying we could resist the allure of an alignment subforum

yeah, it'd be pretty much perfect. it would give us a place to spin our wheels and it would neatly excise all alignment stuff from threads where they have no relevance to the topic.
Very true, though the draw of the off topic can still be a powerful one, even with an outlet. Perhaps, every time someone posts an alignment word outside the alignment subforum, like good, evil, exalted, paladin, falls, bad, or other similar words, then the post should be immediately excised from the thread and pushed into a completely new thread in the alignment subforum. The title of said thread would be, "Look at this jerkiness I've committed part X", where X is the number of existent jerk threads plus one. My thinking is that they could make this function programmed into the site, to avoid forcing mods to search for these words constantly.


However, I will say that I have noticed the mods are being a bit more lenient with handbook necromancy than with other threads; I would just prefer to have that policy in writing (if it's not posted up in the mod lounge somewhere for the newer members of the team.)
Yeah, it's almost to the point where the rule already kinda exists. I think I've seen the necessary magic items thread necro'd half a dozen times at least by this point, without repercussion.

[Vaz]

Default text must be Comic Sans.

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/8/8d/Cyanide_And_Happiness_Comic_Sans_game.png

[atemu1234]

When posting something, you must include the source.

Abbreviations must be defined, somewhere. We need a glossary of book name abbreviations.

[Psyren]

Abbreviations must be defined, somewhere. We need a glossary of book name abbreviations.

Here you go (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18512-Common-Acronyms-Abbreviations-and-Terms)

[Kurald Galain]

Here you go (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18512-Common-Acronyms-Abbreviations-and-Terms)

As that page says,
"D&D Books not yet published:
4E"

:smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

As that page says,
"D&D Books not yet published:
4E"

:smallbiggrin:

Abbreviating 4e books would require discussing it :smallbiggrin:

(Yeah it's old, but so is 3.5.)

[eggynack]

As an arbitrary abbreviation aside, the whole "SS" thing is just the worst. You have savage species, sandstorm, song and silence, and hell, even occasionally secrets of sarlona, all resting on this one letter pair. My general solution is, "SS", "Sand", "SaS", and "SoS", respectively, but I don't think those are perfectly standardized. Even worse is the never solved in any sense AC thing, where you end up talking about your druid's AC's AC.

[Psyren]

I use SS, SvS, ShS, and SoS. I've never had cause to refer to Song and Silence myself, but if I did, that one could be SaS.

[prufock]

Seeing people cite the location of whatever PrC, spell, feat, or other thing of comparable nature is the exception, not the rule. We've all been the newbie at some point, and even now I sometimes don't like having to do the two extra steps of 1) putting the term into a search engine and 2) play russian roulette with whatever sites the engine spits out. You're already looking at whatever it is you're citing more often than not, why not take the extra 5 or so seconds to type down what book and page it's on so we don't have to either dumpster-dive or just write it off as homebrew?

Have you ever heard of "looking a gift horse in the mouth"? People are taking the time and effort to help each other with builds and ideas - for free. If you aren't willing to put in the effort to follow up on their suggestions by performing a basic google search, you can't expect them to do it for you. Often people do provide the book, at least, but demanding a page number? You would get much less help.

And if you really can't find it, just ask.

[Venger]

People should get an Infraction for violating the Oberoni fallacy.

oh man.

stormwind. there should be a penalty for stormwind.

[Red Fel]

Demerits. That's what we need. A demerit system. In addition to an infraction system for violating actual forum rules, there should be a demerit system, with viewable record, for when people violate the social niceties or politics of rational discourse.

I'm being facetious. 5 demerits for me. Five points from Slytherin, if you prefer.

[aleucard]

Demerits. That's what we need. A demerit system. In addition to an infraction system for violating actual forum rules, there should be a demerit system, with viewable record, for when people violate the social niceties or politics of rational discourse.

I'm being facetious. 5 demerits for me. Five points from Slytherin, if you prefer.

Sounds like a warped version of reddit's up/downvote system, if it's the readers that vote on such things. I'd say that there shouldn't be any detriment or benefit to a lower or higher score, but maybe it can be used as a shorthand for the mods to look for potential issues. Posters should be able to contest certain posts from counting against them (for instance, if they're good, valid, and relevant to the topic, but people don't like hearing it so they pound the post into the dirt), and there should be protections against downvote brigading and related idiocy for obvious reasons. Have a metric in the general stats thing under a poster's name and avatar for their total score, and a metric for that post's current vote balance in the bottom left corner. Up/Downvoting comes with a comment system so that voters can say why they voted that way if they want, though 1) only mods can view the names of the commenters and 2) only mods and the original post's poster can view the comments in general.

Would be a bit of a bitch to code, but if done right the only maintenance that should be required is the additional thing to moderate for.

[Nettlekid]

+1 for "less harsh on thread necromancy." I frequently see old threads brought back with a post asking a totally topic-relevant followup question that would absolutely be a great way to revive the discussion, except that the next post after that is the thread being locked.

I get that sometimes it's better to let old threads die (e.g., posting answers to questions that were asked months ago by people who are probably no longer checking for responses), but it seems like it might be nice to let some of them live too...

I absolutely agree with this. I get how thread necromancy is bad in some cases, like if someone's just been surfing around and stumbles on an old thread that they don't notice is years old and bump it up with "yeah me too" or something similarly without substance, because the original posters probably aren't looking at it and it's more or less spam at that point. But if someone has a query that they're planning to ask the forum, and they find an old thread that deals with their question, then I don't see the harm in dredging it back up so that everyone can see all the previous discussion and then continue on with it anew.

Since the mods are pretty harsh on thread necromancy currently, is there not some way to auto-lock threads as soon as they pass the reply window so that it's impossible to commit thread necromancy?

[Red Fel]

Sounds like a warped version of reddit's up/downvote system, if it's the readers that vote on such things. I'd say that there shouldn't be any detriment or benefit to a lower or higher score, but maybe it can be used as a shorthand for the mods to look for potential issues. Posters should be able to contest certain posts from counting against them (for instance, if they're good, valid, and relevant to the topic, but people don't like hearing it so they pound the post into the dirt), and there should be protections against downvote brigading and related idiocy for obvious reasons. Have a metric in the general stats thing under a poster's name and avatar for their total score, and a metric for that post's current vote balance in the bottom left corner. Up/Downvoting comes with a comment system so that voters can say why they voted that way if they want, though 1) only mods can view the names of the commenters and 2) only mods and the original post's poster can view the comments in general.

Would be a bit of a bitch to code, but if done right the only maintenance that should be required is the additional thing to moderate for.

I was actually kind of teasing. As much as I think it would be amusing to slap a badge across a profile, "This poster is too sarcastic," "This one relies on the Stormwind fallacy," "This one resorts to ad hominem attacks," it's mostly a bit too silly, and comes a bit close to mob rule for my liking.

[eggynack]

I was actually kind of teasing. As much as I think it would be amusing to slap a badge across a profile, "This poster is too sarcastic," "This one relies on the Stormwind fallacy," "This one resorts to ad hominem attacks," it's mostly a bit too silly, and comes a bit close to mob rule for my liking.
Mob rule, but weirdly polite and manners culture based mob rule. Seems like it'd vaguely fit the site's whole ethos.

[gooddragon1]

People should get an Infraction for violating the Oberoni fallacy.

What's the Tobleroni fallacy?

[eggynack]

What's the Tobleroni fallacy?
It means that, just because a Toblerone can be broken into pieces, you shouldn't assume it will be, and that we must act under the assumption that Toblerones will be consumed in one mighty bite, choking the consumer.

[atemu1234]

What's the Tobleroni fallacy?

The Oberoni fallacy is the fallacy that because something can be fixed, it isn't broken. Like Epic Spellcasting rules! Just because your DM can say you can't do that, doesn't make it not a horrible mess of brokenednessosityisms.

[dascarletm]

Tobleroni Fallacy: This is when someone attempts to prove an argument by relating it to food (usually sweet and/or greasy food). Example: When explaining why there is no such thing as badwrongfun a poster says, "Just because you like chocolate ice cream and don't like vanilla doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone who likes vanilla." This is fallacious because truly vanilla ice cream is the bomb and is actually better than chocolate.

[Snowbluff]

Agreed. Vanilla bean ice cream wrecks chocolate. Regular vanilla is pretty weak sauce, though.

[jedipotter]

oh man.

stormwind. there should be a penalty for stormwind.

Nah, that one is not true.

[Jormengand]

Right now, I want you to look up which book is labeled "Core Book I." Take as much time as you need.

Yeah. There's not one.

The PHB says "Core Rulebook I" right on the front.

And incidentally, the DMG is Core Rulebook II, and I don't have it handy but I'd guess the MM says it's core rulebook III


Agreed. Vanilla bean ice cream wrecks chocolate. Regular vanilla is pretty weak sauce, though.

Pfft. You're all wrong: ice cream doesn't taste of anything at all!

[Extra Anchovies]

Agreed. Vanilla bean ice cream wrecks chocolate. Regular vanilla is pretty weak sauce, though.

This. This should be made a forum rule.

[sakuuya]

Pfft. You're all wrong: ice cream doesn't taste of anything at all!

Are you sure you haven't just been eating Jormengand-flavored ice cream this whole time?

[Jormengand]

Are you sure you haven't just been eating Jormengand-flavored ice cream this whole time?

......

Eww

[Yael]

Wizard is not always the answer. Even when it always is.

A party full of wizards isn't the ultimate team. Even when it is close to it.

[sakuuya]

......

Eww

Nah, I mean, it'd just taste like nothing to you, because it's what you're tasting when you're not tasting anything (http://wayside.wikia.com/wiki/Maurecia_%28book_chapter%29).

...Okay, maybe we should have a rule where I stop being so creepy. :smalltongue:

[Jormengand]

Nah, I mean, it'd just taste like nothing to you, because it's what you're tasting when you're not tasting anything (http://wayside.wikia.com/wiki/Maurecia_%28book_chapter%29).

...Okay, maybe we should have a rule where I stop being so creepy. :smalltongue:

My post about ice-cream not tasting of anything was originally due to an in-joke about truenamers, but never mind.

[nedz]

My post about ice-cream not tasting of anything was originally due to an in-joke about truenamers, but never mind.

Really ? And I thought you were referring to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?106111-We-All-Scream).

[thematgreen]

I'd like to see a rule against derailing. For example there was a recent topic about what made you walk away from a game and someone mentioned a character being raped, and then the topic was filled with people arguing about rape in the game, which had nothing to do with the actual topic.

I don't mind debate/discussion, but make a new topic.

[Venger]

Nah, that one is not true.

of course stormwind isn't true. that's why I and most other posters here are against it.

[eggynack]

of course stormwind isn't true. that's why I and most other posters here are against it.
The semantics around these fallacies is weird. I can't entirely tell whether you're agreeing with Jedipotter, or pointing out an error in the wording used. I honestly think the whole thing might be ambiguous. One could say, "The stormwind fallacy is wrong," to indicate either that thecore fallacy object is wrong, or that the idea that it's a fallacy is wrong.

[Extra Anchovies]

of course stormwind isn't true. that's why I and most other posters here are against it.

What do you mean by "isn't true"? Does that mean that you (among others) think that optimization and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive, or does it mean that you (among others) think that they are mutually exclusive? I'm a little confused.

[nedz]

I actually think that the Stormwind Fallacy only applies to certain character tropes — admittedly those tropes match optimised characters pretty closely. If you like playing an incompetent character, perhaps in some slap stick type game, then char-op is irrelevant for you. Now this type of game is not my cup of tea, but I have met players like that; which reduces the applicability of the Stormwind Fallacy to being a play-style issue.

[TheIronGolem]

I actually think that the Stormwind Fallacy only applies to certain character tropes — admittedly those tropes match optimised characters pretty closely. If you like playing an incompetent character, perhaps in some slap stick type game, then char-op is irrelevant for you. Now this type of game is not my cup of tea, but I have met players like that; which reduces the applicability of the Stormwind Fallacy to being a play-style issue.

Well, even then, you're optimizing in a way by deliberately making your character ineffective. Optimizing in the opposite direction than usual is still optimizing, and the Stormwind Fallacy still holds because this doing so doesn't make you a worse roleplayer.

But back on topic, I'm only half-joking when I say that there ought to be a rule against any variation of "MMO ON PAPER!" as a critique of any gaming system. I'm not even a fan of the one it's most commonly aimed at (4E), but it's lazy, nonsensical, and smacks heavily of badwrongfun and medium-snobbery.

[Chambers]

Are you saying that posting a Monkday thread should make a paladin fall?

"I agree Sir Monk, you should be proficient with thine fists. Verily, let us take the matter to the boards where we shall be enlightened by the...wait a minute...why do I suddenly feel like a fighter without any bonus feats?"

[Magma Armor0]

+1 for "less harsh on thread necromancy." I frequently see old threads brought back with a post asking a totally topic-relevant followup question that would absolutely be a great way to revive the discussion, except that the next post after that is the thread being locked.

I get that sometimes it's better to let old threads die (e.g., posting answers to questions that were asked months ago by people who are probably no longer checking for responses), but it seems like it might be nice to let some of them live too...

1stly, not sure if this is specific to the 3.5 forums or the site as a whole.

But I support the undemonizing of minor thread necromancy wholeheartedly, especially with regards to handbooks. What exactly is the logic behind the current ruling? I get that the constant cycling pushes threads off of page 1 faster, but starting a new thread on the same topic does too, does it not? And wouldn't keeping things contained to one thread theoretically use less GitP space? From a computer-y standpoint?

Not that I'm positive, but I think that's the case.

[The Random NPC]

1stly, not sure if this is specific to the 3.5 forums or the site as a whole.

But I support the undemonizing of minor thread necromancy wholeheartedly, especially with regards to handbooks. What exactly is the logic behind the current ruling? I get that the constant cycling pushes threads off of page 1 faster, but starting a new thread on the same topic does too, does it not? And wouldn't keeping things contained to one thread theoretically use less GitP space? From a computer-y standpoint?

Not that I'm positive, but I think that's the case.

From what I understand, necroing a thread is hard on the servers.

[Venger]

What do you mean by "isn't true"? Does that mean that you (among others) think that optimization and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive, or does it mean that you (among others) think that they are mutually exclusive? I'm a little confused.

the stormwind fallacy is the position that roleplaying and mechanical efficacy are inversely proportional.

I disagree with this because it is false.

[jedipotter]

the stormwind fallacy is the position that roleplaying and mechanical efficacy are inversely proportional.

I disagree with this because it is false.


It's true.

The stormwind fallacy is just a fancy way of saying ''be quiet, I won't talk about this and I'm right''.

Or to put it another way: The Stormwind Fallacy is an example of The Chewbacca defense.

[torrasque666]

the stormwind fallacy is the position that roleplaying and mechanical efficacy are inversely proportional.

I disagree with this because it is false.

Nooo.......


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.

The Stormwind Fallacy is that they are not proportional at all. You can be heavily optimized and a great roleplayer. They are not two sides of a scale.

[A_S]

Nooo.......



The Stormwind Fallacy is that they are not proportional at all. You can be heavily optimized and a great roleplayer. They are not two sides of a scale.
Venger is pointing out that the "Stormwind Fallacy," being, after all, a fallacy, refers to the incorrect ("fallacious," even) belief that roleplaying and optimization are inversely correlated; it does not refer to the (widely accepted, in these parts) belief that such thinking is wrong. As such, Venger (and most people on these boards) disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy (which is to say, we agree that such thinking is fallacious).

This clarification brought to you by your friendly neighborhood discourse nerd.

[Fiery Diamond]

Nooo.......



The Stormwind Fallacy is that they are not proportional at all. You can be heavily optimized and a great roleplayer. They are not two sides of a scale.

Er... I think you misunderstand.

The fallacious position is that they are inversely proportional.
The truth is that they are not proportional at all.

Therefore, the fallacy is the fallacious position. The Stormwind Fallacy is the fallacious position. It is labeled a fallacy because it is a fallacious position. The actual truth is not the Stormwind Fallacy.

[A_S]

Swordsages everywhere.

[eggynack]

As I noted earlier, the odd semantics of these fallacies make the meaning somewhat ambiguous. We talk about the stormwind fallacy as the core incorrect thing, but we also sometimes talk about it as the bigger idea, which has the opposite meaning. This should be reasonably clear from the fact that Venger's meaning contradicted the meaning that Torrasque took from it. However, now the ambiguity is not there, as there is clarification. So, it's all good. I suspect that Venger has used the correct wording, but even if he has, an ambiguity still comes from the fact that the terms are used improperly as often as not.

[georgie_leech]

As I noted earlier, the odd semantics of these fallacies make the semantics somewhat ambiguous. We talk about the stormwind fallacy as the core incorrect thing, but we also sometimes talk about it as the bigger idea, which has the opposite meaning. This should be reasonably clear from the fact that Venger's meaning contradicted the meaning that Torrasque took from it. However, now the ambiguity is not there, as there is clarification. So, it's all good. I suspect that Venger has used the correct wording, but even if he has, an ambiguity still comes from the fact that the terms are used improperly as often as not.

Really, I wish that there was some alternate name for it. Stormwind Fallacy certainly is evocative, but, you know, mass confusion. Perhaps Principle, since he's arguing for them being independent, not the sliding scale fallacy that some people believe.

[atemu1234]

The stormwind fallacy is just a fancy way of saying ''be quiet, I won't talk about this and I'm right''.

That sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?

Anyway, I disagree. Just because a character is optimized doesn't make it more difficult or easier to roleplay.

Minor stipulation, however- it does make it harder to write a coherent backstory, sometimes. Though I usually make do. For example, Silvanesti Wizard / Ab Champ / Ruathar - doesn't have to be difficult to roleplay if you write a backstory and character description that matches. A fighter barbarian might have been a conscript.

But this makes it no more or less hard to roleplay. The Stormwind Fallacy is the fallacy that states that the belief that Roleplaying and Optimization are inversely proportional. Some of the best characters ever made have been roleplayed well, and some of the worst have been single-class monks who are roleplayed with less personality than a brick wall.

They aren't an outlier, they're a widespread thing. You can optimize your character and roleplay. You can not optimize and roleplay - they aren't proportional to one another in the least, and have no effect on one another. The backstory thing I mentioned is just a minor flaw in optimization, one that doesn't even really affect roleplaying. Some characters simply don't have a backstory - and yet they have vibrant and wonderful personalities.

[georgie_leech]

They aren't an outlier, they're a widespread thing. You can optimize your character and roleplay. You can not optimize and roleplay - they aren't proportional to one another in the least, and have no effect on one another. The backstory thing I mentioned is just a minor flaw in optimization, one that doesn't even really affect roleplaying. Some characters simply don't have a backstory - and yet they have vibrant and wonderful personalities.

To illustrate this, imagine giving a strong Roleplayer a well-optimised character. Would the fact that the numbers on the character sheet are higher somehow make them worse at roleplaying? Conversely, consider a player who is never in character beyond "I attack" or "I cast X spell." Would they magically gain the ability to soliloquize and make Shakespeare weep if you gave them a Commoner 1 with Skill Focus (Craft (Basketweaving))?

[dascarletm]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

[georgie_leech]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

Restriction of character archetypes doesn't necessarily imply worse roleplaying however. While the mechanically optimal/viable choices in any system may be limited, your ability to roleplay said choices isn't. There's no reason that Vanilla Bean Masters can't also be roleplayed well.

[Fax Celestis]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

The Stormwind Thingamajobber doesn't deal with mechanical successes and failures of the rules themselves, but instead with the abilities and intentions of the player using them.

[Magma Armor0]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

Agreed with the above that this scenario doesn't exactly disprove the role playing thingy. The only place I could really see that getting in the way is a character going for swiftblade.

"Save us, o mighty wizard!"
"I can't! I can only cast haste until I take a level of swiftblade!"

Although I suppose that would just be roleplaying a character who values his personal power over the lives of the party. Still good (as in skillful) roleplaying, if a bit undesirable.

But the stormwind fallacy is only tangentially related to thread topic, amirite? Can we stay at least mostly on topic for the sake of the thread?

[eggynack]

Agreed with the above that this scenario doesn't exactly disprove the role playing thingy. The only place I could really see that getting in the way is a character going for swiftblade.

"Save us, o mighty wizard!"
"I can't! I can only cast haste until I take a level of swiftblade!"

Although I suppose that would just be roleplaying a character who values his personal power over the lives of the party. Still good (as in skillful) roleplaying, if a bit undesirable.
Or, more accurately, it's someone fully roleplaying their initiation into swiftblade. I somehow doubt that most swiftblades just fall into the class, saying, "Oh, hey. I guess I only cast haste out of third level slots that level. Fun."

[icefractal]

I have a theory about why the roleplaying / character power opposition appears to occur. Memory bias, basically.

Let's say we have a DM that's all about the roleplaying, either not caring about or being actively against CO. Now that DM has four players:
Player A: Weak Character, Poor Roleplaying - Fades into the background and likely doesn't get remembered.
Player B: Weak Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player C: Strong Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player D: Strong Character, Poor Roleplaying - Is remembered as having poor roleplaying. The strength of the character is also remembered, because it's the only notable thing about the PC.

So even though we have an even distribution, the categories that stick out in that DMs mind are "the good roleplayers" and "that bad roleplayer with the powerful character". Do the good roleplayers have powerful characters too? Well, that's not what he remembers about them, and on average they were less powerful, so they're not associated with that.

[icefractal]

Re: Optimization limiting character range.
This can be true, depending on the campaign parameters and what degree of optimization is being aimed for. It's orthagonal to how well roleplayed the character is though. Especially since you only play one character at a time, and there are a lot of characters even within the range of "very optimized". Probably more than you can go through in an entire lifetime.

[eggynack]

I have a theory about why the roleplaying / character power opposition appears to occur. Memory bias, basically.

Let's say we have a DM that's all about the roleplaying, either not caring about or being actively against CO. Now that DM has four players:
Player A: Weak Character, Poor Roleplaying - Fades into the background and likely doesn't get remembered.
Player B: Weak Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player C: Strong Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player D: Strong Character, Poor Roleplaying - Is remembered as having poor roleplaying. The strength of the character is also remembered, because it's the only notable thing about the PC.

So even though we have an even distribution, the categories that stick out in that DMs mind are "the good roleplayers" and "that bad roleplayer with the powerful character". Do the good roleplayers have powerful characters too? Well, that's not what he remembers about them, and on average they were less powerful, so they're not associated with that.
I've seen an alternate and similar theory that looks at it from the other end. Basically, if you assume that people with skill in neither roleplaying nor optimization drop out, because they just don't have any knack for the game, then you're left with people from groups B through D. Thus, even if all four categories have an equal number of members, the results would still skew towards roleplaying and optimization being inversely related.

[dascarletm]

Restriction of character archetypes doesn't necessarily imply worse roleplaying however. While the mechanically optimal/viable choices in any system may be limited, your ability to roleplay said choices isn't. There's no reason that Vanilla Bean Masters can't also be roleplayed well.

I agree with you, and I am not trying to implicate that. I'm merely stating that optimization can hinder roleplaying capacity on a case-by-case basis. Not talking about skill. More to the effect of what Magma said.

I fully believe that the general basis of the "Stormwind Fallacy" is true, with this small addendum.