General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Ok, this must be some newfangled fallacy because how are people who randomly generate thier characters and have no "build" options supposed to know if they are able to roleplay or not? If I happen to roll an 18 STR for my Basic D&D fighter should I scrap him as hopeless due to roleplaying concerns?
Ah, no, because only roll players use point buy, but role players roll their stats.
Confused yet?
The reason the fallacy exists is somewhat ironic, as it has nothing to do with roll playing or role playing or optimization. It came down to people needing a reason to hate new editions, and "It's all a bunch of roll players!" was an easy way to do so. Find someone who uses the word "roll players" in seriousness and, nine times out of ten, you'll find someone who won't play a game past 2e. The idea grew that 3e fostered power gaming, that most horrible curse word, and that "true roleplayers" would never get into it.
Which is funny, because 2e is the edition in which you gained an experience bonus for having high stats.
The other thing that it brought up was a HATRED for rolling your social skills, which is absolutely hilarious when you think about it. You can be a weakling nerd playing as a viking barbarian. You can be a college student playing as a wise old wizard. You can be an athiest playing as a devout cleric. But someone shy being a social character? That's just not role playing ;p
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Apart from the other ways in which this thread has been elucidating, it has brought to my attention a massive oversight, which desperately needs correction: I don't have a fallacy named after me.
I intend to address this by pouting until such time as I get one.
Apart from the other ways in which this thread has been elucidating, it has brought to my attention a massive oversight, which desperately needs correction: I don't have a fallacy named after me.
I intend to address this by pouting until such time as I get one.
Would you not have to formulate the Fallacy first?
The Vonklaude Fallacy: False belief that stuff one reads on one niche message board is universally known, relevant, and interesting to all other similar niche message boards. See also the related Lack of Foundation objection.
The Rel Fallacy: False sense of entitlement to having a fallacy named after one's self, usually accompanied by pouting.
Apart from the other ways in which this thread has been elucidating, it has brought to my attention a massive oversight, which desperately needs correction: I don't have a fallacy named after me.
I intend to address this by pouting until such time as I get one.
You aren't super cool until, like me, you have your own drink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouseferatu
I doubt your commitment to the Stormwind Fallacy.
Mouseferatu? What the hell kind of name is that? It's like some sort of superhero or something.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Last edited by ProfessorCirno; 31st August 2009 at 10:28 PM..
Reason: Yeah, that attempt at making a link didn't work. Stupid forum rules!
I see posts referencing the Stormwind Fallacy that miss out a key element of it. They go more or less like this 'Optimising is never incompatible with roleplaying'. Stormwind doesn't say that. Stormwind says 'Skill at optimising is not necessarily incompatible with skill at roleplaying'. Which is true. Consider...
A is the set of every possible character in RPG
B is the set of every optimised character in RPG
C is the set of every unoptimised character in RPG
D is the set of all B that can be roleplayed and all C that can be roleplayed.
Unless C is empty, or no character contained in C can be roleplayed, then D is necessarily larger than B. While you roleplay and don't optimise you have more character options than you do while you optimise. That is true so long as
1) B < A; and 2) Some C are in D.
[ ... ]
Now, is it just me, or does the OP, complaining about people incorrectly referencing the Stormwind Fallacy (which I also have never heard of 'til now), himself commit an error when referencing it?
If his assertation is valid that Stormwind says 'Skill at optimising is not necessarily incompatible with skill at roleplaying', then Stormwind is talking about players, not characters. Yet, Vonk's logical proof only deals with characters, not the people creating or playing them. He's basically attempting to disprove the idea that an optimized character can't be role-played.
Now personally I've heard plenty of accusations leveled against *players* who optimize not being roleplayers (or that "Roleplay Uber Alles!" players aren't playing the game right), but never that an optimized *character* can't be role-played. So, in essence, Vonk is setting up a strawman argument (as I jump on the logic buzzword bandwagon.)
Really, the proof should be more like:
A is the set of every existing roleplayer
B is the subset of A that are skilled at optimization but suck at roleplaying
c is the subset of A that are skilled at roleplaying but suck at optimization
D is the subset of A that are skilled to some degree at both roleplaying and optimization
E is the subset of A that suck at both
Like Umbran said, it's about psychology. People who are skilled at doing something a particular way tend to prefer to do things that way. As a form of validation, people often see their preferences as the "right" way, even if it is not the norm.
Isn't that what 99% of Internet arguments are about?
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
Now, is it just me, or does the OP, complaining about people incorrectly referencing the Stormwind Fallacy (which I also have never heard of 'til now), himself commit an error when referencing it?
No.
Quote:
If his assertation is valid that Stormwind says 'Skill at optimising is not necessarily incompatible with skill at roleplaying', then Stormwind is talking about players, not characters. Yet, Vonk's logical proof only deals with characters, not the people creating or playing them. He's basically attempting to disprove the idea that an optimized character can't be role-played.
False!
Quote:
Now personally I've heard plenty of accusations leveled against *players* who optimize not being roleplayers (or that "Roleplay Uber Alles!" players aren't playing the game right), but never that an optimized *character* can't be role-played. So, in essence, Vonk is setting up a strawman argument (as I jump on the logic buzzword bandwagon.)
Never!
Quote:
Really, the proof should be more like:
A is the set of every existing roleplayer
B is the subset of A that are skilled at optimization but suck at roleplaying
c is the subset of A that are skilled at roleplaying but suck at optimization
D is the subset of A that are skilled to some degree at both roleplaying and optimization
E is the subset of A that suck at both
Wrong
Quote:
Like Umbran said, it's about psychology.
No he did not.
Quote:
People who are skilled at doing something a particular way tend to prefer to do things that way. As a form of validation, people often see their preferences as the "right" way, even if it is not the norm.
It's not the norm.
Quote:
Isn't that what 99% of Internet arguments are about?
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Apart from the other ways in which this thread has been elucidating, it has brought to my attention a massive oversight, which desperately needs correction: I don't have a fallacy named after me.
I intend to address this by pouting until such time as I get one.
Does that mean you won't post until you have formulated such fallacy, or are you one of those rare males that can multitask? Pouting and posting at the same time?
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
Does that mean you won't post until you have formulated such fallacy, or are you one of those rare males that can multitask? Pouting and posting at the same time?
I'm virtually always doing something else while I post. IYKWIMAITYD.
If I happen to roll an 18 STR for my Basic D&D fighter should I scrap him as hopeless due to roleplaying concerns? 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
