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.
Sometimes posters say that you should always optimise because optimising is never incompatible with roleplaying. They will say things like
Roleplaying and optimization are not connected. Trying to claim one interferes with the other is a false dilemma.
It appears possible to show that their argument is mistaken as follows (using D&D as the example).
Let's take as a premise that every possible character in D&D can be roleplayed.
Let's say that some possible characters in D&D are optimised, and some are not optimised.
Since every character in D&D is roleplayable, and some are not optimised, then it is possible to roleplay a character that is not optimised.
Where a player desires to roleplay a character that happens to be a character that is not optimised, to optimise precludes their roleplaying the specific character they desired to roleplay. A true dilemma occurs - either roleplay the character, or optimise.
The possibility to do something is not the same as the skill at doing it. Skill at optimising is unconnected to skill at roleplaying (that's the false dilemma people refer to, aka the Stormwind Fallacy) but doing one can interfere with the possibility of doing the other: in such cases a genuine dilemma occurs.
vk
Last edited by vonklaude; 3rd September 2009 at 10:29 PM..
Reason: To remove unintentional obfuscation!
Dragongrief points out that with a configuration like the below
A= 30 characters
B= 15 characters, 5 can be roleplayed (are in D)
C= 15 characters, 8 can be roleplayed (are in D)
D<B
The reason I stated that it isn't essential to my argument that this is not so is that the implied premises for the above look unsupportable. You would be saying that 'some but not all optimised characters can be roleplayed' and 'some but not all unoptimised characters can be roleplayed' and additionally that 'the number of C that can be roleplayed is fewer or equal to the number of B that cannot be roleplayed'.
If you did happen to feel that all those premises were true, then you would as Dragongrief says find an objection to the argument.
-vk
Last edited by vonklaude; 31st August 2009 at 04:53 PM..
The "Stormwind Fallacy" isn't so much of a "thing" here. People aren't going to know what you're talking about, and won't particularly care.
Count me in at least the former category.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
I find people trying desperately to generate jargon in RPG circles to be amusing. Now if those same people would not use it to try and make themselves feel superior.....
As for the content, I do not think I could care less about the SF.
I find people trying desperately to generate jargon in RPG circles to be amusing. Now if those same people would not use it to try and make themselves feel superior.....
As for the content, I do not think I could care less about the SF.
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?>
Last edited by Mustrum_Ridcully; 31st August 2009 at 02:27 PM..
Reason: why do I hate orthography?
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?>
I find people trying desperately to generate jargon in RPG circles to be amusing. Now if those same people would not use it to try and make themselves feel superior.....
As for the content, I do not think I could care less about the SF.
It's just a specific case of the False Dichotomy fallacy named after some guy that was rude to a lot of people over on the WotC board.
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?>
I'm confused, how can a character prevent roleplay? or how can the set of characters that can be roleplayed be less than the set of possible characters?
It's just a specific case of the False Dichotomy fallacy named after some guy that was rude to a lot of people over on the WotC board.
So, yeah, pretentious.
That is a little insulting.
He was never rude to anyone (well, there wasa literature topic where he was rude to Harry Potter), but other than not liking Harry Potter he is a decent guy.
The fallacy was named after him because he kept showing why they are not neccesarily incompatible.
Same as the Jelly Moo principle.
People name stuff after them after they hear it enough from them.
It is usuallyeasier to name stuff then just repeat it.
After all, we do have Newton's 3rd law: because someone named it after newton.
__________________ "If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you."
and
"Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
You know how one of the repeat, ongoing flamewars in gaming fora is the assertion that this or that group is all a bunch of powergamers who can't roleplay? Like, I start a thread mathematically analyzing expected damage outputs for various striker class characters in 4e, and someone comes in and tells me that obviously I game for the wrong reasons and they're so glad they get to play with people who actually roleplay?
Stormwind is the WotC forum name of a guy who always got mad about the people who threadcrap in that manner, and constantly engaged with them to argue that its perfectly possible to optimize a character, and then roleplay it. Given the fetish many geeks have for pretending to understand formal logic, this got a fallacy name, and it was named after him: the Stormwind Fallacy.
Unfortunately, due to said fetish geeks have for pretending to understand formal logic, it is now often used there as a bludgeon- in geekdom, there are many to believe that identifying a named fallacy in your opponent's reasoning is somehow the ultimate trump move of argumentation. So naturally its dreadfully overused, and wielded against anyone who makes the slightest complaint about over optimization or power gaming in an RPG.
Ya, I never say the point of treating gaming discussions like a science experiment. And what the heck is up with the reserved post?
The reserved post is for collating notes arising, if any Games are often analysed in two main ways; narrativist and ludogical. Either approach may make recourse to the tools of argumentation that help us get what we are saying straight.
For instance, Dragongrief reveals that logical arguments must be based on worthwhile premises. We can look at all the possible arrangements of B that are R and C that are R, and if we like choose one arrangment over others and proceed with that arrangement as Dragongrief does. The conclusion reached will however rely on the truth of a tenuous set of implied premises. Crothian's post straight after immediately questions those premises; I think most RPG gamers would do so.
As I say, my personal reading is that all characters can be roleplayed. That isn't necessary for the argument, as for many equally justified configurations of B and C the outcome is the same. For those that are not, one first has to put the premises and see if they feel sound, before one can really raise them as an objection.
-vk
Last edited by vonklaude; 31st August 2009 at 04:24 PM..
Games are often analysed in two main ways; narrativist and ludogical. Either approach may make recourse to the tools of argumentation that help us get what we are saying straight. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
