Optimising versus Roleplaying

[Samuel Leming]

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.

So, yeah, pretentious.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Watch it, sweet-talker, or my fiancee might get jealous.

I presume that is meant as an eXclusive OR? Or is the situation more dire?

 

[Dragongrief]

Unless C is empty, or no character contained in C can be roleplayed, then D is necessarily larger than B.

Since we're talking about fallacies, you may want to remove/revise this part as it is a false conclusion.

A= 30 characters
B= 15 characters
C= 15 characters

Of those, 5 from B and 8 from C can be roleplayed; meaning D<B.
Just for example. Unless all C is in D and C >= B, then you cannot assume D>B.

 

[Crothian]

Are there really characters out there that cannot be role played?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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?

 

[Starbuck_II]

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.

 

[Obryn]

Flag on the play. OP. Overuse of color, bold, and italic. 10-yard penalty, repeat first down.

-O

 

[Nagol]

[threadjack]

Are there really characters out there that cannot be role played?

Certainly, the deaf/mute, judged unfairly, feral upbringing Ars Magica companion I was presented with would seem to fall towards that category.

The character couldn't communicate normally, everyone always assumed the worst in his behaviour, and he didn't understand interpersonal interaction.

Shockingly enough the character saw few opportunities for play.

[/threadjack]

 

[Cadfan]

Count me in at least the former category.

Basically...

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.

 

[clearstream]

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