Optimising versus Roleplaying

[maddman75]

I would agree that any character can be roleplayed, regardless of their level of optimization.

I would also agree that there's not much point in applying formal logic to the best way to pretend to be an elf.

 

[clearstream]

I would agree that any character can be roleplayed, regardless of their level of optimization.

I would also agree that there's not much point in applying formal logic to the best way to pretend to be an elf.

The argument isn't designed to be pejorative on any level, rather to resist that.

As Cadfan notices, it is a formal response to a ill-founded position sometimes used to try to tell some people that one way of playing is better than another. For instance, that one way of pretending to be an Elf is better than another.

Occasionally people adduce SF as logical proof in support of an argument that it does not prove, nor even attempts to prove.

-vk

 

[Obryn]

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.

OK, after reading some more, I'm firmly in both camps now.

Is this some kind of crazy cross-board drama? Or is it just an example of someone from one board thinking that what happens on that board is universal (and interesting) to all gaming boards? I'm confused.

I would also agree that there's not much point in applying formal logic to the best way to pretend to be an elf.

And, yet again, maddman wins the thread.

-O

 

[UngainlyTitan]

[threadjack]



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]

That is not an unplayable character, just one that is not much fun to play. I will accept that there are characters that may not be much fun or very viable in particular scenarios but that is not the same as unplayable.

 

[clearstream]

...is it just an example of someone from one board thinking that what happens on that board is universal (and interesting) to all gaming boards? I'm confused.

Yes, I felt it may be interesting to others. If it is not interesting to you, why post?

-vk

 

[Cadfan]

Is this some kind of crazy cross-board drama? Or is it just an example of someone from one board thinking that what happens on that board is universal (and interesting) to all gaming boards? I'm confused.

Possibly. I do believe this is a crosspost.

 

[Obryn]

Yes, I felt it may be interesting to others. If it is not interesting to you, why post?

-vk

Boredom? An attempt to figure out if this is relevant to anything in any of my games? It took an effort, after cutting through the jargon. Heck; without Cadfan's cliff's notes version, I'd still be lost. I think there's an essential ingredient of communication that you're skipping - describing what this is, and why it's important, before delving into the formal logic.

-O

 

[Crothian]

Shockingly enough the character saw few opportunities for play.

Yest even that extreme example can be role played. It might not be fun or easy to do but I contend all characters can be role played.

 

[Jack99]

Isn't the Stormwind more of a WotC-board-thing? I rarely ever see it mentioned over here.

A quick search reveals that often go by without it being mentioned on this forum.

 

[Ktulu]

Yeah, I've never heard it used here until now.

I always took it to mean you don't have to build a crappy combat/optimized character (i.e. profession skills in lieu of stealth) to have a good RP character, and you're not a bad character for RP if you're purely optimized; in the end, it's all just how you want to play your character, so don't blame the rules.

That's what I took from the endless threads on it. Seems simple enough and doesn't require a lot of further argument on it.