Optimising versus Roleplaying

[catsclaw227]

I have no idea what this Stormwind Fallacy is either, and I also fall under the other camp that probably doesn't care.

What tweaks me is that there's actually a Formal Name for the counter argument to the idea that there any RPG character can be RP'ed, optimized or not. If they can't be RP'ed then how the heck did they get generated using the rules of an RPG?

And why would someone want to "proclaim" that I cannot RP a character that I generated?

Am I getting this wrong and completely misunderstanding things?

 

[Cadfan]

And why would someone want to "proclaim" that I cannot RP a character that I generated?

Am I getting this wrong and completely misunderstanding things?

A little bit. Basically, people sometimes make smug comments about roleplayers versus "rollplayers," and someone decided to take things to the next level by refuting them with formal logic instead of just pointing and laughing.

Then, geeks being geeks, the formal logic took on a life of its own as people refined it and rephrased it until they were talking about for every p this and for every q that.

 

[maddman75]

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.

One of my favorite PC in my Buffy game is a mentally disabled boy with few real useful skills. He was kind of good at fixing things, and physically strong. But really, he was barely literate. He really worked because he was the moral heart of the group. When everyone else was getting all 'ends justified the means' he was 'this is WRONG'.

I still don't know what the fallacy is all about, if its about saying you can play characters that are really optimized, or you can play characters that aren't really optimized.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine a system like Unisystem or GURPS or something where the PCs buy drawbacks. I take the drawbacks Blind, Deaf, and Quadraplegic, without any kind of psychic ability or other cheese to overcome them. Can I really play this character in the context of most games?

 

[coyote6]

As I say, my personal reading is that all characters can be roleplayed.

Some characters are very boring to roleplay well. The largest set of such boring characters is (minus ghosts, necromancy, or the like), of course, the set of all dead characters.

("What do you do this round?" "Lie silently, and maybe decompose a bit.")

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Yeah, count me as one who is happy to be unaware of what this is about.

When I read the thread title I was wondering what the largest human city in the Eastern Kingdoms had to do with tabletop rpgs?

 

[Umbran]

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.

Caveat: we have demonstrated before that we don't all use the same definition of "role playing". It is rather difficult to determine if it can be done with all characters if we don't all agree on what it is.

That being said, for my personal money, what can and cannot be role played has little to do with statistics, but instead has to do with psychology - if the character has motivations, reactions, and modes of cognition that the player can wrap their head around, then they can role play that character.

In a theoretical sense, there's the concept of the "varelse" (as Orson Scott Card put it), a being with whom communication is not possible, so that no common ground can be established. If varelse beings exist, it would not be possible for a human to role play one.

In a practical sense, if you hand someone a character that is blind, deaf, mute, and quadriplegic, I don't think it would at all odd for them to return the character with the words, "I cannot play that". Not just in the sense that they'd have zero fun, but in the sense that they may legitimately feel they do not have a frame of reference that allows them to figure out how such a character could or would respond to stimuli.

These, of course, are extreme examples just for consideration of the point. It isn't like these things come up often.

 

[Engilbrand]

Person A: My fighter is optimized. I made sure that he can do his job effectively, and he doesn't suck. I'm working on his background and personality.

Person B: I gave my Fighter a 16 Intelligence with no interest in doing anything mechanically with it. My character isn't very good at what he does. I'm going to roleplay my 16 Int, though. Person A is a rollplayer, not a roleplayer.

Person B has just committed the Stormwind Fallacy. His mind has made the connection that "mechanically good = roleplay bad" and "mechanically bad = roleplay good". I don't go to the WotC boards anymore, but that's how I remember it. There are truly people who think that the only way to roleplay well is to make a character who sucks mechanically.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Stormwind Fallacy is, simply enough, a shorter way of saying "A false dilemma fallacy in which you contend that optimization of a character and the ability to roleplay that character are at odds with each other."

As you can see, one is notably shorter then the other

At it's base, all the fallacy says is "optimization and roleplaying aren't linked together." You can be awesome at one, awesome at both, or crap at both. There isn't a FEAR ----------- LOVE line with optimization and roleplaying. It's not about saying that you can roleplay anything. It's not even about roleplaying itself. It's simply stating that optimization vs roleplayability is a false dilemma. You can have an optimal character that has actual character. You can have a well built and three dimensional character that's optimized.

The whole thing came about when the ROLL PLAYERS VS ROLE PLAYERS was rearing it's ugly head as the moons prophecized. Instead of just watching both sides insult each other, however, Stormwind decided to make an actual logical argument that went beyond aimless personal attacks. Of course, since then, he has be a lightning rod and figure head for people to hate on, so that went well.

Also, Stormwind was a pretty chill guy. I never saw him being really rude to others. He was pretty against the whole thing being named after himself, too, as I recall.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Person A: My fighter is optimized. I made sure that he can do his job effectively, and he doesn't suck. I'm working on his background and personality.

Person B: I gave my Fighter a 16 Intelligence with no interest in doing anything mechanically with it. My character isn't very good at what he does. I'm going to roleplay my 16 Int, though. Person A is a rollplayer, not a roleplayer.

Person B has just committed the Stormwind Fallacy. His mind has made the connection that "mechanically good = roleplay bad" and "mechanically bad = roleplay good". I don't go to the WotC boards anymore, but that's how I remember it. There are truly people who think that the only way to roleplay well is to make a character who sucks mechanically.

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?

 

[coyote6]

When I read the thread title I was wondering what the largest human city in the Eastern Kingdoms had to do with tabletop rpgs?

I was thinking the Stormwind Fallacy was a dissertation on the flaws of Varian Wrynn's wacked-out "blame it all on Thrall and the Horde" response to the Grand Apothecary's betrayal at the Wrathgate.