Optimising versus Roleplaying

[ProfessorCirno]

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

 

[Rel]

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.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Would you not have to formulate the Fallacy first?

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There isn't a FEAR ----------- LOVE line with optimization and roleplaying.

I doubt your commitment to the Stormwind Fallacy.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

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.

 

[Sir Brennen]

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?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

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!

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!

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

Like Umbran said, it's about psychology.

No he did not.

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.

Isn't that what 99% of Internet arguments are about?

No.

Spoiler

Monty Phyton Fallacy?

 

[darjr]

Uh... this thread is fascinating to me. For reasons other than what's it is purportedly about. My curiosity has drawn me into figuring this out.

at least for now

I agree that you can role play pretty much any character, as long as it has some... character. If not then you'll need to add some.

That unplayable mute, I think it might be quite a lot of fun, for a bit.