Optimising versus Roleplaying

[wedgeski]

I thought this was going to be a Warcraft thread.

<--- disappointed

 

[Thaumaturge]

I thought this was going to be a Warcraft thread.

<--- disappointed

Thus, the wedgeski Fallacy was born.

Thaumaturge.

 

[clearstream]

Heh. The character of replies is kind of amusing. I liked most Obryn's Fallacy.

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?

He does not commit an error when referencing it; but he can see from posts to the thread that SF is less well known than he supposed!

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.

If I take the meaning of your double-negative correctly, then no, he is not trying to prove that an optimised character can't be roleplayed. He says that his view is that optimised characters can be roleplayed, but he doesn't try to prove that either.

What he is suggesting is really the mirror case: that unoptimised characters can be roleplayed. If that is true, then at times a player's desires WRT their roleplay can conflict with their desires WRT optimising. It is not a false dilemma to say that player must choose one or the other in that case: and SF does not apply.

B is the subset of A that are skilled at optimization but suck at roleplaying

The argument addresses the possibility of, not the skill at. Confusion between the two is far more common than I had at first supposed!

-vk

 

[Engilbrand]

I still don't understand how often people on this board use Logicspeak and Mathspeak. When you're pretending to be an Elf- which seems to be the most common stereotype- it seems strange to me that people would feel the need to "prove" anything.
I optimize my characters. I roleplay. I get annoyed when the people around me don't even minimally optimize their characters because they think that creating mechanically crappy characters is the best way to roleplay.

 

[clearstream]

I still don't understand how often people on this board use Logicspeak and Mathspeak. When you're pretending to be an Elf- which seems to be the most common stereotype- it seems strange to me that people would feel the need to "prove" anything.

Some members of the gaming community also study games. For those who do, it is helpful to have recourse to more formal methods of argumentation. The idea is that it helps to get your point across in a way that makes it easier for others to understand and address. If like me you unhappily make the mistake of assuming knowledge that not all participants in the discussion have access to, then your point might still be lost.

I optimize my characters. I roleplay. I get annoyed when the people around me don't even minimally optimize their characters because they think that creating mechanically crappy characters is the best way to roleplay.

You might be mistaking the approach of those who don't optimise. They are not making their characters crappy in order to roleplay them, but rather they are putting roleplaying first and don't care if their character is optimised or not so long as it works for their RP.

Since P&P RPG is an arbitrated non-zero-sum activity in which choices can materially impact outcomes, there really isn't an objective need to optimise.

-vk

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Some members of the gaming community also study games. For those who do, it is helpful to have recourse to more formal methods of argumentation. The idea is that it helps to get your point across in a way that makes it easier for others to understand and address. If like me you unhappily make the mistake of assuming knowledge that not all participants in the discussion have access to, then your point might still be lost.

I am not convinced that formal logic is helpful when discussing the act of roleplaying. It is probably most helpful for describing the mechanical aspects of RPGs, but the "interactive"/"storytelling"/roleplaying" aspect?

Formal Logic consists of rules to generate new conclusions. But you can only reach new conclusions if you start with some premises or axioms.

For applying formal logic to any system, we need to establish these premises (and we must ensure that these premises are true at every point).

It is a lot simpler to prove the Stormwind Fallacy by showing a optimzied character and the player optimzing and roleplaying that character than using formal logic.

Why do I have to think of these "logic" questions my father had to solve at the police academy?
[sblock]
Axioms: All pencils can write, and all books can read. Glasses can read and write.
Conclusion: Therefore glasses are smarter than pencils and books.
The conclusion is wrong, because the axioms do not state anything about intelligence.

Axioms: All pencils can write, and all books can be written and read. Glasses can read and write.
Conclusion: Pencils can write books. Glasses can read books.
This conclusion is correct.
[/sblock]

 

[lutecius]

I'd rather have a fallacy named after me than a phallus inside of me...

But your choice is based on the salacious fallacious premise that it has to be one or the other. You can have both.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But your choice is based on the salacious fallacious premise that it has to be one or the other. You can have both.

So that's the jaerdaph fallacy?

I don't need my own fallacy.

 

[jaerdaph]

So that's the jaerdaph fallacy?

And thus I have achieved my desired outcome.

Quod erat demonstrandum!



"If you were half a man, you'd buy the 4e Monster Manual."
"If I were half a man, I'd *be* in the 4e Monster Manual!"

Yeah, I like that Groucho smiley!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And thus I have achieved my desired outcome.

Quod erat demonstrandum!



"If you were half a man, you'd buy the 4e Monster Manual."
"If I were half a man, I'd be *in* the 4e Monster Manual!"

Yeah, I like that Groucho smiley!

Emphasis mine. Not sure it works better.