Optimising versus Roleplaying
- Thread starter clearstream
- Start date
fireinthedust
Explorer
I don't know if there have been edits, but I get what he's saying in the few posts posted.
I likewise propose that many arguments or topics of discussion about roleplaying have about the same level of explaination for why they're relevant to gamers.
For me (and just me, at least) I assume that having a topic on the boards is asking people who read it to post what they think. If people aren't interested in "the new 2010 setting" then they're going to check it out but not post.
I enjoy reading the logical breakdown of the quandry. I'm not familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy, but now I'm interested in this nifty bit of Forum Lore that has been pointed out/dated. Kinda like RPG history. Heh, DC30 history check!
I admit, I thought it was referencing WoW's server. Did anyone else get that?
Marius Delphus
Adventurer
The who, in the what, for the why, now?
I've been gaming a long darn time, and I have no idea what a "Stormwind" is nor why the notion that (if I read the OP correctly) "some powergamers also roleplay" is being called a fallacy.
Count my vote under the column labled "Won't Understand What You Mean by a 'Stormwind Fallacy.'"
I've been gaming a long darn time, and I have no idea what a "Stormwind" is nor why the notion that (if I read the OP correctly) "some powergamers also roleplay" is being called a fallacy.
Count my vote under the column labled "Won't Understand What You Mean by a 'Stormwind Fallacy.'"
clearstream
(He, Him)
Essentially, SF states that it is a false dilemma to put the ability to roleplay in contradiction to the ability to optimise. Being good at one doesn't stop you being good at the other. Skill at one doesn't tell you anything about skill at the other, because so far as we can tell they are unconnected.
Note that word 'ability'. In SF it is used to mean something like 'skill at', but it can be read to mean 'possibility of'.
All I'm showing is a narrow case where the possibility of optimising (choosing an optimsed character) is in contradiction with the possibility of roleplaying (choosing a character that is roleplayable, but is not optimised). If your roleplaying motivations lead you to desire to play an unoptimised character, then unless you change those desires you are faced with an actual dilemma. SF doesn't apply (and FTM doesn't try to apply).
I am addressing a misreading of SF. I'm not commenting on whether one thing is better than another thing, or any other extended conclusion such as those illustrated so nicely in Mustrum_Ridcully's examples.
-vk
Nifft
Penguin Herder
It's something from the old WotC forums. It's basically short-hand for a counter-argument against a very common complaint.
It's not very relevant here.
Cheers, -- N
Marius Delphus
Adventurer
Well, thanks for trying to clarify it for me, but I can't be convinced that making a big analytical deal about it is the least bit useful.
In order to turn this into some kind of law of gaming, you have to define the terms "ability to roleplay/skill at roleplaying," "ability to optimize/skill at optimizing (-ization)," "optimized," "unoptimized," "roleplayable," and "unroleplayable" to start. Then you have to explain how each thing is measured. Then you have to explain where your data is coming from and how it fits your terms.
"Some powergamers also roleplay. Some roleplayers also powergame." This still appears to me to be the sum total of the insight being offered. I simply don't buy into the need for a statistical analysis or a proper name, sorry. Perhaps I have stuck my nose in where it doesn't belong.
In order to turn this into some kind of law of gaming, you have to define the terms "ability to roleplay/skill at roleplaying," "ability to optimize/skill at optimizing (-ization)," "optimized," "unoptimized," "roleplayable," and "unroleplayable" to start. Then you have to explain how each thing is measured. Then you have to explain where your data is coming from and how it fits your terms.
"Some powergamers also roleplay. Some roleplayers also powergame." This still appears to me to be the sum total of the insight being offered. I simply don't buy into the need for a statistical analysis or a proper name, sorry. Perhaps I have stuck my nose in where it doesn't belong.
Vartan
First Post
And now for something completely different
This thread has been very educational and, along with a few podcasts I've been listening to recently, has shown me that the "roll vs. role," "don't be a min-maxer," etc. arguments can still draw a crowd.
The "play acting" aspect of role-playing is a difficult one to master. I've known people who have played for years and but still don't feel comfortable speaking in character. I can make a mechanically successful character, but I can't do what some of these serious char-op guys are capable of. If I told someone else that they needed to take acting lessons because they aren't a good role-player then it would be like someone telling me that I need to take some statistics classes because my character isn't effective enough in combat.
As someone who enjoys a more "storytelling' style of play, who enjoys speaking in character and developing a rich concept and background before I fire up the Character Builder, I feel like I can say this: people who put down "min-maxers" or pull this "roll vs. role" stuff need to stop acting like jerks on the internet. This is why we have formal logical arguments justifying optimized character generation and this is why, one day, an angry counter-clique of min-maxers might arise to give us
at the table because my rogue's DPR is too low.
My "bard with the mistaken identity" steals the show when we try to convince the King to finance our expedition, your "dual-wielding Ranger death machine" takes center stage when the Orcs ambush our party...we both have fun, and the game is big enough for both of us.
This thread has been very educational and, along with a few podcasts I've been listening to recently, has shown me that the "roll vs. role," "don't be a min-maxer," etc. arguments can still draw a crowd.
The "play acting" aspect of role-playing is a difficult one to master. I've known people who have played for years and but still don't feel comfortable speaking in character. I can make a mechanically successful character, but I can't do what some of these serious char-op guys are capable of. If I told someone else that they needed to take acting lessons because they aren't a good role-player then it would be like someone telling me that I need to take some statistics classes because my character isn't effective enough in combat.
As someone who enjoys a more "storytelling' style of play, who enjoys speaking in character and developing a rich concept and background before I fire up the Character Builder, I feel like I can say this: people who put down "min-maxers" or pull this "roll vs. role" stuff need to stop acting like jerks on the internet. This is why we have formal logical arguments justifying optimized character generation and this is why, one day, an angry counter-clique of min-maxers might arise to give us
at the table because my rogue's DPR is too low.My "bard with the mistaken identity" steals the show when we try to convince the King to finance our expedition, your "dual-wielding Ranger death machine" takes center stage when the Orcs ambush our party...we both have fun, and the game is big enough for both of us.
Abraxas
Explorer
Given that I've never seen this referenced on ENworld before (even though it appears it may have been) and particularly because it doesn't seem to have popped up here recently (and then been used to sidetrack a thread) , I'm curious why the original post was made at all.
It just seems so completely out of left field - even moreso than the usual out-of-left-field threads that pop up here. (and given the number of odd follow up posts should probably have a humor tag)
It just seems so completely out of left field - even moreso than the usual out-of-left-field threads that pop up here. (and given the number of odd follow up posts should probably have a humor tag)
Obryn
Hero
I'd guess he was proud of being able to apply his college philosophy coursework on a post of his he liked, so he cross-posted it from the WotC boards (where they might know and/or care what he was talking about) to here (where we mostly don't know, and mostly don't care).
Just a guess, though.
-O
Similar Threads
