Optimising versus Roleplaying

[Nifft]

Fallacies for all!

There should be one for disagreeing with me. It should have a really important-sounding name.

Thanks, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Spite the Spiteful Fallacy?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Only if he constantly goes around saying "Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no mo', say no mo'."

Never has a thread on logical fallacies been more fun. Well, at least that's my hypothesis, and I challenge you all to prove me wrong.

 

[clearstream]

Perhaps, being more familiar with threads and posts related to SF, you have more information about the intent and discussions behind the statement you quoted. To be clear, when you posted "what SF is really saying", this is what I took it to mean:

"A player's skill at optimizing characters (in general) is not necessarily incompatible with that same player's skill at role-playing (in general)."
​

Nicely put.

and this is what I get your interpretation to be from your postings:

"The level of optimization of any random character is not necessarily incompatible with any possible player's skill at role-playing that particular character."
​

I'm sorry for mistaking your meaning before, and here again I confess I'm taking a stab at what I think you are saying. I tentatively put forward the following

"The level of optimisation of any random character will be incompatible with some possible player's roleplaying."
​

Please note the absence of the word 'skill'. It might be better to say 'can' rather than 'will'. At this point I'm not sure. Essentially, I have seen some posters arguing that you should always optimise because optimising is never incompatible with roleplaying. That's not really true: optimising is not incompatible with skill at roleplaying, but it can be incompatible with a players desired roleplay.

I've edited my OP to try and capture this. I feel it can be pared down more, but hopefully it's progressed.

-vk

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Straw man IS a fallacy. I dub this the Flatus Fallacy!

No, no, no. The Flatus Fallacy is "Whoever smelt it, dealt it."

 

[clearstream]

I've revised the OP further, to hopefully give a better picture of where the relevance of this came from for me. Really as Cadfan noted, it's a refutation to an argument that is sometimes used to bludgeon those who experience a genuine dilemma between optimising and roleplaying.

-vk

 

[Nifft]

No, no, no. The Flatus Fallacy is "Whoever smelt it, dealt it."

Isn't that more of a Axiom?

"As in: I pulled that out of my Axiom", -- N

 

[clearstream]

Please keep it on topic and respect other's right to discuss things they are interested in. There's plenty of digital space out there for everyone.

I would like to draw attention to an edit to my OP for those who would like to respond to the points made. Thanks!


-vk

 

[jaerdaph]

No, no, no. The Flatus Fallacy is "Whoever smelt it, dealt it."

Exactly - because everybody else knows, "whoever denied it, supplied it!"

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Please keep it on topic and respect other's right to discuss things they are interested in. There's plenty of digital space out there for everyone.

I would like to draw attention to an edit to my OP for those who would like to respond to the points made. Thanks!


-vk

Well the asides and off topic comments are quite funny (IMO) and somewhat more interesting than your op even the revised version.

I still find you op somewhat difficult to follow. If i understand you correctly you are saying that the character a person wishes to roleplay is going to be suboptimal (for some value of optimisation) and that some people claim that this is not so, citing the Stormwind Fallacy?

Now assuming that optimisation == combat optimisation, I suppose I would agree with you but what about it? what are you trying to achieve with this discussion? Why is it important?

Is it not up to you wether you want to play superbadass ninja or Old Tom or even Dead Tom.

Or am I totally missing the point