Optimising versus Roleplaying

[Saeviomagy]

From his non-logically-sounding bits, VK seems to be saying that you can't use the argument that:

roll-playing and role-playing are not mutually exclusive

to say that

roll-playing AND role-playing at the same time is better than only role-playing without paying attention to the mechanics

Which may or may not be true.

But then his statistics seem to go on to say that role-players get to play more characters than roll-players, so therefore they are superior.

And if you want to tear up the logical argument and throw it away, you just have to construct a legal character in a system that cannot communicate or otherwise express itself (ie - not roleplayable), but is very very good at doing something (that it cannot make a decision to do/not do).

I'm sure that it would be trivial to find a system where it's possible to make an indestructable rock as a legitimate character. Said character is supremely optimized and impossible to roleplay. Does that make optimization better than roleplaying? No, don't be ridiculous! But it does disprove the "roleplayers are better because they can play more theoretical characters in the infinite matrix of characters" logical nonsense.

Now, on to the amusing spin-off arguments!

I propose that any fallacy produced on an internet forum is not actually a fallacy. I call it the fallacy fallacy.

I'm hoping someone manages to extend this fallacy somehow so that we get a horde of vikings descending from the ceiling chanting fallacy over and over again any time someone tries to continue the discussion.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In 3.5E, you could roleplay a sandwich.

 

[Nifft]

In 3.5E, you could roleplay a sandwich.

Only as a high-level Psion, though.

"Proof that Psionics is broken", -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In 3.5E, you could roleplay a sandwich.

Only as a high-level Psion, though.

"Proof that Psionics is broken", -- N

You could play one as a Sorcerer with Draconic, Celestial or Infernal heritage.

Or a Warlock!

Its the Broodwitch!

 

[pawsplay]

Balance was a problem when a person who optimizes heavily plays in the same game with a person who does not and this imbalance disrupts the game. The level of imbalance possible and easily attained using 3.5e(which is much greater than almost any other RPG, and is significantly more than previous editions) could easily disrupt the game and thus was a problem.

Actually, the amount of disruption is no more than that between two PCs of differing alignment, or between an "in-character" roleplayer and a "narrating" roleplayer. Further, the level of imbalance in 3.5 pales in comparison to powergaming exercises that could be executed in Rifts, Hero System, or Rifts, if you are willing to exclude blue-screen-of-death cases like Pun-Pun (who anyway depends not only only a poorly worded ability, but combining things that should not be combined, and using a setting-specific monster).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not true.

I can read and write. Sanskrit can be read and written. It does not logically follow that I can read or write Sanskrit.

You're adding new axioms, like the presence of different scripts. With new axioms, the conclusion might no longer be correct. That's also why formal logic only helps us when we can verify what axioms apply to the real world - we don't know all the axioms describing our world.

I could have writtten:
A can oldify. B can be oldified and tennerized. C can tennerize and oldify.
Therefore A can oldify B and C can tennerize B.

 

[clearstream]

VK seems to be saying that you can't use the argument that:

roll-playing and role-playing are not mutually exclusive

to say that

roll-playing AND role-playing at the same time is better than only role-playing without paying attention to the mechanics

Which may or may not be true.

But then his statistics seem to go on to say that role-players get to play more characters than roll-players, so therefore they are superior.

I am not saying either one is superior to the other. If you can find where I do, please tell me so I can amend it. Some posters, such as ProfessorCirno say that

Roleplaying and optimization are not connected. Trying to claim one reduces the other is a false dilemma.
​

That statement is provably false except in the sense that the Stormwind Fallacy relates, which is that skill at roleplay and optimisation are not connected.

It is provable that a true dilemma will in cases exist between roleplay and optimisation. I've further modified my OP to try and clarify that, and revised the thread title. The Stormwind Fallacy does in fact precisely deal with what I am arguing, but no matter...

-vk

EDIT I've spotted why you concluded I was saying one is superior. The argument naturally shows that you have more options while you don't apply a given limit--optimising--to your choices. Since individual players necessarily limit themselves in all kinds of ways, that is only of interest when you consider all possible players as a group. If you do then yes, you get more options for one group (roleplayers) over another (optimisers); I still don't think that's necessarily better.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I found that the Stormwind Fallacy loses its lustre once you realize that the dilemma that created it in 3.5E wasn't the fault of the players but of the system. I was in the trenches for the the Stormwind Fallacy crap over the WotC boards(I will say I joined them late), generally on the side of people who were criticizing optimizers. I was of the opinion that these optimizers were "doing it wrong" and going against good gaming etiquette. The whole "build" instead of character thing rubbed me the wrong way. In hindsight, though, 3.5E's system is what produces this dilemma, by rewarding this sort of optimization.

 

[Crothian]

I found that the Stormwind Fallacy loses its lustre once you realize that the dilemma that created it in 3.5E wasn't the fault of the players but of the system. I was in the trenches for the the Stormwind Fallacy crap over the WotC boards(I will say I joined them late), generally on the side of people who were criticizing optimizers. I was of the opinion that these optimizers were "doing it wrong" and going against good gaming etiquette. The whole "build" instead of character thing rubbed me the wrong way. In hindsight, though, 3.5E's system is what produces this dilemma, by rewarding this sort of optimization.

It is much older then 3.5 old World of Darkness had this problem and many point buy systems I've ran into it as well.

Build talk still bothers me as does optimization. But in my mind any character can be role played. It might not be fun or useful to the game but it can be role played.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It is much older then 3.5 old World of Darkness had this problem and many point buy systems I've ran into it as well.

Build talk still bothers me as does optimization. But in my mind any character can be role played. It might not be fun or useful to the game but it can be role played.

3.5E might not have created the problem or have been the sole source, but its where the Stormwind Fallacy was coined. I still say a lot of the fault falls on the system when the system rewards that sort of behavior to a large degree.