Optimising versus Roleplaying

[MarkB]

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.

Would you mind not doing that again, please? It's terribly bad forum etiquette.

Dozens of people have replied to your OP in its previous incarnations, so altering it every time you want to modify your viewpoint turns the thread into a nonsense for anyone trying to read it from start to finish.

As it is, you've effectively orphaned the entire discussion of the nature of the Stormwind Fallacy, which forms the majority of this thread, by removing it from both the content and title of your post.

If you feel the need to restate your point of view, then re-state it, in a new post - don't alter the words that people have already replied to.

Sometimes posters say that you should always optimise because optimising is never incompatible with roleplaying. They will say things like

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

It appears possible to show that their argument is mistaken as follows (using D&D as the example).

Let's take as a premise that every possible character in D&D can be roleplayed.

Let's say that some possible characters in D&D are optimised, and some are not optimised.

Since every character in D&D is roleplayable, and some are not optimised, then it is possible to roleplay a character that is not optimised.

In that case, to optimise would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. A true dilemma occurs.
​

Essentially, the possibility to do something is not the same as the skill at doing it. Skill at optimising is unconnected to skill at roleplaying, but doing one can interfere with the possibility of doing the other: in such cases a genuine dilemma occurs.

vk

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. You've stated, clearly, that all characters can be role-played, and that optimised characters fall within the set of 'all characters'. Therefore, all optimised characters can be role-played.

If that is true, then limiting yourself to only optimised characters (or only any subset of characters) does not impinge upon whether you can role-play them, because as you've stated, they can all be role-played.

The fact that non-optimised characters can also be role-played does not, in any way, impact upon the capacity of players to role-play characters that do not fall into the 'non-optimised' set. Therefore, the very existence or non-existence of that set is irrelevant to players' ability to role-play.

 

[Marius Delphus]

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.

Continued edits to the OP aside, this footnote, here, is an example of circular thinking. In essence: players who limit themselves limit themselves.

So what?

We've already discussed the notion that the terms of the argument in the OP still haven't been defined. This should serve to destroy the idea that an "optimized" character is antithetical to a "roleplayable" character in any way, because the two terms have yet to be understood as contradicting each other, and several posters (including me) counter that, to the extent those terms can be defined, they are not antonyms.

But here's the reason I don't buy the argument or the quoted footnote, indented and colored:

The universe of options considered by an individual player creating a game character is never and cannot be identical to the universe of possible characters that may be created within the game system.
​

In other words, high-falutin' syllogisms (especially invalid ones) about character creation options are irrelevant because they disregard what real people think about and do at real game tables. Let's say I'm starting a new D&D 4E campaign, but I don't want to create a dragonborn barbarian. Doesn't matter what my reason is; I won't do it. I am not thereby restricting my options; I never had that option to begin with. Put a different way, I haven't discarded anything; instead, that option is a non-option and isn't within my universe of possible characters.

Let's now suppose that on game day, I'm handed a dragonborn barbarian, pregenerated, and told by the DM to forget playing anything else in this campaign. Well, now my universe of options is, we can say, entirely different from the universe I had before: whereas it didn't include a dragonborn barbarian, but included a host of other potential characters, now it includes one particular dragonborn barbarian and excludes any other potential character (given that I'm going to play in the first place).

And who knows? I might have a good time.

Character creation, in the abstract, isn't about plucking options from the Platonic Ideal tree; it's not about Venn diagrams, statistics, or probability math*; it's about real people trying to have a good time at real gaming tables [EDIT: or virtual replacements therefor]. Something I think the quoted footnote and the mercilessly pruned OP ignore.

* These things might come up in the context of the game system itself, but in this context I consider the game system to be within concrete reality.

And I still can't figure out a rationalization that makes "roleplayable" antonymous with "optimized." It just doesn't compute. My Hidden Agenda Sense is tingling.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Let's take as a premise that every possible character in D&D can be roleplayed.

Let's say that some possible characters in D&D are optimised, and some are not optimised.

Since every character in D&D is roleplayable, and some are not optimised, then it is possible to roleplay a character that is not optimised.

In that case, to optimise would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. A true dilemma occurs.​

Reducing this to syllogism form reveals an invalid conclusion.

All [D&D PCs] are [RPable D&D PCs]
​

This we'll take as the minor premise.

Some [D&D PCs] are [Optim D&D PCs]
Some [D&D PCs] are not [Optim D&D PCs]
​

One of these gets to be the major premise.

Some [RPable D&D PCs] are not [Optim D&D PCs]
​

This first conclusion is valid.

Some [Optim D&D PCs] are not [RPable D&D PCs]
​

This second conclusion is not valid.

In addition, there is absolutely nothing here about player skill at doing anything, as MarkB points out above. So I agree that the bit I didn't quote is a complete non sequitur.

 

[clearstream]

Reducing this to syllogism form reveals an invalid conclusion.

All [D&D PCs] are [RPable D&D PCs]
​

This we'll take as the minor premise.

Some [D&D PCs] are [Optim D&D PCs]
Some [D&D PCs] are not [Optim D&D PCs]
​

One of these gets to be the major premise.

Some [RPable D&D PCs] are not [Optim D&D PCs]
​

This first conclusion is valid.

Some [Optim D&D PCs] are not [RPable D&D PCs]
​

This second conclusion is not valid.

You have added an invalid conclusion of your own to my argument. My actual conclusion is logically valid.

-vk

 

[Dausuul]

You're adding new axioms, like the presence of different scripts. With new axioms, the conclusion might no longer be correct.

If an argument is logically sound, then you can add new axioms till the cows come home. As long as the original axioms also remain in force, the conclusion will never change. That's the whole point of deductive logic.

The proper answer to "I can read. A book can be read. Can I read a book?" is not "Yes" but "Insufficient information," because it has not yet been established that books fall into the category of things I can read. For all you know, I might be a disk head, capable of reading nothing but magnetic dots.

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.

The new example is equally invalid. It is quite possible that the only thing A can oldify is D. In this case your premises stand (A can oldify, B can be oldified) but your conclusion is false (A cannot oldify B).

To make your logic hold up, you need to add a clause:

Glasses can read anything that can be read. Books can be read. Therefore glasses can read books.
A can oldify anything that can be oldified. B can be oldified. Therefore A can oldify B.

 

[Marius Delphus]

...
In that case, to optimise would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. A true dilemma occurs.​

...
Some [Optim D&D PCs] are not [RPable D&D PCs]
​

This second conclusion is not valid.

Making the translation explicit.

 

[clearstream]

Making the translation explicit.

In that case [in that case, i.e. the case where chosen roleplay maps for you to a character that happens to be one that is not optimised]

to optimise [e.g. if another player starts telling you how to play, and says you have to optimise your character]

would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. [the character that matches your desired roleplay happens to be one that is not optimised, to optimise will mean that you are not roleplaying the character that matched your desired roleplay]

A true dilemma occurs. [being forced to choose between roleplaying as you desire or optimising, i.e. changing or setting aside your desire, is a dilemma].

Maybe it looks like I'm saying something I'm not? So here's a list of some things I'm not saying.

I'm not saying that you'll have any more fun by playing a character that is not optimised, or one that is; or that either is somehow better.

I'm not saying that a given player won't experience other limits that are potentially more restrictive. However, I will say that if something tastes of cinammon, pointing out that other things do as well won't stop that first thing tasting of cinammon.

I'm not making a wide argument: really, my argument is extremely narrow. It is a simple defence against being bludgeoned with the idea that you must optimise your character since any conceivable rp you have can't possibly be impaired by doing so. That's simply not true: conceivable rp you have can be impaired by doing so.

I'm not saying that one group or another gets more options that they should care about. I've learned from reading other posters that strictness on parameters can vary hugely. Sure, using sets you can show that there are more roleplayable characters than optimised ones (so long as you judge any characters at all to be unoptimised, which you must do, at least transiently, once you feel that you can 'optimise' a character), but depending on the looseness of your parameters the unoptimised set might be smaller again.

I'm not saying that everyone means the same thing by 'optimise', but whatever you mean by optimise, the moment you tell someone they should 'optimise their character' you've defined their character as not optimised under some parameters. They can say 'Nope, that interferes with my roleplay' and you can't come back at them and argue that is a false dilemma: because it is not.
​

-vk

 

[Marius Delphus]

You know, I have to agree again with MarkB: continually editing the OP is bad practice.

Where a player desires to roleplay a character that happens to be a character that is not optimised, to optimise precludes their roleplaying the specific character they desired to roleplay. A true dilemma occurs - either roleplay the character, or optimise.
​

All [Optim D&D PCs] are [Optim D&D PCs]
Some [RPable D&D PCs] are not [Optim D&D PCs]
Some [Optim D&D PCs] are not [RPable D&D PCs]
​

Tautology, valid, invalid.

I'm still waiting to hear what "optimized" and "roleplayable" actually mean out here in the real world, and why they're diametrically opposed.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Time, both to design a char and at the table, is finite. Mental resources are finite. Time spent optimising means less time for researching your character's name, writing his back story, etc. So, yeah, optimisation can definitely detract from other aspects of the game, such as roleplaying. Ofc it is possible to do both.

I've noticed that rules heavy systems can lead to more time at the table being taken up with 'rules talk'. Such systems also allow the players to go further with optimisation. The gulf between optimised chars and non-optimised chars is bigger, and it takes more char build time to reach the 'pinnacle' of optimisation.

 

[clearstream]

You know, I have to agree again with MarkB: continually editing the OP is bad practice.

All [Optim D&D PCs] are [Optim D&D PCs]
Some [RPable D&D PCs] are not [Optim D&D PCs]
Some [Optim D&D PCs] are not [RPable D&D PCs]
​

Tautology, valid, invalid.

My conclusion does not state that optimised characters are not roleplayable. Heck, that's one of my premises (all characters are roleplayable).

It states that a given value of roleplay (e.g. I am a pie) will match to a given value of character (e.g. a pie) and that character (pie) will either be blueberry or it will not be blueberry. If, undisclosed until this point, my value for roleplay was one that was not_blueberry, then lords and shepherds we discover that I have a dilemma. I must either abandon my value for roleplay in favour of one that includes blueberry, or keep my value for roleplay and not choose (play) a blueberry pie.

At times, I won't really care much if I change my tastes - perhaps I don't hold them strongly, or I feel that a mild change is acceptable - but at other times I may cleave to my tastes and with justice declare myself to be facing a dilemma. And that would be true.

-vk