D&D 5E Stormwind Fallacy and Vonklaude's observation on limitations

[clearstream]

WotC have said to retrieve anything important to us. For me an important statement from the WotC boards is this one by Tempest Stormwind.

"Optimising is not necessarily incompatible with roleplaying."

Note that "not necessarily" doesn't mean "never". After walking barefoot along a path of broken flint I arrived at an observation on limitations.

"If you apply criteria that filter characters on some bases, the least strict criterion will delimit the largest subset and the most strict criterion will delimit the smallest subset."

Comparing subsets, there can arise a circumstance where a focus upon one (optimising or roleplaying) necessarily will be (within that circumstance) incompatible with the other. (That can be demonstrated by working through some subsets and their intersections, or lack thereof.)

At the time I tackled this problem WotC were running a sub-forum called Character Optimization. The offered an express definition of optimising that many players seemed to embrace, which was "Want to eke every mechanical benefit out of your character as possible? Is Min/Max your middle name? Or just design a character based on a loophole you've discovered! Bounce your ideas off the learned members of the character optimization forum." In particular, min/max is a concept from game theory and wargaming with an unmistakable intent to obtain the greatest economic or mechanical utility - the biggest numbers; the biggest mechanical leverage on the game.

A great many people argued with me that optimising was essentially whatever you made of it. You could optimise to be the guy who does neither particularly good nor bad damage with a weak weapon choice and a hat. I still feel that line to be rather specious. On the other hand, they also brought into sight that an intent to roleplay can also be limiting. If you will only play emo elves using twin shortswords, while wearing a hat, then that too is limiting.

Stormwind's fallacy is called that in reference to false dichotomies. The reason that troubled me is that there can logically exist circumstances in which optimising and roleplaying necessarily are (within that circumstance) dichotomous. And if your definition of optimising is the one that WotC were thinking about when they created that sub-forum, it could easily be the case that your optimising criterion will form your strictest limit. I don't know if many of my detractors have read Borges Library of Babel but given the definition of optimising that WotC were using it seems likely to me that of all the books listing 5th edition characters in that library, the greater number will be roleplayable and the smaller optimised. In part because most optimised characters will also be roleplayable, while a great many roleplayable characters won't be optimised (by that definition). The counter is to point out that a great many also won't be emo elves. So bear that in mind. The essential point is to be open minded and to resist assuming things are necessarily dichotomous when they are only dichotomous in some circumstances.

 

[clearstream]

Reserved

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I always find it funny, some of the greatest role-players I know min max, and some of the worst combat players aren't.... the entire spectrum is not connected...

I like to rp, I love to use optimization...

 

[clearstream]

some of the greatest role-players I know min max, and some of the worst combat players aren't.... the entire spectrum is not connected...

Exactly. And I think people on the WotC boards thought that digging into the logic was about preferring roleplaying. It isn't. As you say, the entire spectrum is not at odds, but some parts of it can be. My observation shows that "not necessarily" entails "possibly". "Optimising is possibly incompatible with roleplaying". But possibly doesn't entail inevitability. We can say that "Optimising is not inevitably incompatible with roleplaying". The union and intersection can be the same. Or the intersection can be smaller. Or it can be empty.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The basic issue I have with optimizing is doing this:

Step 1: Find an abusive mechanic.
Step 2: Create a build to focus on that single mechanic.
Step 3: If the flavor of any component doesn't match, change the flavor.
Step 4: Create a character for the build.
Step 5: Invent a backstory which allows the build to happen "naturally".
Step 6: Complain when anybody questions anything.
Step 7: Done!

This style is perfectly acceptable, but kind of defeats a lot of the potential depth of tabletop games. In video games, this style isn't just encouraged, it's essentially mandatory in MMOs and action RPGs. In table-top RPGs, however, I'd call this the "tail wagging the dog" scenario.

It's the guy who shows up and says, "I'm going to play a Battle Sorcerer 4 / Paladin of Slaughter 2 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Spellsword 1 / Eldritch Knight 8". Dude, you're level 1. You shouldn't know how your character is going to turn out at level 20. It should be more organic than that. Your adventures should shape your character as much as your character shapes the adventures. Knowing how the story ends isn't right. That's not playing a character. That's playing a paper doll.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

I know at least one person who doesn't like the title "Stormwind Fallacy", and that's Tempest Stormwind.

(I'm consistently on record as regretting naming that thing after myself.)

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

The basic issue I have with optimizing is doing this:

Step 1: Find an abusive mechanic.
Step 2: Create a build to focus on that single mechanic.
Step 3: If the flavor of any component doesn't match, change the flavor.
Step 4: Create a character for the build.
Step 5: Invent a backstory which allows the build to happen "naturally".
Step 6: Complain when anybody questions anything.
Step 7: Done!

This style is perfectly acceptable, but kind of defeats a lot of the potential depth of tabletop games. In video games, this style isn't just encouraged, it's essentially mandatory in MMOs and action RPGs. In table-top RPGs, however, I'd call this the "tail wagging the dog" scenario.

It's the guy who shows up and says, "I'm going to play a Battle Sorcerer 4 / Paladin of Slaughter 2 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Spellsword 1 / Eldritch Knight 8". Dude, you're level 1. You shouldn't know how your character is going to turn out at level 20. It should be more organic than that. Your adventures should shape your character as much as your character shapes the adventures. Knowing how the story ends isn't right. That's not playing a character. That's playing a paper doll.

I always seem to know what my character will be at level 20 (Wizard 20!). Is that still shameless optimization, or do I need to consider whether I really want another level of Wizard after each level?

(Also, in the optimization community - finding a broken mechanic is called "Theoretical Optimization" and it's bad form to actually exploit it at the table. In fact, anything that you would define as an "exploit" is bad form. Practical Optimization involves making obviously good mechanical and tactical decisions - like attacking the same guy as the rogue to provide sneak attack, or picking a Race that provides a bonus to the primary stat of the class you are playing.)

In addition, being an optimizer doesn't mean always making the most optimized decision. My last wizard was a halfling (because I like halflings). This wasn't an optimized decision, but being an optimizer, I was able to pick spells that worked well with a lower Int score (didn't require to hit rolls or provide saving throws). That's true optimization - making the best choices within the character concept you've chosen, not making a character concept around the best choices.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I always seem to know what my character will be at level 20 (Wizard 20!). Is that still shameless optimization, or do I need to consider whether I really want another level of Wizard after each level?

I think it's worthwhile, yes.

So, you've reached a new level. What were your characters goals? Has your character achieved what they wanted to? Is he or she happy with adventuring? Are they ready to retire? Do they want to learn something new, or continue with their current path?

If the beginning and end of your character development is metagaming the combat subgame, that's really limiting yourself to one aspect of the game. D&D includes collaborative storytelling. It's not just taking a video game avatar and removing the limitations on what you can do. It's taking a character as from a novel or movie or story and putting yourself into that characters shoes and thinking as they do. You don't have to do improvisational acting at the table, but thinking about how another person should act in a given situation is what gives the game depth. Part of what makes a good character fun to play is giving them a personality and life of their own. A really good character is one that shows development. One that becomes a better person or changes because of events in the campaign world. Not because you hit level X and mechanically it's better to multi-class to change from being a Paladin to being a Warlock which you decided that at the start of the campaign, so he's going to do that regardless of what's going on in the campaign world.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I still maintain that there will ALWAYS be decisions where you need to choose between roleplaying and optimizing. When those decisions come up and you can only choose one or the other, then the decision you make will determine the focus of your character.

For instance, if you get a choice of a rules item of some sort and you can either choose "+5 damage on all attacks" and "+5 to checks when dealing with dwarves", it's almost always a better optimized decision to choose the first one. You make way more attack rolls than you do "checks dealing with Dwarves". However, your character is a little more rounded in terms of personality if you choose the second one. Instead of just being the guy who does slightly more damage with weapons, you now have a special bond with Dwarves. This makes for a more interesting story. How did you get that bond? Did you live with Dwarves for a while? Is there something about your personality that appeals to Dwarves?

The other choice makes you more powerful in combat but it's likely either already explained as part of your character background "I practice a lot with weapons...of course I'm good." or the story it creates is pretty lame(I trained with a master last week. He taught me to properly twist the blade).

I believe there will always be choices like this.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

I think it's worthwhile, yes.

So, you've reached a new level. What were your characters goals? Has your character achieved what they wanted to? Is he or she happy with adventuring? Are they ready to retire? Do they want to learn something new, or continue with their current path?

If the beginning and end of your character development is metagaming the combat subgame, that's really limiting yourself to one aspect of the game. D&D includes collaborative storytelling. It's not just taking a video game avatar and removing the limitations on what you can do. It's taking a character as from a novel or movie or story and putting yourself into that characters shoes and thinking as they do. You don't have to do improvisational acting at the table, but thinking about how another person should act in a given situation is what gives the game depth. Part of what makes a good character fun to play is giving them a personality and life of their own. A really good character is one that shows development. One that becomes a better person or changes because of events in the campaign world. Not because you hit level X and mechanically it's better to multi-class to change from being a Paladin to being a Warlock which you decided that at the start of the campaign, so he's going to do that regardless of what's going on in the campaign world.

No, don't reverse it.

Nobody is criticizing choosing each level individually as it comes up.

My question to you is would you criticize another player for choosing that they will stick with one class right from the get go. Do you think someone who does this is having fun the wrong way and needs your correction?

I'm perfectly fine with someone choosing each level as it comes up, whether that's OK isn't being debated.