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

[ExploderWizard]

The thing that seems odd to me about not doing some amount of optimizing is that adventurers are killers. Their job is putting themselves into clearly dangerous situations over and over again. From an RP situation I can't see how surviving fights can't be a reasonable priority for a PC. I don't see what's unreasonable about a PC who makes every decision about personal improvement based on what will make them the best killer. And people who have a party role of getting into melee who don't optimize to survive melee would, in a realistic world, die sooner and more often.

I'm not trying to defend players who are jerks, or who optimize around questionable rules, but if there's straightforward and rule-compliant way to design a tank that makes the PC more effective in combat then the professional tank PC will rationally want to make those decisions. If that means that every tank plays the same class with the same build, then in-game either everyone who wants to be a professional tank will learn that build, or every adventuring party will try to recruit people with that build.

I think the idea extends to other party roles, too. If a PC is the party's sneaky thief then they should have a build optimized for being a sneaky thief. In-game sneaks who don't use that build will either get themselves or their party killed. I think the argument is even stronger for party faces or healers, who will get their entire party killed if they're not good.

This is MMO logic and may or may not be true in a tabletop game. Sure, its possible to run a campaign of just a series of fights, and in such a game having a party of optimized fighters is helpful.

Many campaigns do not fit that mold.

 

[neobolts]

My rules of optimization:
1) Concept first, math second. Take an idea and then make the best version of that idea you can.
2) Optimization is good, but one trick ponies and exploiting RAI can get old quick. If it feels cheap, it probably is.
3) Player parity is as important as your ability versus the enemies. When one player outshines the others, it can sometimes spoil the fun. (Are the other players cheering you on, or are they sulking at being second fiddle?) Optimizing works best as a group, and PC synergy can add to the fun.

 

[Pauper]

Man, we're doing this again. I'll point out two things that I feel are highly relevant to the discussion, and ideally point out why the discussion should end.

First, based on the formulation of the Stormwind Fallacy, there should be a corollary -- that roleplaying is not necessarily incompatible with optimizing. And at that highly vague, weasel-word filled level, that's probably true. The reality is, though, as already pointed out by others, in any game with an optimizer, character options that are primarily role-playing oriented are disincentivized. Eventually, the wizard will be able to do everything the rogue can do, some of them better (knock spell, anyone?), and still have all his special wizardy stuff to boot. Unless the rogue starts optimizing, he can't keep any aspect of his character to himself, so he either submits to becoming a reluctant optimizer or he stops playing. (Thus, my frequent assertion that optimizing drives out all other styles of playing RPGs.) So there is no corollary to the Stormwind Fallacy, which makes the statement itself either false or a paradox, neither of which suggests it should be observed as a truthful statement.

If you're going to argue that this is a 'jerk player' problem, then you're arguing that all optimizers are jerks -- I'm not sure people realize the implications of this argument, and if they did, the argument would stop.

Second, it's interesting to note that every time someone comes up with an example of an optimizer ruining a game, or making life unbearable for other players, or some other clearly axiomatic observation coming from actual game experience, the folks arguing the Stormwind Fallacy try redefining what 'optimizing' is to avoid the assertion. They engage in 'no true Scotsman' ('a real optimizer will pull back when he realizes he's about to break the game', despite no optimizer in my own experience ever doing so), or definitional retreat ('you can optimize in ways that don't have anything to do with combat effectiveness', ignoring that all optimizer builds look to the ability to defeat combat encounters, the most common kind of encounter, as the measure of their own effectiveness), or the argumentum ad misericordiam ('but optimizers just want to play the game!', ignoring that they want to play it by the rules as they interpret them, regardless of the harm it does to other players or the game itself).

Folks who assert that optimization is an inferior style of play don't need to resort to these kinds of logical tricks -- pretty much every definition of a role-playing game ever offered makes it clear that role-playing as an activity, taking on the role of a character and making decisions as that character would, is either the method, the goal, or both. It is *what you do* in an RPG, and doing something else means you're not actually playing an RPG -- you're playing a tabletop adventure game where the goal is to kill as many mooks as possible, or an online game where the goal is to acquire the best loot.

Insofar as the Stormwind Fallacy can be interpreted to mean, "Someone who always plays a character who has to be the best in the world at what he does is still role-playing," then the Stormwind Fallacy is not itself wrong -- but it's no more a guide to good role-playing than is the advice, "Always be Batman." In that sense, it doesn't have to be wrong to be irrelevant.

 

[Greg K]

They engage in 'no true Scotsman' ('a real optimizer will pull back when he realizes he's about to break the game', despite no optimizer in my own experience ever doing so)

Just, because I have not seen it(among those optimizing for power or butt-kicking) and you have not seen it, it does not mean others have not.

, or definitional retreat ('you can optimize in ways that don't have anything to do with combat effectiveness', ignoring that all optimizer builds look to the ability to defeat combat encounters, the most common kind of encounter, as the measure of their own effectiveness),.

It does not have to do be about combat effectiveness.
The dictionary definition of optimization

" is the selection of a best element (with regard to some criteria) from some set of available alternatives"
If you roll ability scores randomly, and put your thief's best score in dex, because your highest score in dex provides bonuses to certain skills, that is optimization.

One can optimize to be the best underwater basketweaver or pickpocket. What do they have to do with combat?


If your criteria is a more well rounded character (e.g., a boy whom grew up a dirt farmer, was the best horse racer in his town, has some talent for chess, and joined a rebel army) , you can still optimize to best reflect that concept. You have added more objectives and have more choices to make,, but it is still optimization, because as soon as you are assigning resources to best meet a certain criteria (whether one objective or multiple objectives), you are making a decision on certain choices as best vs other available choices. You just have added more trade-offs than if optimizing towards a single objective . The only way to avoid any optimization at all is to roll everything randomly, use pre-gens, or assign things blindly. This is why optimization is a continuum on an axis. It is also why it is a tool to an end- which for many is power-gaming or butt-kicking, but is not the goal for everyone. The problem is when certain players take it to an extreme that crosses an arbitrary threshold and/or for a purpose that is at odds with the playstyle of the DM and/or others in the groups- especially, if they refuse to adapt and/or are a jerk to the others at the table.

Now, personally, I don't like heavy optimization for butt-kickers or powergamers (whom I define as playing for an emphasis on combat or character power respectively and thus heavy on their respective axis) nor do I like pre-planned builds. I expect starting players to be a little more well-rounded and to reflect the culture/environment from which they are grew up (pre-defined in the setting),grounded in the setting, and take a more organic approach to growth. In 3e it meant a lot of power and combat optimization guide choices are going to be shut down/unavailable by what I choose to include, exclude, or alter in the setting. The same will be in true in 5e(one reason that when I run 5e, I will be instituting skill points).
However, I am not going to ignore that optimizing is on a continuum or that it is limited to power gaming and/or butt-kicking, but is rather a tool for meeting a concept when making choices among various alternatives

 

[clearstream]

I guess my problem with saying that it's a fallacy to claim that RP and charop are never incompatible is that that implies that one's criteria for the two are absolutely inviolable--that we can in fact treat them like utterly rigorous, hard-edged "sets." This seems...rather un-like how I do my own attempts at them, and I expect that at least some others are the same. (It's tempting to argue that many or most are, but that could just be projection.)

That is: How can you be sure that, when a conflict is discovered, people absolutely *can't* relax one or both requirements such that the "rigorous set" analogy fails? If you can't be sure of that, then it seems like it's a fallacy to say "RP and charop are never incompatible" if, and only if, you add to it "and your priorities are not flexible."

Good point. A circumstance in which you are inflexible would be a great candidate for one in which RP and charop were incompatible.

Second, it's interesting to note that every time someone comes up with an example of an optimizer ruining a game, or making life unbearable for other players, or some other clearly axiomatic observation coming from actual game experience, the folks arguing the Stormwind Fallacy try redefining what 'optimizing' is to avoid the assertion. They engage in 'no true Scotsman' ('a real optimizer will pull back when he realizes he's about to break the game', despite no optimizer in my own experience ever doing so), or definitional retreat ('you can optimize in ways that don't have anything to do with combat effectiveness', ignoring that all optimizer builds look to the ability to defeat combat encounters, the most common kind of encounter, as the measure of their own effectiveness), or the argumentum ad misericordiam ('but optimizers just want to play the game!', ignoring that they want to play it by the rules as they interpret them, regardless of the harm it does to other players or the game itself).

I was about to comment on that same point. A disconnect for me between RPer allegations and charop rebuttal is that frequently the latter alters the meaning of the word optimising; with the consequence that their rebuttal is not responsive to the allegation. A poster alleges X, and another posters rebuts that Y is not a problem. Non-responsive argumentation closes down some lines of progress.

I've drawn that example in black and white for emphasis, of course. And I must acknowledge that those same rebuttals are often illustrating ways one can perform non-egregious optimising (Y); which could be helpful to DMs who need to accommodate both RP and charop. Those disliking charop must be conscious of sometimes presenting arguments that amount to "egregious play is egregious". Which no one disputes.

 

[Arial Black]

Eventually, the wizard will be able to do everything the rogue can do, some of them better (knock spell, anyone?), and still have all his special wizardy stuff to boot. Unless the rogue starts optimizing, he can't keep any aspect of his character to himself, so he either submits to becoming a reluctant optimizer or he stops playing. (Thus, my frequent assertion that optimizing drives out all other styles of playing RPGs.)

'Optimising' would be a wizard trying to be the best wizard he can be, not a wizard trying to be the best rogue that he can be! That would be jerk behaviour if the player was trying to outshine another player's PC in their field of expertise.

Since the case of a wizard trying to be a better rogue than the rogue is not actually optimising (because, to optimise, the wizard would have to be trying to be a better wizard than he would be if he didn't optimise), that example doesn't address the case for or against optimisers.

 

[clearstream]

'Optimising' would be a wizard trying to be the best wizard he can be, not a wizard trying to be the best rogue that he can be! That would be jerk behaviour if the player was trying to outshine another player's PC in their field of expertise.

Since the case of a wizard trying to be a better rogue than the rogue is not actually optimising (because, to optimise, the wizard would have to be trying to be a better wizard than he would be if he didn't optimise), that example doesn't address the case for or against optimisers.

Irony intended?