Fallacious Follies: Oberoni, Stormwind, and Fallacies OH MY!

[payn]

Who are you talking to?

 

[clearstream]

Well, to some extent if a mechanically attractive choice works strongly against a roleplaying choice, I'd argue the system has some perverse incentives in it. Its probably not possible to completely avoid those, so some particularly obsessive players can still come up against them, but if a lot of people are hitting them that's probably a system problem.

We hit fairly straightforward examples all the time. In original 5e I many times observed players caught upon the crux of "I'd like to make my character a member of race X but it's ability score bumps are not optimal for the class I'm committed to playing." That conflict was felt widely enough that the game designers changed the rules. It's a plain example of a "system problem" as you put it, forcing players to choose between RP or optimising. Albeit similar examples are found in many systems (especially points-based ones, in my experience, which inevitably contain some best-in-class, or more problematically worst-in-class, choices.)

What it evidences, more generally, is that players do pay heed to mechanical optimisation and sometimes that really does come into conflict with choices they would make based on RP motivation. The Stormwind wording is very specific - it amounts to "not necessarily" which I agree with. A player certainly can optimise and RP at the same time, but a given player might find themselves unable to reconcile the two when it comes to their specific characters. Beyond character creation, non-optimal choices are expected to appear in some kinds of games, and be avoided in others. In the former, characters are expected to sometimes act against their own interests. In the latter, that should never happen. Again, these present examples of "not necessarily" rather than "are never" when it comes to optimisation being at odds with RP.


EDIT Also, I'm sorry to hear about your arm. I hope you recover without undue complication or delay! I'm sure to be here when you are limber enough to type a response.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Huh, I wouldn't think of that as an example because both the optimized and suboptimized character generated can be 'roleplayed' as a verb, equally well, it's just a matter of which concepts the player will actually want to choose to play. Similarly, I consider the distinction between characters who make bad decisions vs. making good ones to solve the problem to occur systemically-- whether the mechanics of the game incentivize or revolve around 'good-faith' problem-solving on the part of the player character dynamic, or 'bad-faith' (but not literally) production of drama. E.g. Pathfinder or Lancer aren't the kind of game where the heroes sabotage a fight to has out a personality clash or highlight inner conflict, but Masks and even something like Vampire the Masquerade might be, and the mechanics operationalize themselves that way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We hit fairly straightforward examples all the time. In original 5e I many times observed players caught upon the crux of "I'd like to make my character a member of race X but it's ability score bumps are not optimal for the class I'm committed to playing." That conflict was felt widely enough that the game designers changed the rules. It's a plain example of a "system problem" as you put it, forcing players to choose between RP or optimising. Albeit similar examples are found in many systems (especially points-based ones, in my experience, which inevitably contain some best-in-class, or more problematically worst-in-class, choices.)

I think, however, some of that is expectations. Some people will get really obsessed about a single +1, and even in games where that has a strong impact like PF2e, I think there's a personal problem there. At the other end, if the "roleplaying" choice makes a large and visible hit to the in-game function of the character, I think the system has made too big an ask there, and usually that can be designed around.

(Worst-in-class choices are a different problem; its almost impossible for a system to make all choices mechanically valid, expect by making them meaningless. In some cases you just have to note that some concepts are not really viable for the kinds of games the system is assuming it'd be used for (and of course some may not be valid for almost any campaign most systems are used for)

What it evidences, more generally, is that players do pay heed to mechanical optimisation and sometimes that really does come into conflict with choices they would make based on RP motivation. The Stormwind wording is very specific - it amounts to "not necessarily" which I agree with. A player certainly can optimise and RP at the same time, but a given player might find themselves unable to reconcile the two when it comes to their specific characters. Beyond character creation, non-optimal choices are expected to appear in some kinds of games, and be avoided in others. In the former, characters are expected to sometimes act against their own interests. In the latter, that should never happen. Again, these present examples of "not necessarily" rather than "are never" when it comes to optimisation being at odds with RP.

Well, in some cases the point is moot because an intelligent player who really, desperately wants to optimize in creation and play will simply choose a character concept where they're rarely or never in conflict. Its usually when someone wants to detach the two where problems crop up.

EDIT Also, I'm sorry to hear about your arm. I hope you recover without undue complication or delay! I'm sure to be here when you are limber enough to type a response.

As you can see, I can sort of do a response now; it was just that the degree of response your other post seemed to warrant was beyond what I thought my left arm was up to (important note for readers: being 6'2", 340 lbs., 66 years old and taking a semi-controlled fall on your left arm is not recommended. I'm still waiting to find out if I might have a hairline fracture).

 

[clearstream]

Huh, I wouldn't think of that as an example because both the optimized and suboptimized character generated can be 'roleplayed' as a verb, equally well, it's just a matter of which concepts the player will actually want to choose to play.

I'm not sure that I'm on board with that definition. It implies that as all characters are potentially roleplayable by someone (reasonable speculation, but impossible to prove) then there is no character that cannot be roleplayed. Making the SF redundant.

My take is that the SF refers to each player. On StackExchange the following statement of the SF is given "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." I've shown that cases exist where in order to pursue ones RP one cannot also optimize. It doesn't seem right to broaden that to say that just because there is a hypothetical character that is both optimal and roleplayable by the given player, that player is unaffected by optimizing. For one thing, they may not be aware of or able to figure out that specific character within the time available to them in their sessions of play. And for another, why shouldn't they also want to roleplay their unoptimised character?

The optimizer can of course always roleplay - it's not a necessary dichotomy - but the two can be in conflict. It's not a good enough answer, for me at least, to say - "Play a different character". For to say that is to reveal in bright light that one cannot always reconcile roleplaying with optimising... in cases that may indeed matter to the given player.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm not sure that I'm on board with that definition. It implies that as all characters are potentially roleplayable by someone (reasonable speculation, but impossible to prove) then there is no character that cannot be roleplayed. Making the SF redundant.

My take is that the SF refers to each player. On StackExchange the following statement of the SF is given "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." I've shown that cases exist where in order to pursue ones RP one cannot also optimize. It doesn't seem right to broaden that to say that just because there is a hypothetical character that is both optimal and roleplayable by the given player, that player is unaffected by optimizing. For one thing, they may not be aware of or able to figure out that specific character within the time available to them in their sessions of play. And for another, why shouldn't they also want to roleplay their unoptimised character?

The optimizer can of course always roleplay - it's not a necessary dichotomy - but the two can be in conflict. It's not a good enough answer, for me at least, to say - "Play a different character". For to say that is to reveal in bright light that one cannot always reconcile roleplaying with optimising... in cases that may indeed matter to the given player.

Right, for me that comes out to a preference for balanced games where most options are viable and power differentials are smaller, I would say that every character IS roleplayable though, and that largely underlies why the SF is actually a fallacy in the first place. Any character that isn't being roleplayed can be roleplayed more independntly of optimization. More broadly how much you like your character is distinct from its basic roleplayability.

 

[clearstream]

Right, for me that comes out to a preference for balanced games where most options are viable and power differentials are smaller, I would say that every character IS roleplayable though, and that largely underlies why the SF is actually a fallacy in the first place. Any character that isn't being roleplayed can be roleplayed more independntly of optimization. More broadly how much you like your character is distinct from its basic roleplayability.

It looks like we run into ambiguities in terms. What counts under "optimizing"? What is "roleplayability" and how is that distinct from "how much you like your character"? Is every character roleplayable for me because I could under threat of violence be made to play it, even though I might find the experience obnoxious? I'm not aiming to resolve those questions: just pointing out that the SF bundles up some ill-defined terms. "Just because" does a lot of work. I take it to have equivalence with "It is not necessarily the case", which of course I agree with. Maybe it means something else? What that draws attention to is a group of neighbouring claims about optimisation versus roleplay.

I don't think it is right to say this comes out to a preference for balanced games. To some, it's moot whether the game is balanced. They're more interested in the roleplayability (to them) of the possible characters. An example I recall was Ars Magica, which I was interested in largely because of the creative space that develops from power disparity between characters and setting aside of balance in the effects of magic. Another was Stormbringer, where during character creation on a single roll, one might be handed a Grahluk or somesuch, or a Melnibonean. A terrible game for optimizers, but perfectly acceptable for roleplay.

It shouldn't be contentious to say that some players focus on RPG as game, and others on RPG as narrative, and the two aren't always reconcilable. Some games are designed on the premise there is a distinction between the two! Sometimes one has to give on one to best achieve the other. They're not necessarily in conflict, and focus on one does not necessarily mean one is not also doing the other.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Thread reminded me of this:

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It looks like we run into ambiguities in terms. What counts under "optimizing"? What is "roleplayability" and how is that distinct from "how much you like your character"? Is every character roleplayable for me because I could under threat of violence be made to play it, even though I might find the experience obnoxious? I'm not aiming to resolve those questions: just pointing out that the SF bundles up some ill-defined terms. "Just because" does a lot of work. I take it to have equivalence with "It is not necessarily the case", which of course I agree with. Maybe it means something else? What that draws attention to is a group of neighbouring claims about optimisation versus roleplay.

I don't think it is right to say this comes out to a preference for balanced games. To some, it's moot whether the game is balanced. They're more interested in the roleplayability (to them) of the possible characters. An example I recall was Ars Magica, which I was interested in largely because of the creative space that develops from power disparity between characters and setting aside of balance in the effects of magic. Another was Stormbringer, where during character creation on a single roll, one might be handed a Grahluk or somesuch, or a Melnibonean. A terrible game for optimizers, but perfectly acceptable for roleplay.

It shouldn't be contentious to say that some players focus on RPG as game, and others on RPG as narrative, and the two aren't always reconcilable. Some games are designed on the premise there is a distinction between the two! Sometimes one has to give on one to best achieve the other. They're not necessarily in conflict, and focus on one does not necessarily mean one is not also doing the other.

I think I'd say that yeah

Roleplayability = The ability for someone to roleplay this concept.
Appeal = Your desire to roleplay this concept.
Optimizing = The spectrum of how strong you make your character, in terms of the choices available.

It would be weird to me to call your buddy's character that they're currently roleplaying "un-roleplayable" because you wouldn't want to roleplay it, you could use it to say how much you dislike the idea of playing the concept, but it would take on a dimension of hyperbole. You seem to be bridging the gap via making roleplayability a matter of individual subjectivity, so the answer can only be relative, which would suggest that if you can find someone willing to say it of a concept, it would be in some sense true.

But I'd instead propose a 'roleplayability' test, as a thought experiment, the game itself is to roleplay a given prompt to the best of your ability, with good-faith attempt assumed, and each participant receiving a score of 0 if nothing happened or what they roleplayed didn't pertain to the prompt, and a 1 if they did roleplay, and it pertained to the prompt, with each participant's goal being to get as many points as possible over multiple prompts. You would find that someone would be able to successfully earn a point on most prompts, demonstrating an objective ability to roleplay it.

When I was discussing the appeal of balanced games, it was me explaining why I like them as a solution to this problem. In my experience, games that aren't well-balanced not only require the participants to play under a gentleman's agreement to not produce bad feeling, they also require a high enough level of system mastery to not violate that gentleman's agreement by deciding to play Legolas and accidentally making an optimized archer by taking Elf + Sharpshooter. But obviously, you can roleplay a legolas-type-- similarly, a game can be designed to make optimization moot entirely, such that it doesn't make sense to discuss the relative level of power afforded by each setup, and be good at roleplaying, but that's distinct from the perception of a causal relationship the Stormwind Fallacy rejects.

I would point out that ars magica isn't a better roleplaying game because it's a terrible optimizers game, like I'm not sure many people would say that Mage the Awakening is a worse roleplayer game for being a better optimizer game in the same vein, I certainly wouldn't.

 

[clearstream]

I think I'd say that yeah

Roleplayability = The ability for someone to roleplay this concept.
Appeal = Your desire to roleplay this concept.
Optimizing = The spectrum of how strong you make your character, in terms of the choices available.

It would be weird to me to call your buddy's character that they're currently roleplaying "un-roleplayable" because you wouldn't want to roleplay it, you could use it to say how much you dislike the idea of playing the concept, but it would take on a dimension of hyperbole. You seem to be bridging the gap via making roleplayability a matter of individual subjectivity, so the answer can only be relative, which would suggest that if you can find someone willing to say it of a concept, it would be in some sense true.

But I'd instead propose a 'roleplayability' test, as a thought experiment, the game itself is to roleplay a given prompt to the best of your ability, with good-faith attempt assumed, and each participant receiving a score of 0 if nothing happened or what they roleplayed didn't pertain to the prompt, and a 1 if they did roleplay, and it pertained to the prompt, with each participant's goal being to get as many points as possible over multiple prompts. You would find that someone would be able to successfully earn a point on most prompts, demonstrating an objective ability to roleplay it.

When I was discussing the appeal of balanced games, it was me explaining why I like them as a solution to this problem. In my experience, games that aren't well-balanced not only require the participants to play under a gentleman's agreement to not produce bad feeling, they also require a high enough level of system mastery to not violate that gentleman's agreement by deciding to play Legolas and accidentally making an optimized archer by taking Elf + Sharpshooter. But obviously, you can roleplay a legolas-type-- similarly, a game can be designed to make optimization moot entirely, such that it doesn't make sense to discuss the relative level of power afforded by each setup, and be good at roleplaying, but that's distinct from the perception of a causal relationship the Stormwind Fallacy rejects.

I would point out that ars magica isn't a better roleplaying game because it's a terrible optimizers game, like I'm not sure many people would say that Mage the Awakening is a worse roleplayer game for being a better optimizer game in the same vein, I certainly wouldn't.

"Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay" due to the "and vice versa" implies the mirror claim "Just because one roleplays his character does not mean that he cannot also optimize them mechanically." But this mirror claim is false in cases like those I've laid out, unless "one" and "his" are understood in an unusual way. Or at least that is how it feels to me.

A restatement of the claim is needed, to give it the form that I think you are arguing for. Are you able to frame that?