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

[The-Magic-Sword]

"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?

I think your phrasing of the claim is fine, but

Just because one roleplays his character does not mean that he cannot also optimize them mechanically.

This is actually a statement that I can agree with, build selection precedes the act of roleplaying, loyalty to the first impulse of "my concept is going to be X" is not a part of roleplaying, roleplaying is the portrayal of the character after the selection. Figuring out the character would have problems and choosing to play a different character, or modifying the concept to be mechanically improved, does not have implications for how well I will roleplay that character, I'm not roleplaying less than someone who soldiers on with a worse build. You just sit down, sort out the new concept, and if it really even informs how your character needs to be portrayed in your roleplaying, then execute.

 

[Pedantic]

I think your phrasing of the claim is fine, but

This is actually a statement that I can agree with, build selection precedes the act of roleplaying, loyalty to the first impulse of "my concept is going to be X" is not a part of roleplaying, roleplaying is the portrayal of the character after the selection. Figuring out the character would have problems and choosing to play a different character, or modifying the concept to be mechanically improved, does not have implications for how well I will roleplay that character, I'm not roleplaying less than someone who soldiers on with a worse build. You just sit down, sort out the new concept, and if it really even informs how your character needs to be portrayed in your roleplaying, then execute.

This doesn't seem entirely correct to me, because it removes any onus from the game design. You could simply say any concept that isn't effective is outside the support scope of roleplaying options the game allows, regardless of what the game actually purports to allow.

If the best mechanical choice is always a loner gunslinger, then of course roleplaying anything else would indeed hurt your optimization. That's such a narrow case though that I'm not sure I'd be comfortable holding reverse SF to be true (or at least useful) on the basis of it alone.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

This doesn't seem entirely correct to me, because it removes any onus from the game design. You could simply say any concept that isn't effective is outside the support scope of roleplaying options the game allows, regardless of what the game actually purports to allow.

If the best mechanical choice is always a loner gunslinger, then of course roleplaying anything else would indeed hurt your optimization. That's such a narrow case though that I'm not sure I'd be comfortable holding reverse SF to be true (or at least useful) on the basis of it alone.

I don't disagree but I see the number of viable builds and the power differences at work, as more of a commentary on the system that the Stormwind Fallacy is orthagonal to because at the end of the day, you CAN roleplay the one viable build just fine and in a variety of ways, its the meta being low on variety in the first place thats the problem because its a bait and switch.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This doesn't seem entirely correct to me, because it removes any onus from the game design. You could simply say any concept that isn't effective is outside the support scope of roleplaying options the game allows, regardless of what the game actually purports to allow.

Well, I think that's the important distinction though; some people will attempt to play character constructed in a way that the game is not aimed at; complete non-combatants in most action-adventure games are problematic, for example, or those with severe physical limitations in systems not particularly forgiving or that do not have other ways to sidestep the problems there.

I'd argue that some attempts to play characters that are notably sub-par in the area they theoretically specialize in in class based systems land here, too in most cases; there's often no obvious reason the rest of the PCs are even expected to be dealing with them.

The sticky point is that where you draw the line on this is not always a clear and objective choice.

 

[pemerton]

"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.

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.

My understanding of the "Stormwind fallacy" is that it is the following (fallacious) inference: because X has mechanically optimised their PC, X is not (or is not going to) roleplay their PC to an appropriate standard.

To characterise this inference as fallacious is to deny that it is sound in general. That is, those who characterise the inference as fallacious deny that there is any general connection (or even a generalisation of tendency), when it comes to RPers, between likes to optimise and doesn't roleplay to an appropriate standard.

I'm broadly sympathetic to that denial.

The "vice versa" claim would be to characterise, as fallacious, this inference: because X is committed to roleplaying their PC to an appropriate standard, X will not mechanically optimise their PC. Your objection to this characterisation rests on the fact that - at least in some RPGs - there is a non-contingent relationship between the nature of a PC and whether or not they are mechanically optimised (because the optimisation space, in the system, is smaller than the overall space of feasible PC builds). In a RPG in which such non-contingent relationships don't obtain, then I would also be broadly sympathetic to the "reverse Stormwind" denial of the soundness of the inference set out at the start of this paragraph.

 

[Emberashh]

I see the implied assumption that roleplaying requires intentional failure to be rather problematic, and to me is just another example of an over-obsessive desire to tell stories instead of trusting the system to foster a story's organic emergence.

People really need to stop trying so damn hard to tell stories.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO when every character one plays is highly optimized and extremely tactical I’d suggest that you are missing the whole point.

Yes you can roleplay whatever - but that’s more being technically correct than actually understanding what’s trying to be said - which is something like - ‘roleplay something more interesting than an optimized, master tactician’.

 

[FrogReaver]

Tying this in to balance. I actually like to create mechanically optimized characters and then play them less effectively in combat than I otherwise could - based on some quirky behaviors.

This actually is one other consideration left out of balance discussions and cuts right toward the heart of some of these fallacies
- if players aren’t using their abilities to maximum effect, how do you balance around that?

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMO when every character one plays is highly optimized and extremely tactical I’d suggest that you are missing the whole point.

Yes you can roleplay whatever - but that’s more being technically correct than actually understanding what’s trying to be said - which is something like - ‘roleplay something more interesting than an optimized, master tactician’.

Even though I think "highly" and "extremely" are doing some real heavy lifting in your first sentence--I'd come back with "If that's what someone likes to play, why should they?"

I mean, to be really blunt, this hobby is awfully full of people who want to tell other people what to play because they find what the other person plays tedious. Other than people playing characters that are actively disruptive, I'm extremely unsold that that's anyone's business but the person playing the character, and yes, that even applies to people who play some variation of the same character in every game (as long as the adapt it to the setting, genre and campaign at hand).

 

[Pedantic]

Tying this in to balance. I actually like to create mechanically optimized characters and then play them less effectively in combat than I otherwise could - based on some quirky behaviors.

This actually is one other consideration left out of balance discussions and cuts right toward the heart of some of these fallacies
- if players aren’t using their abilities to maximum effect, how do you balance around that?

Then maybe don't play a squad based team combat game? You're driving at a "what is the goal of play?" question here. If the game has stakes and a victory condition that lives outside the expression of the players through their characters, the reason for playing badly should be a lack of experience, knowledge or skill. Otherwise you've got players who haven't actually signed up to play the same game.

There are any number of cooperative games that allow for various kinds of self expression but aren't particularly amenable to bad play, I don't see why role-playing should be exceptional. Consider the Arkham Horror card game, Spirit Island or even something like Aeon's End in a campaign mode. You're picking a character, making mechanical/build choices, perhaps driven primarily by aesthetics, you might even be trying a technique or build that you know isn't optimal from the position of deck construction given all the available options. You then still accept an obligation to try and win the game, and your choices in play are assumed to be driving to that end. Not doing so is a violation of the group agreement to play such a game in the first place.