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

[payn]

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 is an interesting take and one thats always put me at odds with many a gamer. I see the abilities, skills, mechanics of a character as different than their personality. Its always been compartmentalized to me to separate out a skill/combat function from roleplaying a character. I tend to focus more on the why a character is in combat or using their skill, then how they do/use mechanics as a character.

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?

3E/PF1 remains my favorite fantasy RPG system to date. Though, it definitely had some flaws that left major impacts on the community. I think the idea of optimization was one of them. No system since has had such a driving need to build a mechanical package that was effective. Nor are there mechanical pitfalls as drastic. In 5E the gap between optimized and unoptimized is more narrow, which has tamed the debates it seems to me. 4E/PF2 take a much different approach, but I think this tells us designers are considering design that either maximizes by default, or makes the need less required for the balance to be maintained in modern games.

 

[pemerton]

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’.

So, a character optimised for being interesting?

Or to shift from slightly oblique rhetorical question, to assertion: the whole idea of optimisation vs roleplayable/interesting seems to live in a rather narrow RPG space. I don't know what it means to build an "optimised" Burning Wheel PC, or an "optimised" Traveller PC, for instance.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, a character optimised for being interesting?

Or to shift from slightly oblique rhetorical question, to assertion: the whole idea of optimisation vs roleplayable/interesting seems to live in a rather narrow RPG space. I don't know what it means to build an "optimised" Burning Wheel PC, or an "optimised" Traveller PC, for instance.

Will it ever be possible to go 1 thread together without bringing up burning wheel?

 

[pemerton]

Will it ever be possible to go 1 thread together without bringing up burning wheel?

Substitute whatever other RPG that does not follow D&D conventions that you like. I mentioned Traveller.

My point is: if you're talking only about the play of D&D and similar RPGs, then say so. And perhaps post in the D&D forum rather than "general".

 

[FrogReaver]

Substitute whatever other RPG that does not follow D&D conventions that you like. I mentioned Traveller.

My point is: if you're talking only about the play of D&D and similar RPGs, then say so. And perhaps post in the D&D forum rather than "general".

Doesn’t seem to matter whether somethings in general or d&d section. It happens the same either way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't know what it means to build an "optimised" Burning Wheel PC, or an "optimised" Traveller PC, for instance.

Well, with the more traditional versions of Trav, you could simply argue that even using the word "build" there is questionable. The degree of steerage you can conduct with generating one of those characters is, to be charitable, rather limited. (This is in contrast with something like Cepheus Deluxe where it might be possible after a fashion, once you decide what function the character is going to play in the group).

 

[pemerton]

Well, with the more traditional versions of Trav, you could simply argue that even using the word "build" there is questionable. The degree of steerage you can conduct with generating one of those characters is, to be charitable, rather limited.

That's part of my point - I mean, you can choose which skill chart to roll on, and whether to try for another term at the risk of aging - but what does "optimisation" look like? In my group's recent/current Traveller campaign, one of the PCs has Battle Dress and good physical stats, but is by no means the driving force behind events. Another PC has no skills but Cutlass-4 and Tactics-1, but because of the player has quite a bit of influence over how things unfold.

The idea that "optimisation" = combat = dominating the game only operates within an extremely narrow paradigm of (some) D&D-esque play.

EDIT: In our Prince Valiant game one of the knights has Brawn 3, Arms 2, Battle 1. The other two have Brawn 4, Arms 4, Battle 6. Which counts as optimised? The question is silly. Sir Morgath has Presence 4, Courtesie 2, Fellowship 3, Glamourie 2, Poetry/Song 1, and Lore 2. The other two have Presence 3 and Courtesie 2 and Fellowship 2 in one case, Courtesie 1, Fellowship 1 and Oratory 2 in the other.

The players choose their PCs' goals. When the PCs meet NPCs, the players choose whether to speak first or fight first.

Even playing RM back in the 90s, when our play was probably closer to (some sorts of) D&D than our Prince Valiant game is, we had PCs who were relatively weak in combat but skilled in social, illusion and infiltration. They did not exert any less influence on events than the warriors and the firemage.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's part of my point - I mean, you can choose which skill chart to roll on, and whether to try for another term at the risk of aging - but what does "optimisation" look like? In my group's recent/current Traveller campaign, one of the PCs has Battle Dress and good physical stats, but is by no means the driving force behind events. Another PC has no skills but Cutlass-4 and Tactics-1, but because of the player has quite a bit of influence over how things unfold.

The idea that "optimisation" = combat = dominating the game only operates within an extremely narrow paradigm of (some) D&D-esque play.

My point is that even if you assume other things, it was next to impossible to optimize toward it in Traveller, because you had too little control over output. It wasn't so much a question of the focus of the game--because I think there were plenty of Traveller games that had a heavy combat focus--but the lack of control over what kind of character you were going to get except in the lightest way. You couldn't force an effective combatant, but you couldn't really focus an effective technician. Best you could do was aim in the rough direction and hope it played out.

Essentially, I think Traveller is a bad example for a different reason than I think you're presuming. Its not impossible to optimize characters toward non-combat purposes, if the game has enough mechanical engagement in those purposes, and the system gives you enough control over how your character comes out.

 

[clearstream]

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.

That's a good summary, and I share your mental mapping of character-design-spaces. (Albeit I started from the set of all possible characters, but from there our thoughts go in the same direction.) Suffice to say that in many of the most widely played RPGs, such non-contingent relationships do indeed obtain. Implying that for many players, my observation will prove right in their experiences at the table. (Unsurprising, because it was from observing such experiences that I drew my supposition.)

A residual question is what non-contingent relationships not obtaining looks like? A broad class of examples might be freeform character capabilities, such as HeroQuest abilities or Torchbearer wises and instincts. Being freeform, one might predict that, that which was great for RP will be necessarily optimal (if optimal is taken to mean something like - relevance and strength of leverage over the narrative.) One could argue (and I have seen in actual play) that for a given genre, setting, mode or premise some choices tend to offer stronger or more relevant leverage over the narrative than others. But then isn't that be the same as saying they are less effective for RP!? Still, I can picture a player saying "I would love to have this ability but I know it will be weak or hardly ever relevant in play" which seems to describe conflict between RP and optimisation ... even where choices are not constrained by formal mechanical structures.

Anyway, I'm curious about whether you would agree with the suggestion of what "optimal" looks like outside of formal mechanical structures, and what games you would say fall into the "non-contingent relationships don't obtain" category (whether for the same or different reasons.)

 

[clearstream]

This is an interesting take and one thats always put me at odds with many a gamer. I see the abilities, skills, mechanics of a character as different than their personality. Its always been compartmentalized to me to separate out a skill/combat function from roleplaying a character. I tend to focus more on the why a character is in combat or using their skill, then how they do/use mechanics as a character.

I feel like if fluff is so divorced from crunch, the crunch isn't doing the work I want it to do.