Not Everyone is Interested in Powergaming [merged]

[MoogleEmpMog]

Stormwind Fallacy: The fallacy that optimizing precludes good roleplaying or that being intentionally deficient signifies good roleplaying.

Actually, the OP is not subscribing to the Stormwind Fallacy; he admits to enjoying both powergaming and roleplaying, and to doing both. About the only Stormwind Fallacy element is the implication that mixing the two is not proper powergaming.

As for the core-only restriction, that USED to be no restriction at all; Druid 20 with Natural Spell as the 6th level feat and the rest open was pretty much the king of optimization, short of insta-bans like Pun-Pun. It could be tweaked slightly by throwing in a Wis-bonus, physical-penalty race or by adding non-core spells, but those were pure icing on the world-beating cake.

It's an interesting restriction, now, though, and from an understandable (financial) perspective.

In either case, it has nothing to do with the Stormwind Fallacy.

EDIT: Well, I take it back.

I actually think the hypothesis you've attacked is partially correct, if you consider the finiteness of time people have to devote to the hobby. Past a certain threshold, I'd say it's clear that time spent improving the character's numerical performance can't be concurrently spent on exploring the character's, well, character.

I've experienced this personally, at the gaming table: At character creation I start to obsess over this or that choice of feats or magic items, then realize I don't even know the guy's name or where he's from or what color his hair is. I can spend twice as long to both powergame and characterize, but then I start to have less fun per unit time.

What is wrong with my personal experience such that it's incorrectly causing me to disprove the fallacy? This isn't rhetoric, I really want to know what I'm doing wrong.

In practical terms, you're correct; you have a finite amount of time to work on a character and must split it between the two activities.

However, the Stormwind Fallacy is abstract, not practical. You're not actually disproving it in the abstract, logical sphere. Note that the Stormwind Fallacy says "preclude" rather than "inhibit" - due to time constraints, optimizing might inhibit roleplaying, but it can't preclude it outright.

Also, you're equating "coming up with a background" with "roleplaying" - some people prefer to develop their characters' personalities in play rather than beforehand. For these people, optimizing doesn't even inhibit.

Finally, most of my characters' backgrounds have grown out of the mechanical choices I made, or developed concurrently with them as both approached the character concept I had in mind. In such cases, optimization actually enhances roleplaying.

 

[BaldHero]

been playing D&D for 23 years.

Making characters and npcs the whole time. I have no idea what a ddm build is.

Anyone care to enlighten me?
If i had to guess, it sounds like a character built off of a blue print that maximizes the characters value. Is that about right?

I have to agree with those that agree that building a perfect character is neat, and if you have fun that way, that is great for you, but it surely doent mean that other people are doing it wrong.

I am one of those people that often sacrifice mechanics for cool. I do it with my characters, my npc creations, and my monsters. But then again, my players like cool more than mechanics.

 

[Odhanan]

Stormwind Fallacy: The fallacy that optimizing precludes good roleplaying or that being intentionally deficient signifies good roleplaying.

Correct. There's nothing wrong with powergaming, and it isn't an antithesis to good role-playing. Good role-playing or powergaming aren't the only possible Grails for an awesome game session.

The thing that's useful though is for the DM to be keenly aware of the players' own preferences to be able to heighten the pleasure felt by everyone at the game table. That's like making a good meal for everyone to enjoy around the game table. You've got to know your guests to optimize the results.

 

[pallandrome]

I purposely play Druids without Natural Spell.

Just to throw people.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah I hate it when my PC succeeds at tasks, wins fights and helps the party. What kind of lame role-playing is that?! Success has no place in Despair & Deficiencies.

Laments (with emphasis on the lame), -- N

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Been playing since 1988...and I also have no idea what a "DMM" build is. I don't subscribe to the term "build" either. To me, I create a character based on a "concept", not a build. Again, that doesn't mean I look down my nose at folks who play their D&D with "builds"...it's just not the way I play. Oh, and what's a "pun-pun"? All of my NPCs and PCs are based around "cool" factor. My two main bad guys in my campaign right now are horrifically underwhelming in combat effectiveness, but they look cool (half-fiend yuan-ti and half-black-dragon half-orc true necromancer). And, last but not least, what is this "stormwind fallacy?"

 

[I'm A Banana]

Past a certain threshold, I'd say it's clear that time spent improving the character's numerical performance can't be concurrently spent on exploring the character's, well, character.

You don't need any more time to role-play an effective character than to role-play an effective NPC.

Which is to say, you don't need ANY prep time in some circumstances.

 

[shurai]

D&D which is harmful to another person - whether physically, emotionally, mentally, or even spiritually - is still a form of abuse, even if the person who is playing the D&D is having fun.

Wow, you're right. Now that I think about it, it really ought to be in there explicitly. A revision, which depends on abuse always ruining the fun for someone at the table:

The most sacred tenet of D&D is that fun for all is absolutely the first priority, period.

 

[Cadfan]

MoogleEmpMog- Interestingly, its in the nature of most fallacies that they're valid in an abstract sense, but useless in real life. Tons of fallacious arguments can be rendered legitimate by changing "All X have the characteristic Y" to "Nearly all X have the characteristic Y."

Which is a fancy way of saying: If you believe that divine metamagic persistent spell cleric using nightsticks from libre mortis are a minimally competent build necessary for a character to "succeed at tasks, wins fights, and helps the party" then while I cannot be 100% sure you are a munchkin, I do highly suspect that you would not fit well in my game- my game in which players DO succeed at tasks, win fights, and help one another, all without the aid of divine metamagic persistent spells fueled with nightsticks.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't need to powergame, just as long as I hold my own in a group I'm fine. If they are all powergamers, I'll PG with 'em. If they are underoptimized, I can do that too.

Its inequality, not powergaming, that irks me.