Not Everyone is Interested in Powergaming [merged]

[Doug McCrae]

I'd like to propose the Unicorn Fallacy: Just because there's a name for something doesn't mean it exists.

 

[blargney the second]

I'd like to propose the Unicorn Fallacy: Just because there's a name for something doesn't mean it exists.

*lol*

So powergamers don't exist?
-blarg

 

[Bacris]

Okay, I also object to the Stormwind Fallacy. I much prefer punnet (sp?) squares. Ah, good old biology class. It was great until we got to the much more interestign sciences like chemistry and physics. But, I digress.

I present the ...

Nonlethal Force Square of Gameplay​

What you showed is the Stormwind Fallacy in a graphical representation. The fact that RP and Optimization are not mutually exclusive.

Just some food for thought - you're arguing over semantics when the basic concept is the same.

 

[happyelf]

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

The biggest fallacy of all is insisting that everyone can get along in the same game, despite varying play-styles. Powergaming can and does get in the way of roleplaying for many people, and people have a right to say that if that is their preference. It's not a fallacy, it's a fact in many cases.

Indeed. As I posted in the original thread, just because I know HOW to build a DMM Cleric, and am allowed to do so, does not mean I have any urge to or ever will.

The group that I play with does not have any very good optimizers, other than myself. If I were to twink out a Cleric or a Druid to be as powergamed as possible, it would in some ways limit the other players from having opportunities to shine. It would also be annoying to the DM, as he would have to account for the massive power imbalance in the party in order to put togeather a challenging game (i.e. How to challenge my character without insta-killing everyone else). Since I can enjoy myself just fine without twinking out a character, I just don't bother to.

Exactly. It's easy for a powergamer to say "of course I can roleplay", but roleplaying is a complex issue, as are most play-styles. I mean, I could say the same for roleplaying-centric styles- maybe I can do them fine "roleplaying" in a game with a bunch of powergamers, but what if I'm using some kind of dramatic editing system that renders their builds moot? That is likewise, disruptive of their play style and the fun they're trying to have.

 

[jdrakeh]

What you showed is the Stormwind Fallacy in a graphical representation. The fact that RP and Optimization are not mutually exclusive.

It also illustrates the fact that they aren't mutually inclusive, either (something that many proponents of the Stormwind fallacy often suggest).

 

[Nonlethal Force]

What you showed is the Stormwind Fallacy in a graphical representation. The fact that RP and Optimization are not mutually exclusive.

Just some food for thought - you're arguing over semantics when the basic concept is the same.

Perhaps I'm not reading it right, then.

preclude - to make impossible by necessary consequence : rule out in advance

So ...

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

In simple terms:
1. Optimizing rules out good roleplaying.
2. Deficiency implies good roleplaying.

If that is the Stormwind Fallacy, then that isn't what I showed. To use my square, the Stormwind Fallacy argues that only 2 and 3 are a possibility. What I propose is that there are additional categories of 1 and 4.

But, I could be reading the Stormwind Fallacy wrong. If so, then it is poorly worded and should be revised.

 

[blargney the second]

Fallacy

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-blarg

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think I know where the confusion is here. The problem is what is meant by 'someone who believes in (or agrees with or upholds) the Stormwind Fallacy'. Is this someone who is themselves committing the fallacy, or is it someone who thinks the fallacy is a good representation of the mistakes of others? Those two people have opposite views. The first thinks that only 2 and 3 (in Nonlethal Force's square) are possible. The second thinks that 1-4 are all possible.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-blarg

Actualy - and I'm assuming your post was meant to be helpful and thus that's how I'm responding - I do know what a falacy is. Years of teaching Geometry in High School and getting in "inverse, converse, and even contrapositives" have taught me what a fallacy is!

Now, on to Doug McCRae's hypothesis, I'll make it clear how I interpret something being called the "Stormwind Fallacy." Again, I could be wrong.

There was a guy named Stormwind who said optimization precludes good RP, deficiency implies good RP. Since that is known as a fallacy, that means that it is generally disregarded as untrue - or perhaps more acurately stated - a poor description of the truth of reality.

In other words, those who agree that it is a fallacy think there are more than just 2 options. That is to say that you can be a good optimizer and a good RPer or you can be a bad optimizer and a bad RPer {In addition to one or the other}. I would be in this group of people.

 

[WayneLigon]

For instance, from a powergaming perspective, my 3rd level bard should really take dodge to help out with his woeful AC. But as a "character", why would he have any concept of "AC" and not take Skill Focus: Perform instead, so he will be a better Bard? So maybe, as a player, I justify my power-gaming feat choice with something like "well, my Bard has learned through the last few adventures how better to get out of harm's way, and this is more important to him right now than being a better Bard." But am I role=playing, or justifying power-gaming?

This is the conundrum.

There is no connumdrum to that; if he's been getting into a lot of combat, your character mostly certainly does understand the concept of 'AC', as you point out in the very next sentence; anyone that can draw breath understands the concept of getting out of harm's way or resisting harm to one's person.

The roleplaying aspect of it comes in where you consider what your character has been through in the past, or what he wants to become. If you've been playing a campaign that has been one long drawing room mystery, then Dodge might be a justifiable feat for you. If you've been in your more typical deadly dungeon adventure or off fighting orcs in the hills, then anyone could justify almost any combat oriented feat.