Optimising versus Roleplaying

[Rykion]

I would like to draw attention to an edit to my OP for those who would like to respond to the points made. Thanks!


-vk

I think the main problem here is that the Stormwind Fallacy and its relevant discussion are hardly a common topic at ENworld. That makes it strange that we are cautioned in its use when most of us don't know what it is and have never seen it used properly or improperly.

When dealing with optimised versus unoptimised characters, I don't see roleplaying as a problem. The lack of party balance when the two groups of characters are used together tends to lead to friction between players. It also leaves the GM with the problem of balancing encounters to challenge both groups of characters.

I can also understand conflict between people who create a complete character concept and then use a game system to stat them versus people who optimise a character within the system and then come up with a way to roleplay that character. In this case it is irrelevant if a character can be roleplayed well. The importance, for the first group, is that the decisions made in creation were for character concept, not for playing the system. Just a case of different strokes for different folks.

 

[Marius Delphus]

To say nothing of the fact that some characters that are completely "optimized" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) are perfectly "roleplayable" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean), and, therefore, in turn, some perfectly "roleplayable" characters are completely "optimized."

In other words, the fallacy at work here is a false dichotomy.

 

[MarkB]

Please keep it on topic and respect other's right to discuss things they are interested in. There's plenty of digital space out there for everyone.

So far, the side-topics have generated more interest and meaningful discussion than the central theme. Why stifle the only positive aspects of this thread?

I would like to draw attention to an edit to my OP for those who would like to respond to the points made. Thanks!

I've read your edited OP. You seem to have completely obscured whatever point you were originally trying to make in the process of attempting to bring it back on-topic. So far as I can make out, your argument is something like: "Some role-playable characters are optimised. Some role-playable characters are un-optimised. Therefore, a player who tends to make optimised characters is denying himself access to the full spectrum of role-playable characters - and is thus the poorer for it."

Whilst technically you are correct - players who make optimised characters will have only part of the full range of possible characters to choose from - this effect is all-but-meaningless in practice, since the subset of optimised, role-playable characters, whilst necessarily smaller than the set of all possible role-playable characters, is nevertheless so well-populated as to be effectively limitless in the context of any individual player making an individual character.

Furthermore, you attempt to single out optimised-vs-unoptimised for your argument, but in fact it would apply equally well - or poorly - to any form of selection criteria. A player who prefers only to play characters of one gender, or who prefers martial characters over spellcasters, or who dislikes playing a specific race, is limiting their options in exactly the same way. So your argument, in essence, would boil down to "Any limitation on choice of character type is bad for role-playing, because it fractionally reduces (as in, from 99.999999999% to 99.999999995%) their chances of coming up with a character that can be role-played."

As counter-fallacies go, that one's not going to sway many people. And, as has already been pointed out, you're not even talking to the right audience here, since there is no significant history of people shouting "Stormwind fallacy!" as an attempted thread-win on these boards.

 

[Dausuul]

Axioms: All pencils can write, and all books can be written and read. Glasses can read and write.
Conclusion: Pencils can write books. Glasses can read books.
This conclusion is correct.

Not true.

I can read and write. Sanskrit can be read and written. It does not logically follow that I can read or write Sanskrit.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I've revised the OP further, to hopefully give a better picture of where the relevance of this came from for me. Really as Cadfan noted, it's a refutation to an argument that is sometimes used to bludgeon those who experience a genuine dilemma between optimising and roleplaying.

-vk

Only it's not a refutation to an argument. Because there is no argument.

It's a logical fallacy.

Roleplaying and optimization are not connected. Trying to claim one reduces the other is a false dilemma.

All you've done so far is use a whole lot of psychobable to try and disguise the fact that you simply believe that optimization hurts roleplaying, and that you have no proof for believing so.

 

[El Mahdi]

...I don't need my own fallacy.

Where's the fun in that?

We could call it the Arch Fallacy! (for Arch Chancellor)

It's the fallacy to rule all fallacies. The Uber Fallacy!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What the world needs is a fallacy dealing with the Australian government's laws regarding certain marsupials...

IOW, we need to create the Wallaby Policy Fallacy.

As for the OP?

Like others have said- your thread is generating all the threadjacks because this really doesn't happen here...at least, not in name. Most people around here don't seem have a problem roleplaying optimal or sub-optimal PCs. Its a non-issue.

If anything, the questions about optimization on ENWorld are about "How to?" not about "How to RP once I've done my math?"

I mean, you're welcome to discuss anything here- within forum rules, of course- but shouldn't this be posted where Stormwind is/was doing this?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I always liked to bring up what I called the "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" which states that the Stormwind Fallacy does not justify, excuse, or negate roleplaying badly while powergaming.

 

[pawsplay]

In my view, there is no such thing as an unplayable character, because such a thing would not be a character. As long as a character has an identity, provides the player with decision-making ability, and can exist within the game world, they are playable.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Balance was a problem when a person who optimizes heavily plays in the same game with a person who does not and this imbalance disrupts the game. The level of imbalance possible and easily attained using 3.5e(which is much greater than almost any other RPG, and is significantly more than previous editions) could easily disrupt the game and thus was a problem.