Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2893907" data-attributes="member: 18280">Anyone who has watched childen playing (or who has been a child) has witnessed (or done) roleplaying without any min-maxing involved, and often enouch without any means to imagine events agreed upon by the group.The problem with the Lumpley Principle is the same as that with &quot;The fittest survive.&quot;&nbsp; With Darwin's statement, since only survival determines fitness, the statement itself contains no actual information.&nbsp; With Lumpley, any action is evidence of rules, and the rules are only defined by the action; no codification, awareness, etc., is required.&nbsp; The principle is tautological in that it is self-defining, but I don't think that this is the definition that most of us think of when we say &quot;rules&quot;.It is certainly true that, once established, a character can certainly maximize his odds as part of roleplaying.&nbsp; That is, as you say, human nature.&nbsp; In some worlds, Greyhawking a dungeon is just the smart thing to do.&nbsp; In other worlds, it's joining the Brotherhood of the Crimson Fist (which might be represented in the game rules as a prestige class).&nbsp; You don't need to know the numerical bonus to know that having higher ground in a fight is often a good thing....as is being in a position to strike an enemy that cannot strike back at you.Which is why I said &quot;min-maxing and rules-focusing is not roleplaying. It may well be part of character creation that leads to roleplaying, it might be a necessary adjunct to resolving roleplaying decisions, and it is certainly not the antithesis of roleplaying.&quot;There was once a Gygax article entitled &quot;Good Does Not Mean Stupid&quot; (or something very like) that suggested quite vehemently that people in a D&amp;D world understand the sort of world they live in and act appropriately.&nbsp; Tarzan doesn't fail to recognize that lions are dangerous.&nbsp; Conan doesn't go barehanded when a sword is within reach.&nbsp; Being able to make a character in a rules-savvy manner has nothing to do with whether or not you can then roleplay that character in an enjoyable manner conducive to suspension of disbelief.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2893907, member: 18280"] Anyone who has watched childen playing (or who has been a child) has witnessed (or done) roleplaying without any min-maxing involved, and often enouch without any means to imagine events agreed upon by the group. The problem with the Lumpley Principle is the same as that with "The fittest survive." With Darwin's statement, since only survival determines fitness, the statement itself contains no actual information. With Lumpley, any action is evidence of rules, and the rules are only defined by the action; no codification, awareness, etc., is required. The principle is tautological in that it is self-defining, but I don't think that this is the definition that most of us think of when we say "rules". It is certainly true that, once established, a character can certainly maximize his odds as part of roleplaying. That is, as you say, human nature. In some worlds, Greyhawking a dungeon is just the smart thing to do. In other worlds, it's joining the Brotherhood of the Crimson Fist (which might be represented in the game rules as a prestige class). You don't need to know the numerical bonus to know that having higher ground in a fight is often a good thing....as is being in a position to strike an enemy that cannot strike back at you. Which is why I said "min-maxing and rules-focusing is [I]not[/I] roleplaying. It may well be part of character creation that [I]leads to[/I] roleplaying, it might be a necessary adjunct to resolving roleplaying [I]decisions[/I], and it is certainly [B][I]not[/I][/B] the antithesis of roleplaying." There was once a Gygax article entitled "Good Does Not Mean Stupid" (or something very like) that suggested quite vehemently that people in a D&D world understand the sort of world they live in and act appropriately. Tarzan doesn't fail to recognize that lions are dangerous. Conan doesn't go barehanded when a sword is within reach. Being able to make a character in a rules-savvy manner has nothing to do with whether or not you can then roleplay that character in an enjoyable manner conducive to suspension of disbelief. :D RC [/QUOTE]

Verification