|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:30AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
doubt that you can get them all, just most of them. However, you can still optimize your character without using the most optimal choice in every situation. To decide otherwise would require you to play pun-pun like characters to be considered to be optimized.
1) This is the entire point of the thread. You cannot if you are always roleplaying, always choose the most optimal option. That's the whole premise that OP put forward.
2) Always optimizing limits RP. It doesn't stop RP, but it DOES limit it. You cannot play many types of character concepts if you always optimize. Therefore, someone who always optimizes is a more limited RPer than someone who doesn't always optimize.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:31AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Use the flat side of the longsword. Or its pommel. Blunt!
And that's great RP, but it won't do as much damage as a mace, and so will be sub-optimal. Your suggestion is what I would do if I were roleplaying that character.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:33AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2007
|
I've abbreviated your post, so sorry if I miss anything important to you. It seems to me that your resistance amounts to proposing that some kind of test applies to roleplaying choices before you will allow them. Only roleplaying choices that pass your test are allowed. That looks tough to defend.
My experience is that players frequently believe that their interpretation is the one that counts when it comes to roleplaying. If they say their Rogue likes the colour green, how does your test work to know whether they are allowed that choice? What is the nature of this test, and how do we verify its results?
My objection is about the logic of the Stormwind fallacy. I think I phrased it a bit clearer in the other thread (the one about mixing combat and roleplaying) so I'll try to reiterate that:
The Stormwind fallacy says that for every optimized build, there exist at least one way to roleplay it effectively without inconsistencies.
That doesn't say that an optimized character will be compatible with every possible choice, as it is clearly not.
Your proposed counterexample doesn't disprove the fallacy in much the same way as pointing out that cabbage grows in patches doesn't disprove the phrase "Apple's grow on trees". Your argument is off the point.
Earlier you said that you: "only need to find an example of a character creation or progression choice that can be roleplayed or optimised, but not both at once". That is indeed true. But let me point out that this means not only describing one set of assumptions under which you choose not to roleplay AND optimize at the same time. (Effectively that was what you did in the example I commented. And tried to establish that assumption as off limits for the argument.)
But then, clearly, you haven't understood your own words.
In order to provide a genuine counterexample, you would have to prove that there exist at least one optimized choice that can't - under every possible legal condition - combine with any one sensible back story (or other "roleplaying" requirement of choice). Do you see?
Even a choice that is incompatible with a million backstories will still be compatible with thousands of other imagineable stories. And to uphold the fallacy, there need be only one that combines optimization and roleplaying.
Sometimes house rules will bar certain varieties - that's why I included the "every possible legal" condition above - and sometimes the backstory might seem silly, far fetched or ridicously contrived to you. But those are subjective conditions, sort of aestethic opinions of what kind of roleplaying are "good" or "has merit", and would still be valid.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:42AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2007
|
A character who as his father lay dying in bed, swears a soul oath to his father to use the family longsword only, forsaking all other weapons. 4 levels down the road, he encounters a monster who is vulnerable to blunt weapons. Optimally, a mace is the best weapon. If he plays optimally, he must step out of character and deny his roleplay to kill the beast. If he uses his longsword, he is no longer playing optimally.
There are TONS of situations that put characters in the position of being optimal OR roleplaying, but unable to do both.
Yes, this is an entertaining backstory - but I fail to see why it would be a counterexample to the Stormwind fallacy?
The fallacy doesn't say that every combination of options of "roleplaying" and optimization is possible. You describe a situation where it clearly isn't.
(Although - usually - a particular weapon being sub-optimal for one specific kind of monster is not generally considered an optimization problem, since there will always be instances of that...)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:44AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2006
|
The key is "not automatically." But essentially this is saying sometimes your role-playing driven choice is optimal. As immersive role-playing is essentially considering only the motivations of the character in the decision making process any consideration of optimization is by definiation not rp.
The fault in the logic saying that you can do both is really that immersive rp cannot include any "optimization" thought process. Rp isnt concerned with the results as much as it is the motivation of the actions. Optimization though is exactly the opposite. It focuses only on the results.
While the choice of the character might be the same, the actions serve different masters. The Rper's reasoning was, Farfad the dwarf would attack the goblin first as he hates the greenskins, the optimizer attack was done because the Farfad gets a bonus the round after he drops a foe so it will make the attack on the solo go much better.
Both players attacked the goblin minion first but for vastly different reasons and only was was really Rp-ing.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:48AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
My objection is about the logic of the Stormwind fallacy. I think I phrased it a bit clearer in the other thread (the one about mixing combat and roleplaying) so I'll try to reiterate that:
The Stormwind fallacy says that for every optimized build, there exist at least one way to roleplay it effectively without inconsistencies.
That doesn't say that an optimized character will be compatible with every possible choice, as it is clearly not.
Gracious! That takes Stormwind a bit further than I had imagined, and comes as an intriguing angle to me. So in this case, am I obliged to roleplay characters that don't appeal to me? Let's say though, that we mean to include such a vast diversity of possible characters that some of them will be guaranteed to appeal to me?!
I think then we run into the problem of availability at the table. What if I don't happen to think of one of those very many possible character stories that fit? Or worse still, what if I have no desire to even find them? I'm happy with the story I have. We run once again into needing that test. By what quality are we judging that my happiness is not a sufficient condition for me to settle on the story I have, roleplay from it, and come into conflict with a choice that could be more optimal (and that I am aware of).
Even a choice that is incompatible with a million backstories will still be compatible with thousands of other imagineable stories. And to uphold the fallacy, there need be only one that combines optimization and roleplaying.
Can I fairly say that you structure your reading of Stormwind to proceed from a mechanical build to a story you find satisfactory to roleplay that build with? You acknowledge that it can be done the other way, sometimes causing conflicts, right?
-vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:51AM
#37
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2004
|
Funny, I see neither example having one side or the other as "better roleplaying"
The bookish warlock- what if Stealth, for this 'lock, represents dodging away from the battles thrust upon her, trying to avoid conflict and hide from her destiny? Perhaps a great conflict of character becomes the willingness of the warlock to stop hiding from fate, to stop slinking through the shadows and help her friends.
And the idiot warrior? Well, sure, he could keep using the longsword, or he could use a mace. The degree to which his arbitrary oath matters more or less than his own survival and his mission would be an interesting facet of character development; a flawed character who breaks an oath has just as much roleplaying potential as a law-abiding, oath-keeping one.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:53AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2006
|
It is not enough that there exists a way to role-play a choice in a single instance. Soap operas effectively do that. What is required is that character identity is maintained or transitioned due to story elements rather than game rules. Its not that an optimizer cant roleplay a single event its that the optimizer when faced with scenarios which require resolution of ambiguous courses the optimal choice is taken rather the character rp choice. Even if the actions are the same the thought process is different and therefore one is not the strictest interpretation of role-playing.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:53AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2007
|
As immersive role-playing is essentially considering only the motivations of the character in the decision making process any consideration of optimization is by definiation not rp.
No. This is, again, faulty reasoning. What you say is that I cannot imagine a perfectionist, sort of zen-buddist "way of the sword" guy who constantly strivs to be the most excellent sword fighter.
Why wouldn't I be able to do that? I could clearly describe the concept?
Optimization of that characters sword-fighting ability would merely be the mechanical representation of that strive for perfection. So it would be all immersive roleplaying...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:56AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2007
|
I just have t o say that I am so in love with 4e right now. In 3e, when most of the game's mechanical creativity was in the chargen process, the Stormwind Fallacy was created and used to address a perceived conflict between optimized character design and roleplayed character action. Now we find that 4e's mechanics are enough about what you do that the Fallacy is being bent to apply not only to the character's nature, but to the character's choices. I see this as a sign that the mechanical intricacy and engagement of on-table actions has reached a level at least equal to the design process in a way that the last edition didn't. In other words, 4e's on-table mechanics must be doing something right if people are arguing about them in a way that 3e never achieved. Nobody ever asked if it'd be in-character to full attack this round, just like they did last round, after all. Sure, similar situations might have arisen, but they clearly weren't as frequent or meaningful as in 4e, or this facet of the Stormwind Fallacy would've been explored years ago. As for the thread itself, it appears that people on both sides of the debate are saying that they only need one exception to the rule in their favour in order to be right. As there are infinite scenarios and infinite exceptions on both sides, I believe we should all consider ourselves lucky to have found an internet discussion in which everybody gets to be right. 
(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.)
Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.
|
|
|
