|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:20AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
And why can't the roleplayer choose to use the mace? Are you saying that every single person who makes a promise to a dieing relative will always keep their word no matter what even if it could mean their own death?
If it's established in his backstory that he's weak willed liar, then sure. However, I put in soul oath for a reason. A soul oath is one where in character(the mechanics may or may not bear it out depending on the DM), the character believes that his soul will be lost if he breaks that oath. It isn't just a matter of "breaking a promise." Even a liar will be unlikely to break that oath.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:22AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Every modification offered thus far is assumed in the original text and argument.
The text appears to have wandered a bit since then. I was using one posted by OneWinged4ngel in Previous Editions General. That is the precise text I am addressing and the offered modification was not assumed in it.
Indeed, optimization is often utilized after concepts have been devised. Want to create a halfling pick fighter in 4E? That's not the best way to build a fighter, but one can still optimize that concept by picking intelligent options within those constraints. That's still performing the action of optimizing, and that's what Stormwind (and pro-optimizers in general) address.
If that is what Stormwind meant, then his fallacy is meaningless; but I don't think that is what he meant. In fact looking at the link calronmoonflower supplied I think he only wanted to say that just because a character is optimised doesn't guarantee that it can't be roleplayed. He would probably admit (and he does not rule out) that some character concepts will conflict with optimisation. sapient makes that point in a round about way.
Stormwind appears not to have considered sequence at all deeply. The Stormwind Fallacy fails to address the point that if we proceed from roleplay, then optimisation (except in the facile way you describe) may be ruled out. Therefore Stormwind will benefit from modification if it is to be useful to a wider range of players.
-vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:23AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Well, I believe MrCelcius said it elegantly in the post above yours. The Stormwind fallacy was coined in another version of the game, where the options and the style of play conflicted far more often. 4E really makes the Stormwind fallacy less of an issue.
I saw that, and I disagree. The ability to retrain skills, feats, and powers to suit what you need when you need it makes it more of an issue in 4ed.
Optimizer: "We're going up against a dragon? We'll probably level before we reach it, so I'll just ditch this power and pick up that power and we'll be better off."
4ed has created a situation where the problem persists through the whole of the game, not just character creation.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:26AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Further, "optimized" is generally understood to be a gradient of sorts, not binary. If there is a such thing as "the most optimized character possible," there exists only one such build of it, and anything else is by definition suboptimal. That's a pretty pointless circumstance to discuss; therefore, it's clear that Stormwind does not address simply "the most optimized option available."
This assumption is as full of fail as you claim the thread is. It's very possible that there can be multiple builds that are equal in power.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:44AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2007
|
The text appears to have wandered a bit since then. I was using one posted by OneWinged4ngel in Previous Editions General. That is the precise text I am addressing and the offered modification was not assumed in it.
The text isn't a problem. As a fallacy it counter a specific faulty line of logic instead of making a sweeping generalization of the game in general.
If you point to the power of a build to prove the lack of roleplaying, then you have a fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy counter that alone.
I saw that, and I disagree. The ability to retrain skills, feats, and powers to suit what you need when you need it makes it more of an issue in 4ed.
Optimizer: "We're going up against a dragon? We'll probably level before we reach it, so I'll just ditch this power and pick up that power and we'll be better off."
4ed has created a situation where the problem persists through the whole of the game, not just character creation.
Well you're example here assumes a lack of a roleplaying motive to adapt to better fight a dragon. A roleplayer should be able to supply a good reason for doing so.
Generally this is the type of thing that the Five Techniques well help merge optimization and roleplaying.
Also for everyone on this thread, you might try reading the following thread.
I realize that it is long, but the first page alone shouldn't be too much.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=941969
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:53AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Well you're example here assumes a lack of a roleplaying motive to adapt to better fight a dragon. A roleplayer should be able to supply a good reason for doing so.
To be fair, it assumes two things, neither of which are motive to adapt to better fight a dragon.
Assumption 1: It's nonsensical to just forget how to do one thing in order to learn how to do another.
Assumption 2: The choice is made to better optimize to fight dragons.
What does the character do, bash his head into the wall repeatedly until he gains selective amnesia, forgetting the former power and simultaneuously opening his mind to the flow of universal knowledge, thereby learning a new power?
Any RP justification for that is going to be so flimsy that a mote of dust will tear it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:54AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
The text isn't a problem. As a fallacy it counter a specific faulty line of logic instead of making a sweeping generalization of the game in general.
What surprises me is that this is necessary at all. Why would anyone claim that you can't make up RP to bend around your optimization choices? All they should be saying is "your constrained choices and invented justifications aren't that believable to me and I don't like that style of play" and leave it at that. It's all an opinion thing anyway.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:59AM
#58
|
|
|
Heh. The forfeiture of his soul over the breaking of a soul oath made to his father on his father's dying bed just to kill a random encounter a bit easier would not happen with "with regret". It would not happen at all, except by tossing roleplay out the window.
Now, if it was the great arch demon Bozaz and the only way to save the world was to toss aside the longsword and use a mace, that would be a bit different. The stakes would be high enough that the PC could go either way and still be within the bounds of roleplay.
Ah, I didn't realize we were splitting hairs. Of course different situations will require different responses. There was no indication of the severity of the situation. Even still, unless he threw over the heirloom in favor of the mace all the time because it is more effective, I don't see an issue except with the DM who is constantly coming up with encounters which work against his choice of weapon. That is a totally different problem, though.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 12:11PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2007
|
To be fair, it assumes two things, neither of which are motive to adapt to better fight a dragon.
Assumption 1: It's nonsensical to just forget how to do one thing in order to learn how to do another.
Assumption 2: The choice is made to better optimize to fight dragons.
The first assumption here is a problem with the rules of the game in general.
It isn't about the choice, but how the rules force you to make the choice.
As retraining is part of character advancement you would have to assume that replacing powers when leveling up is contrary to roleplaying in general rather than doing so to better fight the dragon.
What does the character do, bash his head into the wall repeatedly until he gains selective amnesia, forgetting the former power and simultaneuously opening his mind to the flow of universal knowledge, thereby learning a new power?
This is a Appeal to Ridicule.
Your problem is with the retraining/advancement rules in general, not use that the player put them.
Any RP justification for that is going to be so flimsy that a mote of dust will tear it.
Not really, the first technique is enough to justify the change.
The fourth technique can be used to make the replacement seem organic.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2009 - 12:15PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
If you point to the power of a build to prove the lack of roleplaying, then you have a fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy counter that alone.
Hmm. On re-reading the text I definitely concede the point to you and Solik. Stormwind meant somethng less far-reaching than I had imagined. It is a shame he didn't deal with sequence.
I think maxperson fairly draws attention to the general point that Stormwind doesn't touch on observable correlations between motivations and outcomes, which no doubt diminishes his Fallacy's value to some. Still, it is in the end a logical and not psychological statement he is making.
-vk
|
|
|
