Community

slobo777a wrote:

4) Carefully counting squares to multiple targets to determine ranges or charge, then choosing specific actions, as opposed to declaring specific actions first by feel and then figuring out what happens by counting out the movement.

6) Selecting actions against an NPC by bartering about who has the best options or powers, using game terminolgy ("I have +8 to Intimidate") in front of that NPC.

I don't think that these are contrary in any way to roleplaying, because often the characters in the story would be expected to have a better handle on their own and each other's abilities than the players might. An experienced character considering a charge in combat would have a decent idea of whether he could reach that enemy or not, while the player would have to count squares to be sure. Characters often spend a lot more time together than their players do (days or weeks at a time, instead of hours), and a lot more time contemplating and considering strategies that they can use in tandem (in or out of combat).

Of course, I also don't like it when a DM bars players from discussing their next few moves in the middle of combat. I accept that this might help increase immersion, but characters are often skilled combatants and tacticians, while players are not necessarily.

I see these only as points where the game/character interplay is particularly clumsy. I see these mechanical conversations between players as a means of overcoming that clumsiness.

I think a better alteration to the fallacy would be to simply more clearly define mechanical optimization for the purposes of this particular definition.

Scallat wrote:

Do they? It seems that if I don't accept the preposition that optimising your character mechanically means also playing optimally (and I don't) then the rest of your argument falls down.

The part you quote is actually irrelevant to the argument; I just felt it was an interesting point to consider. I hope I do not misrepresent you in sayng that you feel that Stormwind only applies to character mechanical optimisation--which you read as character creation and progression choices. A question that raises is whether you feel that Stormwind does not apply to the other potentially optimised choices you make during play? Do you?

I suspect if you do, you will find it pernicious; but let's say I take back the comment you object to? How does that help us? It isn't an underpinning predicate of my main argument. Dropping it does not disturb that argument, because we now only need to find an example of a character creation or progression choice that can be roleplayed or optimised, but not both at once, to show a revision along the lines proposed is justifiable. I do feel we should have a test for any example we will accept: it must not be strained, and it should be one that has come up in play and has reasonable currency. So for examples, slobo777a captured some possibilities: let's work up one of his (#2).

I am choosing a feat for my Warlock (I'll stick to core here) who I have delineated as a bookish character. I notice the incredible benefits that Stealth can give a Warlock, and notice that Warrior of the Wild is an optimal way to gain that skill. However, I don't feel my character should have that from a roleplaying point of view. I feel he should have Linguist, which is a decidedly sub-optimal choice for the combat heavy campaign our DM is running. I can only choose one feat this level, so I must choose between a feat indicated by optimisation or a feat indicated by roleplay. I cannot at this time satisfy both.

Please remember here that we cannot challenge my sense of what my character wants from a roleplaying perspective. I am allowed to assert that that is so. We can challenge my sense of what would be optimal, but if we do, then unless we manage to show Linguist will become the best pick by optimisation criteria we're still running into trouble.

The Warrior of the Wild example came up months ago in detailed debate on Stealth and optimisation with Stealth, and value of Stealth to Warlocks. I feel it has currency and is not strained. Can you find any issues with it that I have missed?

-vk

slobo777a wrote:

I agree they are not contrary, but in my experience players who use these approaches end up spending their limited time slot on game mechanics issues as their priority. Players who call the shots first are often sub-optimal in what they do (especially at first until they get used to what the character can/cannot do in a by-feel way), but spend more of their time thinking about motivations and descriptions.

If that is what you are getting at, then you should just say that spending time thinking about optimal combat tactics without regard to character is contrary to roleplay. Instead you listed two player habits that may or may not be related in any way to how much they optimize or roleplay.

In fact I think both of these habits are almost necessary for roleplay. My character wouldn't charge an enemy if he's going to end up five feet short before he gets an arrow in the face. He would have an idea of how far he can move before the guy reloads. The way I as a player determine this is by counting squares. The character would know it intuitively.

My character would also have a sense of how effective his ally is at intimidation tactics. He would know if his buddy is frightening when he howls like a madman to chase off enemies or if he is just goofy. I as a player do not necessarily have as much of a grasp on the other characters in the game, nor how those character traits are represented mechanically by the player. The way I determine this is to ask, assuming that the characters would have figured these things out between them long before the current encounter actually took place.

Even if this new argument is what you were getting at, I'm not sure I agree. A player who spends three minutes thinking about character and two minutes thinking about tactics may well be optimizing more than roleplaying. A player who spends one minute thinking about each may be optimizing and roleplaying to the same, greater, or lesser degree. Maybe it just takes the second player less time to optimize his character's combat choices, and at the same time he has a much better grasp on his character's motivations than player 1. Roleplaying and mechanics will require different amounts of energy, time, and focus from player to player, from action to action, from character to character, and from system to system.

A proposed alteration: choosing optimized equipment or options at level up does not preclude roleplaying.

Possible corollary: choosing suboptimal equipment or options at level up does not mean you are automatically roleplaying.