|
4 years ago ::
Jul 31, 2009 - 8:53AM
#961
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2005
|
but nonetheless I am entitled to not refluff and play the fluff as written[/quote]
Yes, but it is this choice which interferes with your optimization, not the desire to roleplay.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 31, 2009 - 2:52PM
#962
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Yes, but it is this choice which interferes with your optimization, not the desire to roleplay.
The important objection for me is that there is a close intermeshing of fluff and roleplay. Roleplay motives are fluffy ones. As Tolkien put it, fairy tales don't need to be realistic, but they do need to be consistent. Preserving fluff serves that consistency. It means when we reference fireball, we know we are talking about one and the same thing. Or when we reference barbarian, or Charge, again we know we are talking about something consistent. The label 'Charge' has not been reassigned to some other action or quality.
I don't feel that is trivially messed with. In saying this, I can reference refluffing work I've performed on a boardgame (from sci-fi to Arabian) and I have to say that to do it properly feeds back into the mechanics on many levels. A fireball should spread this way, and hurt such and such creatures, and so on, an iceball should feel different. The idea that it is all just special effects only holds true in a superficial way, and one that weakens the quality of the game world.
So since I relate fluff with roleplay, and since I love it when crunch meshes with fluff, then I encounter many situations where there is no clear separation between roleplay and fluff, and no desirable separation between fluff and crunch.
vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 1:50AM
#963
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Here is the final argument. If need be I will update it with definitions for 'optimising' and 'roleplaying'. This is the argument I'm making, and please note that it is not a pejorative one. A is the set of every legal build in D&D
B is the set of every optimised legal build in D&D
C is the set of every unoptimised legal build in D&D
D is the set of all B that can be roleplayed and all C that can be roleplayed.Unless C is empty, or no build contained in C can be roleplayed, then D is necessarily larger than B. It shows that there are builds that can be roleplayed that are not optimised builds. As Solik pointed out, this could be claimed as a victory for those who prioritise roleplaying. While you roleplay and don't optimise you have more build options than you do while you optimise. That does not automatically make you a better roleplayer. Unless you can show that either 1) B == A; or 2) Builds in C cannot be roleplayed; then the argument is true. Note that this is not a subjective argument, it does not matter what one player might do: this argument references the complete set of all possible players. So what does it have to do with Stormwind? 1) The Stormwind Fallacy cannot be adduced in support of any argument that wants to claim that there is nothing one gets from choosing builds based solely on roleplay. One does get something, the builds in C. The value of having those builds is subjective. 2) Stormwind was sometimes misinterpretable, for example 'roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other'. My argument presents a caution that you must not read statements like that as 'can always coexist'. Sometimes a build pick could be a pick from C, which is shown to allow roleplay but preclude optimising. vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 3:23AM
#964
|
|
|
1) The Stormwind Fallacy cannot be adduced in support of any argument that wants to claim that there is nothing one gets from choosing builds based solely on roleplay. One does get something, the builds in C. The value of having those builds is subjective.
I disagree with you here: you use 2 different meaning of "get something"
People who claim that there is nothing one gets from choosing builds based solely on roleplay, aren't talking about number of build options.
2) Stormwind was sometimes misinterpretable, for example 'roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other'. My argument presents a caution that you must not read statements like that as 'can always coexist'. Sometimes a build pick could be a pick from C, which is shown to allow roleplay but preclude optimising.
Is that the conclusion?
"the 'not min/maxed' area of the Stormwind fallacy is not empty" ?
might I also say that its not that a build is not min/maxed that it doesn't mean that it will or will not be good roleplayed by the player.
Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html "Signature in a box"
Show
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - Stone Gaint
Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment.
Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
"Some of my work:"
Show
"My ego in a box"
Show
who am I kidding? my ego would never fit in a box
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 4:44AM
#965
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
I disagree with you here: you use 2 different meaning of "get something"
People who claim that there is nothing one gets from choosing builds based solely on roleplay, aren't talking about number of build options.
I think I understand your point, but I am talking about number of build options, and having more build options is something.
Is that the conclusion?
"the 'not min/maxed' area of the Stormwind fallacy is not empty" ?
might I also say that its not that a build is not min/maxed that it doesn't mean that it will or will not be good roleplayed by the player.
I agree with you, and that is why I included the words 'That does not automatically make you a better roleplayer'. Those words shouldn't really need including, but I wanted to be clear. Not clear enough, evidently 
Whether C is empty or not may ultimately come down to how much you want to nitpick definitions. You can call a fish a horse if you want to. However, since the Stormwind Fallacy is presented using 'minmaxed' interchangeably with 'optimised', and since 'minmaxed' has a meaning in rpg that is still in currency, in for instance the forums for each role and the forum for charop, all I want to state here is that C is not yet demonstrated to be empty. That's the challenge for detractors: go ahead and demonstrate C to be empty.
vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 6:15AM
#966
|
|
|
Whether C is empty or not may ultimately come down to how much you want to nitpick definitions. You can call a fish a horse if you want to.
problem is that nobody is calling a fish a fish. some call it fish, others Fish, fish, fish or fiss
As I said, there are mechanically-legal builds where the fluff says its implossible. This means that there are in fact options that are for non-roleplaying optimizers that are not options for non-optimizing roleplayers.
Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html "Signature in a box"
Show
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - Stone Gaint
Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment.
Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
"Some of my work:"
Show
"My ego in a box"
Show
who am I kidding? my ego would never fit in a box
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 1:47PM
#967
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
problem is that nobody is calling a fish a fish. some call it fish, others Fish, fish, fish or fiss
As I said, there are mechanically-legal builds where the fluff says its implossible. This means that there are in fact options that are for non-roleplaying optimizers that are not options for non-optimizing roleplayers.
Also ghost! and I must say, you present some very tasty argumentation
There are several options for the contents of B, C, and D. Let's say first that contrary to our intuition and experience, none of B are in D. Well, that would falsify SF so we probably decide not to say that.
So let us instead say as you do that not all of B is in D. In that case, we no longer even need to discuss C to come to the conclusion that optimising sometimes precludes roleplaying, because we have decided that some members of B are not in D. This is a gain worse for SF.
Therefore I assumed that we decide to agree with Stormwind that all B is in D, even though it does not really matter if that is true. Then as to C, unless B == A, C is not empty. That is why I say the burden of proof is now on the detractors. B == A is false until proven true.
vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 11:17PM
#968
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Here then is the final argument (version 8). Please note that it is not a pejorative one. A is the set of every legal build in D&D
B is the set of every optimised legal build in D&D
C is the set of every unoptimised legal build in D&D
D is the set of all B that can be roleplayed and all C that can be roleplayed.Unless C is empty, or no build contained in C can be roleplayed, then D is necessarily larger than B. It shows that there are builds that can be roleplayed that are not optimised builds. As Solik pointed out, this could be claimed as a victory for those who prioritise roleplaying. While you roleplay and don't optimise you have more build options than you do while you optimise. That does not automatically make you a better roleplayer. Unless you can show that either 1) B == A; or 2) Builds in C cannot be roleplayed; then the argument is true. Note that this is not a subjective argument, it does not matter what one player might do: this argument references the complete set of all possible players. So what does it have to do with Stormwind? 1) The Stormwind Fallacy cannot be adduced in support of any argument that wants to claim that there is nothing one gets from choosing builds based solely on roleplay. One does get something, the builds in C. The value of having those builds is subjective. 2) Stormwind was sometimes misinterpretable, for example 'roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other'. My argument presents a caution that you must not read statements like that as 'can always coexist'. Sometimes a build pick could be a pick from C, which is shown to allow roleplay but preclude optimising. vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 11:25PM
#969
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
I like it - well stated - however... (there had to be a but ) in-line with your corollary - as optimizing is a "sliding scale", there does exist a limiting case where C IS empty, and therefore the argument does not hold. QED
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 01, 2009 - 11:46PM
#970
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
I like it - well stated - however...
(there had to be a but)
in-line with your corollary - as optimizing is a "sliding scale", there does exist a limiting case where C IS empty, and therefore the argument does not hold.
QED
Curse myself for extending the argument when I wanted to close it! However, that was a rather hasty jumping to QED
Let's say that you are right and the scale slides across the entire range for B. That means all the way from B == 0 to B == A. Well then, as you say the argument does not hold at one limiting extreme. However, you then end up saying that there is no such thing as an optimised build at the other limiting extreme.
Since the Stormwind Fallacy relies on their being optimised builds, that would place your argument in direct contradiction with SF. Where SF says that all optimised builds can be roleplayed, you say that there are no such builds to consider. But more importantly B == 0 seems easily falsifiable: so we decide that our scale must be one that does not slide all the way from one limit to the other.
Having decided that, my sense is that we must with justice prefer to say that our scale slides from B > 0 to B < A. Whatever the case, the burden remains on us to show that B == A is the other limit. Assuming a sliding scale does not obviate that.
vk
|
|
|
