Community

Maxperson wrote:

They change over time, through roleplay(I'm only discussing game people at the moment). If there was no roleplayed change, then it is horrible roleplay to just pick some power that makes no sense for the character over a lesser power that does.

But we're back to the false dichotomy.

The bad roleplaying isn't linked to optimization, it is linked to not justifying what you do, the choices you make.

In turn, the fighter build you posted would be horrible roleplaying if it had no reason for counterspell or nimble fingers, but just slapped feats without a care and called it a character.

AND THAT'S WHAT STORMWIND IS ALL ABOUT.

You can roleplay an unoptimized build, you can roleplay an optimized one. What matters is how well you roleplay, not the numbers on your sheet. The two are independent means by which you translate your character concept onto the table, i.e. talking the talk and walking the walk.

If you showed up with the abysmal fighter and tried to roleplay a master swordsman, your character concept would be out of sync with your statistics no matter how well you roleplay the dashing blade adept. Likewise, if you showed up with a perfect build, but you roleplayed in a way that made you seem cowardly or pathetic, rather than the perfect fighter you were supposed to be, the concept and your roleplaying would conflict.

Of course, you could also have a terrible build and poor roleplaying for your supposed Professional Badass, and that would be bad all around. Or you could have your character optimized exactly for the concept AND roleplay him masterfully, and that would be the best thing possible.

Your character concept should translate well onto your sheet and through your actions. Thus, you should be optimized to a degree with which you feel comfortable acting as your character*, and act in a way that is supported by your statistics**.

*In other words, be able to do what you want to do. If you want to play a fire based character, be able to chuck fire. This doesn't mean you should be perfect, but you should be able to back up your roleplaying. In other words, if you call yourself a master swordsman, your character should know which end goes in the other man.

**Likewise, you should roleplay in an appropriate manner. If the character has a crippling intelligence score and that is part of his concept, you shouldn't be writing academic journals in the middle of combat. Likewise, if you are constantly in the middle of combat and your close friends rely on your combat potential, perhaps you should actually give a damn about being effective in life or death situations, not studying Old Eladrin.



Roleplaying and optimization are separate, but work best when they synergize together to make the character concept come alive.

PBN wrote:

Two things:
1) I feel your response to be subjective. You again stated YOUR motivation. Although you, or perhaps I, may not be able to see other motivation behind such a build does NOT make that motivation impossible.

I'm very good at looking at things from other points of views, and I still can't see a motivation for the deliberate making of that build that isn't one of designing a non-optimized character.

2) from the emphasized portions, shall I take it that you do NOT believe that any legal build can be arrived at through "role-playing"? (quoted, as I have already expressed my dislike of the phrasing)

You can arrive at a legal build through roleplaying. If as part of my vision for my nimble fingered rogue, I picked nimble fingers the feat(rather than just describing it), I have optimized that build for roleplay. Same goes if he was brought up to be highly independant and of strong will and I gave him iron will. In those instances, the feats and representative bonuses go hand in hand with the roleplay motivation for creating the character.

Dragoncat wrote:

But we're back to the false dichotomy.

The bad roleplaying isn't linked to optimization, it is linked to not justifying what you do, the choices you make.

A nonsensical justification is not roleplaying.

In turn, the fighter build you posted would be horrible roleplaying if it had no reason for counterspell or nimble fingers, but just slapped feats without a care and called it a character.

I said it had no roleplaying motivation

You can roleplay an unoptimized build, you can roleplay an optimized one. What matters is how well you roleplay, not the numbers on your sheet. The two are independent means by which you translate your character concept onto the table, i.e. talking the talk and walking the walk.

This does not mean that there is no link between the two. Stormwind does not address that.

If you showed up with the abysmal fighter and tried to roleplay a master swordsman, your character concept would be out of sync with your statistics no matter how well you roleplay the dashing blade adept. Likewise, if you showed up with a perfect build, but you roleplayed in a way that made you seem cowardly or pathetic, rather than the perfect fighter you were supposed to be, the concept and your roleplaying would conflict.

Not the point. The object of the fighter exercise is whether or not it is possible to make an unoptimized build. That's it.

Roleplaying and optimization are separate, but work best when they synergize together to make the character concept come alive.

I agree.

Where I don't agree with you, is where you say that someone can roleplay one way, then take a feat or power that is completely inappropriate for that roleplay, and then justify it and have it be good roleplay. It's not going to be good roleply. It's going to be a lame duck justification and poor roleplay.

vonklaude wrote:

Your process argument is a neat effort to ensure C is empty. Decivre makes it too. Imagine for my 3rd level Ranger R, I have a book containing all possible 4th level versions of him, one per page. What you seem to be saying is that if I open that book at a random page and find a build R', then provided the correct conditions apply to me, R' will be guaranteed to be an optimised build. Is this correct?

vk

We're not trying to empty column C. We're trying to show you that you don't understand what column C actually has in it. Optimization is a character-building thought exercise, and one that can be used to create a build for any purpose. You can do so completely unhindered, using all of the rules available to you from every book released... or you can do so to limited parameters, using certain rules that fit those parameters, and making sure your numbers fit those parameters. You can do so to any given goal, purpose or function. If you can conceive of it, you can optimize toward it.

You seem to be under the impression that optimization is a binary factor, when it isn't. What denotes a build to be optimized depends on the parameters set when you built it. For instance, most people agree that eladrin, humans, deva and perhaps even doppelgangers make great wizards... but dragonborn do not. However, does that mean that you cannot make an optimized dragonborn wizard? Of course you can, and it will be the most optimized dragonborn wizard you will design.

That's just it, people set different goals and approaches to optimization, and those goals and approaches could come very near to nigh-infinite. Any given build may be the solution to an optimization problem, and we won't know that until the optimization problem presents itself.

Maxperson wrote:

I'm very good at looking at things from other points of views, and I still can't see a motivation for the deliberate making of that build that isn't one of designing a non-optimized character.

2) from the emphasized portions, shall I take it that you do NOT believe that any legal build can be arrived at through "role-playing"? (quoted, as I have already expressed my dislike of the phrasing)

You can arrive at a legal build through roleplaying.

NOTE:
I specifically used the all-inclusive ANY in my question. The first portion does answer it. You go on to use the indefinite A.

Maxperson wrote:

They change over time, through roleplay(I'm only discussing game people at the moment). If there was no roleplayed change, then it is horrible roleplay to just pick some power that makes no sense for the character over a lesser power that does.

Not necessarily. Some people are very whimsical, and can change who they are on a dime. Is it therefore impossible to roleplay such people? Moreover, much of what goes into how or why we change is never spoken aloud... sometimes it's as simple as self-contemplation. How much internal monologue must a player speak to his playgroup before he's allow to make a character transition? Are internal monologues required at your gametable?

Maxperson wrote:

Er, no. Your uncle didn't just spontaneously make that decision out of the blue. It took him time.

Yeah. According to him, he read about metallurgy in a newspaper article and immediately decided he wanted to do that instead of psychiatry. I'm sure that took him a couple minutes.

PBN wrote:

NOTE:
I specifically used the all-inclusive ANY in my question. The first portion does answer it. You go on to use the indefinite A.

I don't think that any legal build can be arrived at through roleplay, but any legal build can be roleplayed. I could take that build I made and roleplay it, but I couldn't arrive at it through roleplay is my motivation.

Decivre wrote:

Yeah. According to him, he read about metallurgy in a newspaper article and immediately decided he wanted to do that instead of psychiatry. I'm sure that took him a couple minutes.

And I'm equally sure there were other long term factors involved, whether he realized them or not.

Maxperson wrote:

Okay. I'm making a 3ed 1st level human fighter with a 10 dex and a 10 int. For my 1st level and human feats, I'm going to take improved counterspell and nimble fingers. For my fighter bonus feat, I'm taking combat reflexes. I'll put my 3 skill points into concentration. I have no roleplaying purpose for this character. He can't cast spells, so his improved counterspell is useless. He's not trained in open locks or disable device, so his nimble fingers are useless. His 10 dex gives him 0 bonus attacks of opportunity from his combat reflexes and he has absolutely no need to ever make a concentration check. How is this legal build optimized?

My vote is no, by the way.

That build looks solidly optimized to support your "no" position. :P

PBN wrote:

Can any legal build in DnD be considered "optimized"?

I also vote yes.

Even builds lacking Weapon Focus can be considered optimized if the optimization concept is "Create a character with X, Y, and Z (and more) traits who does not take the Weapon Focus.

You can define optimization by basically stating "Create the optimal character that has the following stats:"

People don't seem to realize that optimization is simply a character building design goal that requires parameters. The parameters then shape the build and there's no limit on what the parameters might be as long as they allow you build a rules-compliant character.

Even Pun-Pun, the quintessential theoretical optimal character, was given parameters. Pun-Pun was created with the idea of creating a character with unlimited abilities and powers at the lowest level possible. Those are parameters. They are incredibly broad ones, but they are parameters nonetheless.

So, yes. My belief is that any legal build can be optimal. Any legal build can be roleplayed. The only issue is whether your character's build is optimal for the parameters you possess, and whether you're roleplaying a character you want to play.

Maxperson wrote:

I don't think that any legal build can be arrived at through roleplay, but any legal build can be roleplayed. I could take that build I made and roleplay it, but I couldn't arrive at it through roleplay is my motivation.

Although this, in my opinion, is still subjective - it stands in counter to VKs premise:
Any build can be arrived at through "role-play" (unless it's changed and I missed it)

edited: had wrong post quoted

PBN wrote:

Can any legal build in DnD be considered "optimized"?

Yes: 2 (wrecan, PBN)
No: 2 (Maxperson, Solik)

Dragoncat wrote:

The bad roleplaying isn't linked to optimization, it is linked to not justifying what you do, the choices you make.

...

You can roleplay an unoptimized build, you can roleplay an optimized one. What matters is how well you roleplay, not the numbers on your sheet. The two are independent means by which you translate your character concept onto the table, i.e. talking the talk and walking the walk.

Dragoncat just FYI my argument is not one that says that you cannot roleplay an optimised build. It says this

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 is a tiny victory for roleplayers in that they can truthfully claim that they have more build options (but not that those options are worth having, or make them better roleplayers!)

Unless you can show (and by God, people are trying) that either

1) C is empty; 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.

vk

PBN wrote:

Yes: 2 (wrecan, PBN)
No: 2 (Maxperson, Solik)

Put me down for No.

vk

Maxperson wrote:

And I'm equally sure there were other long term factors involved, whether he realized them or not.

Actually, no. He had never really heard of the science of metallurgy before, and the article was apparently very insightful to him. He thought it was an amazing science field, and decided to jump on board. He actually misses his career as a psychiatrist, but loves metallurgy.

Believe it or not, people aren't all alike in all ways. We have a lot of similarities, but we all approach life in different ways. Hell, I can't imagine the thought of committing suicide, but there are people everyday who prove me wrong. You may like to think that people change gradually over time, but it's not going to apply to the human race as a whole.

Everybody is unique, just like everybody else.

Maxperson wrote:

Where I don't agree with you, is where you say that someone can roleplay one way, then take a feat or power that is completely inappropriate for that roleplay, and then justify it and have it be good roleplay. It's not going to be good roleply. It's going to be a lame duck justification and poor roleplay.

See, this all comes down to the two mistresses of gaming.

On the one hand, you've got the story. She's a fine lass, a bit delicate, but a dream wrapped in silk and satin. You want to craft the character, play the role, be alive within the tale as you spin your fated web.

On the other, you have to not die. War, she's a hard one, with boots that can punch through solid steel, but she'll take you for a ride you'll never forget. Because this is a combat game, and your party is relying on you, sometimes that thematic but weak choice isn't going to keep the party alive. And when the party falls, the story usually goes under.


So the problem that comes up is thinking that roleplaying is a perfect justification for everything, and that the role always comes first. Because sometime the kender thief, the weakling tank, or the incompetent wizard who immolates half the party sometime just don't jive with the group.

Yes, it's roleplaying, but sometimes the party has to roleplay their interactions with the character as well. And when their lives are on the line, bringing a dead weight into battle isn't good roleplaying on their parts.


So roleplaying isn't all there is to it. And that's the point. There are many ways to play, and it all comes down to the group.

vonklaude wrote:

Dragoncat just FYI my argument is not one that says that you cannot roleplay an optimised build. It says this

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 is a tiny victory for roleplayers in that they can truthfully claim that they have more build options (but not that those options are worth having, or make them better roleplayers!)

Unless you can show (and by God, people are trying) that either

1) C is empty; or
2) Builds in C cannot be roleplayed;
vk

apparently it has changed, since - and there is another crossover in the above.
D is indeed larger (containing more elements) provided that you believe (as I do) that any build can be roleplayed (this is, by definition)
However, it does not lead to the victory you reference above
"they can truthfully claim that they have more build options ". Build options refer to creating the build, not playing the build. Unless of course you mean to imply that an optimizer can't play an unoptimized build (which is patently false).

To correctly compare you must be consistent in what you are comparing.

Dragoncat wrote:

Yes, it's roleplaying, but sometimes the party has to roleplay their interactions with the character as well. And when their lives are on the line, bringing a dead weight into battle isn't good roleplaying on their parts.

A skilled player makes better use of whatever materiel they have. For example, 3.5 clerics. Playing a strictly weaker cleric build I invariably brought more to the table in terms of not dying than a specific other player.

Solik suggested that the real point is that there is not strong valency between roleplay and mechanics, so whatever you want to roleplay you can slide along onto effective mechanics.

However, I can think of an example to show that valencies can vary. Skill Training is strictly better than Skill Focus, but for a roleplay motive Lordling Charles would never bother training Acrobatics, it would ill-fit his lassitude: he just has a knack for it. So Skill Focus can have higher valency for that roleplay motive.

Only when you make the definition of optimising indistinguishable from that of roleplaying, do you get wrecan and decivre's arguments. Stormwind clearly differentiates them, he just says that optimising does not preclude roleplaying.

vk

vonklaude wrote:

Only when you make the definition of optimising indistinguishable from that of roleplaying, do you get wrecan and decivre's arguments.

I do distinguish optimization and roleplaying. Optimization concerns determining a mechanical build for one's character concept. Roleplaying concerns describing a personality built for one's character concept.

These are quite distinct. They just don't conform to the theory you've been aching to reveal to us.

PBN wrote:

apparently it has changed, since - and there is another crossover in the above.
D is indeed larger (containing more elements) provided that you believe (as I do) that any build can be roleplayed (this is, by definition)
However, it does not lead to the victory you reference above
"they can truthfully claim that they have more build options ". Build options refer to creating the build, not playing the build. Unless of course you mean to imply that an optimizer can't play an unoptimized build (which is patently false).

To correctly compare you must be consistent in what you are comparing.

Good point, I should say something like 'while they are roleplaying and not optimising, they have more build options', or 'unless optimisers stop optimising' etc. Which is better? Or a third?

Contrary to what others seem to fear, I feel that this conclusion supports a more open-armed practice of optimisation, along the lines you propose in your definition of it. It urges you to sometimes think of motives other than minimaxing.

vk

vonklaude wrote:

Only when you make the definition of optimising indistinguishable from that of roleplaying, do you get wrecan and decivre's arguments. Stormwind clearly differentiates them, he just says that optimising does not preclude roleplaying.

vk

Bullcrap. There is a HUGE difference between optimizing and roleplaying... akin to the difference between building a sailboat and sailing. Stormwind differentiates them in virtually the same manner we do... you just seem intent on changing the definitions for some as-of-yet unrevealed motive having to do with your initial statement.

wrecan wrote:

I do distinguish optimization and roleplaying. Optimization concerns determining a mechanical build for one's character concept. Roleplaying concerns describing a personality built for one's character concept.

These are quite distinct. They just don't conform to the theory you've been aching to reveal to us.

A personality who eschews fire, and is concieved so that it is ineluctably certain that at no future date will she change her mind about that, will not choose a fire power on advancing from one level to the next, even if her next pick must perforce be suboptimal.

It is easy to find examples of valency between roleplaying and mechanical build. Or in the case of sailboats, if I love klinker built monohulls, and loathe fibreglass cats, I'm not going to give up my klinker built just because the cat is the better sailing boat.

vk

vonklaude wrote:

Good point, I should say something like 'while they are roleplaying and not optimising, they have more build options', or 'unless optimisers stop optimising' etc. Which is better? Or a third?

Contrary to what others seem to fear, I feel that this conclusion supports a more open-armed practice of optimisation, along the lines you propose in your definition of it. It urges you to sometimes think of motives other than minimaxing.

vk

Again, you still have to prove a need for motives other than minmaxing. Not only have you failed to prove that there are instances where one cannot minmax in order to achieve a character concept, but you have also failed to prove that a person cannot simultaneously care both about optimization and roleplay (which is a cornerstone of your argument). Until you do, you haven't reached any conclusion at all near your original intended goal.

vonklaude wrote:

A personality who eschews fire, and is concieved so that it is ineluctably certain that at no future date will she change her mind about that, will not choose a fire power on advancing from one level to the next.

So what? All that means is that some roleplaying concepts and some optimizing concepts are incompatible.

vonklaude wrote:

A personality who eschews fire, and is concieved so that it is ineluctably certain that at no future date will she change her mind about that, will not choose a fire power on advancing from one level to the next, even if her next pick must perforce be suboptimal.

It is easy to find examples of valency between roleplaying and mechanical build.

vk

Your theory is somewhat sound here, but you have to give us a specific instance where this is true. At what level and class are we talking that a person gets to choose between such options? We have to see these powers before we can gauge if one is definitely suboptimal. Part of optimization is finding ways to capitalize on what would normally seem like a suboptimal choice, in an optimal way.

Moreover, no person is "ineluctable". People can change.

PBN wrote:

Yes: 2 (wrecan, PBN)
No: 2 (Maxperson, Solik)

Put me down as Yes. If on the other hand there is a minimum standard of optimization that exists I also claim that no one currently posting in this thread is qualified to determine it.

vonklaude wrote:

A personality who eschews fire, and is concieved so that it is ineluctably certain that at no future date will she change her mind about that, will not choose a fire power on advancing from one level to the next, even if her next pick must perforce be suboptimal.

It is easy to find examples of valency between roleplaying and mechanical build. Or in the case of sailboats, if I skipper klinker built monohulls, and loathe fibreglass cats, I'm not going to give up my klinker built just because the cat is the better sailing yacht.

vk

Boat choice isn't sailing. Boat choice isn't boat building. Boat choice determines how you should build a boat and sail it, but just because you want a sail boat doesn't mean you can build it or sail it.

Character concept is not roleplaying. Character concept is not optimization. Character concept determines how you should build your character and play it, but it doesn't mean you can optimize or roleplay.

You have 3 things. One of which leads to the other 2, but they are 3 distinct things.

Maxperson wrote:

If the "bad" choice is the better roleplaying choice, then it's not really a bad choice. Say if the "worse" power was a fire power for a fire themed character and the "great" choice was a power that was not elemental in nature(so it couldn't be reflavored into fire) and made absolutely no roleplay sense for the character. In that case, choosing the optimal power is bad roleplaying.

Ah, but once again you seem to be arguing that the choice is inherently a matter of roleplay or optimization. My argument says that the two choices are roleplay neutral, regardless of what the person is making concept wise we assume that with refluffing or something similar that it works very well for any and all concepts. My argument talks about it in terms of roleplay neutrality, in that case it seems like a person is choosing the stronger choice when either one will work for their concept. This would seem fine for roleplay purposes and makes sense as optimization.

Not to mention that you seemed to ignore the underlying point I had, IE that roleplay does not, and should not, mean hamstringing a character. If we say that somehow a character is better roleplayed if it's weak then that seems kind of stupid. A bad roleplayer won't magically become a great one because you give him a character that has the highest stat of 9 and feats and powers chosen by dartboard. Nor will a great roleplayer become a bad one if given a character that has the lowest stat of 20 and their feats are chosen by spreadsheet and charop geniuses.

vonklaude wrote:

It is easy to find examples of valency between roleplaying and mechanical build. Or in the case of sailboats, if I love klinker built monohulls, and loathe fibreglass cats, I'm not going to give up my klinker built just because the cat is the better sailing boat.

vk

Which is irrelevant to both sailing and building... you're talking about personal preference in boats. Unless there is something you can achieve in a klinker-built monohull that you cannot do in a fibreglass cat, then there is no particular reason outside of your personal tastes to pick the monohull over the cat, now is there?

Optimization is a lot like boat building... you can try to build the fastest, or the most durable, or the most sleek, or one that has a specific specialized function. Whether you build them good or not has nothing to do with whether you sail them good.

behkat wrote:

That build looks solidly optimized to support your "no" position. :P

heh.

PBN wrote:

Although this, in my opinion, is still subjective - it stands in counter to VKs premise:
Any build can be arrived at through "role-play" (unless it's changed and I missed it)

edited: had wrong post quoted

I thought it was any build can be roleplayed, but not any build could be optimized. I could be wrong, though, it was MANY pages ago :P

Decivre wrote:

Actually, no. He had never really heard of the science of metallurgy before, and the article was apparently very insightful to him.

That doesn't actually mean anything. There were probably many other factors outside of metals that factored into it. Happiness in the current carreer, etc. Mid life stuff. Things don't happen *poof* with absolutely no other factors unless someone is mentally unbalanced.

Maxperson wrote:

That doesn't actually mean anything. There were probably many other factors outside of metals that factored into it. Happiness in the current carreer, etc. Mid life stuff. Things don't happen *poof* with absolutely no other factors unless someone is mentally unbalanced.

Well, considering that he was 28 at the time (he did just finish medical school to become a psychiatrist, after all), loved his job, and passed his required stress exam to maintain his job as a psychiatrist (psychiatrists have to see psychiatrists to keep their license), I just don't think you realize that people don't have to be as static as you seem to want them to be.

You're right, there was a huge factor in him changing his job... that newspaper article. That was what it took for him to decide that there was a career far more rewarding and interesting than the one he was in, despite the fact that he loved the job he already had. He just didn't need the time to make such a transition, because not everyone does. People go on spontaneous trips, or change their minds about things all the time. It doesn't necessarily take time to happen, especially if it's something jarring... a tragedy, a near-death experience, or even a newspaper article about something you think is really damn awesome.

In that same vein, I'd imagine that the life of an adventurer is going to be a potentially life-changing career. Battle does things to people... it makes cynics out of comedians, storytellers out of stoics, and faithful out of the faithless. Who knows what life change you might make one day while slicing the head off an orc?

Maxperson wrote:

If it has intelligence, it's roleplayable. Even if it can only convey feelings and not complex thoughts.

I never said that the rock had intelligence. It certainly has no way of conveying feelings. It's an indestructible rock.

Decivre wrote:

People go on spontaneous trips, or change their minds about things all the time. It doesn't necessarily take time to happen, especially if it's something jarring... a tragedy, a near-death experience, or even a newspaper article about something you think is really damn awesome.

Nothing is in a vaccuum. Those people who spontaneously go on trips have other factors working on them as well. You don't realize how much crap goes on in your subconscious that factors into all of these "Decisions out of the blue."

Saeviomagy wrote:

I never said that the rock had intelligence. It certainly has no way of conveying feelings. It's an indestructible rock.

If it has no intelligence, then it's not a character so roleplay is irrelevent. No character can exist with a static 0 intelligence. Once you hit an intelligence of 1, you can begin make a character and begin roleplay.

Maxperson wrote:

If it has no intelligence, then it's not a character so roleplay is irrelevent. No character can exist with a static 0 intelligence. Once you hit an intelligence of 1, you can begin make a character and begin roleplay.

That's fine, the argument was about builds, not characters and was not only about builds, it was about every build possible in every roleplaying game ever.

I'm 100% sure that there is at least one system that will allow me to create an unintelligent indestructable (or at least optimized for indestructibility) rock, at which point I've arrived at a build that is inaccessible to a roleplayer, yet accessible to an optimizer, fundamentally disproving one of the basic assumptions that lead to the theory that the set of roleplayable builds is greater than the set of optimized characters (ie, that the set of roleplayable builds was equal to the set of possible builds, or alternately that the intersection of all optimized builds was wholly contained within the set of roleplayable builds).

Maxperson wrote:

Nothing is in a vaccuum. Those people who spontaneously go on trips have other factors working on them as well. You don't realize how much crap goes on in your subconscious that factors into all of these "Decisions out of the blue."

Ok, but then how do I 'justify' my mechanical choices with my characters subconscious. Now, you're probably right in that something does motivate us even on what seem like out of the blue decisions. BUT, many people won't see it coming. So, for all you know my optimized decisions make perfect sense for my character in said characters mind. BUT you'd accuse me of bad RP because you don't see reasons for it, maybe it's just that my character is so nuanced and deep that even he cannot fully understand his own motivations.

Saeviomagy wrote:

That's fine, the argument was about builds, not characters and was not only about builds, it was about every build possible in every roleplaying game ever.

So what. A rock with no intelligence IS NOT A BUILD. It can only be a build if it can be played as a character, and that requires intelligence.

Maxperson wrote:

Nothing is in a vaccuum. Those people who spontaneously go on trips have other factors working on them as well. You don't realize how much crap goes on in your subconscious that factors into all of these "Decisions out of the blue."

Of course they do, it's called "seeing a poster for a trip on a wall". Then, inspired, they go on the trip immediately. No need for transitionary time at all.

And yes, I do know how much crap goes into your subconscious that factors into these decisions out of the blue. I also know that conscious factors can be much more affecting and dramatic over a shorter period of time. All it takes is for one spark of inspiration for someone to change their plans in a way that is vastly spontaneous. It may not be what you would do, but many people do, in fact, do such things. And no... they don't have to be crazy... just bold and willing to try something new.

Archangel62 wrote:

Ok, but then how do I 'justify' my mechanical choices with my characters subconscious. Now, you're probably right in that something does motivate us even on what seem like out of the blue decisions. BUT, many people won't see it coming. So, for all you know my optimized decisions make perfect sense for my character in said characters mind. BUT you'd accuse me of bad RP because you don't see reasons for it, maybe it's just that my character is so nuanced and deep that even he cannot fully understand his own motivations.

Characters are not like real people. They have far more limited world experiences, so it becomes much more obvious what things would and could influence them to make decisions. If a character had been roleplaying his way towards a power, it would be fine. If he is roleplaying the opposite of a power, then it's not fine. You just can't hold characters to real person standards.

Decivre wrote:

Of course they do, it's called "seeing a poster for a trip on a wall". Then, inspired, they go on the trip immediately. No need for transitionary time at all.

Once again. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TRANSITIONARY TIME. That person was probably tired from work, or God knows what else, and that stuff contributed to the "spontaneous trip".

Maxperson wrote:

Characters are not like real people. They have far more limited world experiences, so it becomes much more obvious what things would and could influence them to make decisions. If a character had been roleplaying his way towards a power, it would be fine. If he is roleplaying the opposite of a power, then it's not fine. You just can't hold characters to real person standards.

Wait, if characters aren't like real people (aside from the fantasy/reality split and all that jazz) how are we even going to be able to roleplay them accurately at all? And again, you're talking about roleplaying to a power, how does one define that? Your way of doing it and mine might be totally different, maybe the impartial observer would say we were both right, both wrong, or one or the other was right/doing it better and the other wrong/doing it worse.

They have limited world experience, but they still have a story and history. My character might be someone driven on by vengeance, or by a desire to make a new world, what have you but the powers and abilities I choose might not even matter in regards to my roleplay. A fighter seeking to make a name for himself to prove worthy to the wealthy family of the one they love can take pretty much any feat imaginable regardless of dramatic intent since their overarching plan is to be a famous hero.

Thus far I'm starting to see the whole roleplay/optimization argument as another version of the no true scotsman issue.

Maxperson wrote:

So what. A rock with no intelligence IS NOT A BUILD. It can only be a build if it can be played as a character, and that requires intelligence.

the psionic sandwich disagrees with you

"how to become a sandwich" Show

Race: Elan
Build: Telepath 20
Feats: Any, must have EK(Astral Seed) and skill focus (craft [basket weaving])

1. Acquire a loaf of bread (2cp)
2. Turn the bread into a sandwich (craft DC 5) (probably 2 minutes)
3. Polymorph the sandwich (preferably ham with mustard, pepperoni, salami, and jalapenos) into a fuzzy little bunny. (NPC casting 1200 gp) (1 standard action)
4. Cast astral seed (10 minutes)
5. Ritualistically slay yourself with favored method of suicide. Be sure to place your storage crystal next to the sandwich turned bunny. (I prefer to be killed with a dagger to the heart... ) (Approximately 5 rounds)
6. Use mind-switch (the 6th level power) to switch with the rabbit, while in your storage crystal. (1 std action)
7. Metamorph into a troll and smash your storage crystal (now containing the mind of a sandwich). (2 standard actions)
8. Use psychic chirurgery to remove your negative level gotten from committing suicide. (10 minutes)
9. Dismiss your metamorphosis and manifest dispel psionics on yourself (to dispel the polymorph). (2 standard actions)

Congratulations, your ascention to the sublime state of a sandwich took:
23 minutes 6 seconds and costed you 1200.02 gold pieces.

Archangel62 wrote:

Wait, if characters aren't like real people (aside from the fantasy/reality split and all that jazz) how are we even going to be able to roleplay them accurately at all?

We try to approximate them as people, but we cannot give a character that is not an actual clone of us personally a truly "real" persona. It will necessarily be less, including a lack of subconscious motivations.

And again, you're talking about roleplaying to a power, how does one define that? Your way of doing it and mine might be totally different, maybe the impartial observer would say we were both right, both wrong, or one or the other was right/doing it better and the other wrong/doing it worse.

It's subjective, definately, but ultimately the DMs call(if the game is played that way).

Qube wrote:

the psionic sandwich disagrees with you

Ahh, but the sandwich has intelligence.

Qube wrote:

the psionic sandwich disagrees with you

"how to become a sandwich" Show

Race: Elan
Build: Telepath 20
Feats: Any, must have EK(Astral Seed) and skill focus (craft [basket weaving])

1. Acquire a loaf of bread (2cp)
2. Turn the bread into a sandwich (craft DC 5) (probably 2 minutes)
3. Polymorph the sandwich (preferably ham with mustard, pepperoni, salami, and jalapenos) into a fuzzy little bunny. (NPC casting 1200 gp) (1 standard action)
4. Cast astral seed (10 minutes)
5. Ritualistically slay yourself with favored method of suicide. Be sure to place your storage crystal next to the sandwich turned bunny. (I prefer to be killed with a dagger to the heart... ) (Approximately 5 rounds)
6. Use mind-switch (the 6th level power) to switch with the rabbit, while in your storage crystal. (1 std action)
7. Metamorph into a troll and smash your storage crystal (now containing the mind of a sandwich). (2 standard actions)
8. Use psychic chirurgery to remove your negative level gotten from committing suicide. (10 minutes)
9. Dismiss your metamorphosis and manifest dispel psionics on yourself (to dispel the polymorph). (2 standard actions)

Congratulations, your ascention to the sublime state of a sandwich took:
23 minutes 6 seconds and costed you 1200.02 gold pieces.

I actually had a person play that with an amusing backstory. They said that they had studied the ancient arts (psionics) for years but while having great adventures they never attained what they truly wanted, heroism. So, their character summoned a noble D'jinn and wished to be made a hero, the D'jinn turned him into a hero...sandwich. Luckily his allies learned of it and managed to partially restore him to normalcy, he is now a flying sub sandwich who often warns people that d'jinn are pricks.

Archangel62 wrote:

I actually had a person play that with an amusing backstory. They said that they had studied the ancient arts (psionics) for years but while having great adventures they never attained what they truly wanted, heroism. So, their character summoned a noble D'jinn and wished to be made a hero, the D'jinn turned him into a hero...sandwich. Luckily his allies learned of it and managed to partially restore him to normalcy, he is now a flying sub sandwich who often warns people that d'jinn are pricks.

Heh.

Maxperson wrote:

heh.

Glad you got some amusement out of that. :D

There was a kernel of seriousness to it though, despite the obviously facetious tone I presented it in. All optimizing is performed toward a goal; an intended result; an optimum. There can be no optimizing "in a vacuum," because optimizing is all about effectiveness of its results. Without a goal - a set of parameters - we have nothing by which to assess whether something is optimal.

I'm actually coming to see vonklaude's argument as basically another false dilemma, because in the broader sense of optimizing, rather than the very narrow definition he continues to argue for, "roleplaying motive" is simply another criteria for optimization.

Maxperson wrote:

Once again. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TRANSITIONARY TIME. That person was probably tired from work, or God knows what else, and that stuff contributed to the "spontaneous trip".

Not always. Unless you can prove that every single person on earth who ever does anything on a whim is, in fact, not doing anything on a whim, I call bullcrap. I know plenty of people who do things on a whim... hell, I threw a New Years party with zero prep time and no idea that I would be throwing it until the day of.

Just because you would not do any of these sorts of things does not mean the whole world plays by your rules.

vonklaude wrote:

If I have a book containing every possible legal 4ed build, one per page, and I open it at a random page, am I guaranteed that the build on that page will be an 'optimised' build, by your definition of optimised?

My definition of the term optimized is meaningless to the discussion. However, if you would like to know just for funsies: every build in the book would be optimized. Optimization is the manipulation of character creation mechanics to produce a desired result. In this case, the desired result was a build unlike the others in the book.


I would like to explain to you why your criticism of other definition(s) of the term 'optimization' is lacking.

The term optimization serves exactly one purpose: it graces the name of a subforum. It is supposed to communicate which kinds of posts go in that subforum. Any post about the practice of manipulating the character creation mechanics, regardless of the end to which you manipulate them, goes there. As such, the definition that you call vague and meaningless is actually ideal in regards to the term's only intended purpose.

Your argument against the common definition is really just you restating the reasons why the word was chosen in the first place. It was intended to be intent-neutral; it was intended to be vague. It was, above all, intended to be nearly useless as a description of people who participate in the forum, to stop people from ranting about those durned optimizers and their min/maxing, powergaming munchkinry, and as a description of the quality of the content found there, to stop people from being so critical of that which is presented that they alienate people and make them post in less appropriate places.


But none of this is actually relevant to the argument that you have presented in regards to the quantity of choices available to people with different motivations.

For the record, I generally agree with your argument, using the nonstandard definition of optimization that you have established in this thread. I don't agree that any change to the Stormwind Fallacy is strictly necessary on those grounds, though, just as I did not believe that the Stormwind Fallacy needed to be changed back when people were commonly misusing it, occasionally in the very ways that you point out.

These problems are not with the Stormwind Fallacy. They are problems with the people who insist upon not taking the time to understand exactly what is being said and/or assume that something more is also being said, a problem that you've seen in this thread, I'm sure. Nothing we do will make the people apply themselves in order to understand or stop them from making crap up whenever they feel like it.

Vaelan wrote:

My definition of the term optimized is meaningless to the discussion. However, if you would like to know just for funsies: every build in the book would be optimized. Optimization is the manipulation of character creation mechanics to produce a desired result. In this case, the desired result was a build unlike the others in the book.

I'd like to add here on a conciliatory note, that the definition you describe is what I would prefer optimising to be. It is a likeable definition and represents an excellent attitude to the game. It is what I've dubbed elsewhere the open-armed, benevolent version, or the 'process' version, without derogatory intent. I feel that this definition is disturbed by the vast amount of optimising that is done specifically toward the goal of encounter-outcome minimaxing; what Dark lamba acknowledges in this treatise on the subject. TS himself uses optimising interchangeably with minimaxing, and he supplies us with examples from an egregious end of the spectrum that is readily found in Character Optimisation. Maybe we should agree to disagree on one point then? I will resist calling my definition non-standard. I can agree with you that it is not the only available or most likeable definition: but not that it has no (or marginal) currency.

Vaelan wrote:

For the record, I generally agree with your argument, using the nonstandard definition of optimization that you have established in this thread. I don't agree that any change to the Stormwind Fallacy is strictly necessary on those grounds, though, just as I did not believe that the Stormwind Fallacy needed to be changed back when people were commonly misusing it, occasionally in the very ways that you point out.

These problems are not with the Stormwind Fallacy. They are problems with the people who insist upon not taking the time to understand exactly what is being said and/or assume that something more is also being said, a problem that you've seen in this thread, I'm sure. Nothing we do will make the people apply themselves in order to understand or stop them from making crap up whenever they feel like it.

Heck, I do that myself even though I try hard not to Just as you say, the problem is not with the Fallacy, which I think TS restated in different ways but only ever meant one thing by, but with people who assume something more was also being said. I was reacting to that by endeavouring to show how adducing SF in support of a certain argument is faulty.

BTW, I think I have an interesting line on the 'process' definition of optimising that I'll try and write up for exploration at some point. I started on it in responses to Manion.

BTW PBN, I've tried for a rewording of OP as discussed.

vk

"vonklaude"]However, I can think of an example to show that valencies can vary. Skill Training is strictly better than Skill Focus, but for a roleplay motive Lordling Charles would never bother training Acrobatics, it would ill-fit his lassitude: he just has a knack for it. So Skill Focus can have higher valency for that roleplay motive.

This passage represents a misunderstanding of the positions of those who find no required link between a character's mechanical implementation and its personality.

Here, for instance, you took the word "Training" from the feat as a literal story requirement of possessing the feat. This is a mistake. Even if that is the default flavoring of the feat (a reasonable assumption, although feats don't exactly come with a lot of default flavor as a general rule), it is trivial to refluff the bonus: "Charles was never actually trained in acrobatic techniques, but he's naturally good enough that his skill is similar to lesser-talented folk who have some training." Yet another option would be to supply Charles with a good Dexterity score (if it fits with the rest of the build's needs) and skip the feat altogether. If bonuses are desired, they can be acquired from other places, such as background bonuses (refluffed as a natural knack).

However, I can think of an example to show that valencies can vary. Skill Training is strictly better than Skill Focus, but for a roleplay motive Lordling Charles would never bother training Acrobatics, it would ill-fit his lassitude: he just has a knack for it. So Skill Focus can have higher valency for that roleplay motive.[/quote]
This passage represents a misunderstanding of the positions of those who find no required link between a character's mechanical implementation and its personality.

Here, for instance, you took the word "Training" from the feat as a literal story requirement of possessing the feat. This is a mistake. Even if that is the default flavoring of the feat (a reasonable assumption, although feats don't exactly come with a lot of default flavor as a general rule), it is trivial to refluff the bonus: "Charles was never actually trained in acrobatic techniques, but he's naturally good enough that his skill is similar to lesser-talented folk who have some training." Yet another option would be to supply Charles with a good Dexterity score (if it fits with the rest of the build's needs) and skip the feat altogether. If bonuses are desired, they can be acquired from other places, such as background bonuses (refluffed as a natural knack).

A personality who eschews fire, and is concieved so that it is ineluctably certain that at no future date will she change her mind about that, will not choose a fire power on advancing from one level to the next, even if her next pick must perforce be suboptimal.

This is a nonexistant problem. Fire powers (with the keyword) are not among the list of available options for a spellcaster who is explicitly designed to not use fire magic. The character can still be optimized. Someone who intends to build a spellcaster that does not use fire will more than likely select mechanical options that give bonuses to other types of magic. For example, a wizard might choose Orb of Deception and focus on illusion spells. A sorcerer might choose feats that improve damage for lightning spells.

These themes can be, and are consistently, optimized.

Despite this, I find your assertion of the character's conception to be rather contrived. Rydia in Final Fantasy IV (US II) was afraid of fire and would not learn to cast the spells. At a certain point in the game, the use of fire was required for the heroes to be able to continue and be victorious. She was forced to overcome her fears and cast the spell anyways. She held onto her distaste for fire -- she is the only example in the history of Final Fantasy (that I'm aware of) who learns Fire spells after the other elements as she gains levels. If a player wants their character to develop in this manner, they can do so, and it doesn't violate any tenets of roleplaying as long as the resulting story is believable.

It is easy to find examples of valency between roleplaying and mechanical build. Or in the case of sailboats, if I love klinker built monohulls, and loathe fibreglass cats, I'm not going to give up my klinker built just because the cat is the better sailing boat.

That's going to depend significantly on other factors for most people, including how much their life is or is not at stake by the particular object in question. I love chocolate, but if I develop diabetes, I think I'll be sufficiently encouraged to give it up without, y'know, violating my personal character. Furthermore, you can still optimize a klinker built monohull to work as good as it can be made to work.

Solik wrote:

This passage represents a misunderstanding of the positions of those who find no required link between a character's mechanical implementation and its personality.

Here, for instance, you took the word "Training" from the feat as a literal story requirement of possessing the feat. This is a mistake. Even if that is the default flavoring of the feat (a reasonable assumption, although feats don't exactly come with a lot of default flavor as a general rule), it is trivial to refluff the bonus: "Charles was never actually trained in acrobatic techniques, but he's naturally good enough that his skill is similar to lesser-talented folk who have some training." Yet another option would be to supply Charles with a good Dexterity score (if it fits with the rest of the build's needs) and skip the feat altogether. If bonuses are desired, they can be acquired from other places, such as background bonuses (refluffed as a natural knack).

Isn't this the refluffing argument? Take my hairy dwarven barbarian who Charges, he could be a refluffed hairless elven warlock who teleports, but nonetheless I am entitled to not refluff and play the fluff as written. Surely!?

wrecan wrote:

some roleplaying concepts and some optimizing concepts are incompatible.

Agreed.



vk

"vonklaude"]but nonetheless I am entitled to not refluff and play the fluff as written

Yes, but it is this choice which interferes with your optimization, not the desire to ro wrote: