Community

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

"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.

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.

"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.