The Stormwind Fallacy

This is a place for G.M.s and GM wannabes to share ideas and their own methods of play. It is not a locked forum so be aware your players may be watching!

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

The Stormwind Fallacy

Unread post by Nightmask »

Found this at http://community.wizards.com/content/fo ... ic/2861636 and is quite applicable to pretty much all RPG.


Originally posted by Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
Bill
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 1567
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:25 pm
Location: Reno, Nevada

Re: The Stormwind Fallacy

Unread post by Bill »

Yes. A person can do both. It's not a well thought out position. Why do we need to discuss it?
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: The Stormwind Fallacy

Unread post by Nightmask »

Bill wrote:Yes. A person can do both. It's not a well thought out position. Why do we need to discuss it?


Because too many seem to think it's a mutually exclusive thing.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: The Stormwind Fallacy

Unread post by eliakon »

Yes commonly known as 'the false dichotomy' (its in fact so common a phenomenon that it has its own name already) So this isn't "the Stormwind fallacy" this is "Stormwinds example of the False Dichotomy as applied to gaming player types and tropes"
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
flatline
Knight
Posts: 6153
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: The Stormwind Fallacy

Unread post by flatline »

Bill wrote:Yes. A person can do both. It's not a well thought out position. Why do we need to discuss it?


It's never bad to have a term that clearly and accurately describes something, so if you have a better way of defining the concept presented in the original post, or have suggestions for improving the description presented in the original post, please post them in this thread.

As a player with strong power gaming tendencies, I've often run into people who assumed I was a poor roleplayer as a result, so this topic is of particular interest to me if only to corroborate my own experience.

--flatline
I don't care about canon answers. I'm interested in good, well-reasoned answers and, perhaps, a short discussion of how that answer is supported or contradicted by canon.

If I don't provide a book and page number, then don't assume that I'm describing canon. I'll tell you if I'm describing canon.
Post Reply

Return to “G.M.s Forum”