| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can forbid this or that, you can twist and bend the system all you want to discourage one-dimensional characters that you think are caused by minmaxing all you want, but at the end of the day there's only one way to get a player to make a well-rounded character.
...
...
Are you ready for it?
...
...
I don't think you're ready for it.
...
...Okay, here goes:
"Hey man, I really don't like the way you've been character generating. It seems kinda like you're just making a death machine, and not a person. Do you think there's a way we can redesign this guy to still be effective, and essentially the same character, but more rounded? I would appreciate that a lot, and I think some of the newer players would also enjoy their chance to occasionally shine, too. I'm not trying to gimp you, man - I'm actually really impressed with your innovation - but it's just not part of my vision as a GM and it might stifle my creativity, so I'd appreciate if we could compromise or something."
Players are adults, and respond a lot better to treating them as such rather than trying to cram a set of rules to trick them into a certain set of behavior.
I'm actually pretty suprised how often that factor is ignored around here.
Why is min-maxing a problem? Well, when they're digging through online SRD's and trying to bring in feats from 3.0 that don't exist in any other iteration of 3.5 or PF, then it is a problem. They're just hunting for bonuses instead of building a character organically.
I encourage roleplaying at my table, though everyone has the right to play the kind of game they like. In my experience, those that like to hardcore min-max do so to the detriment of the roleplaying aspects of the game. Their input in non-combat situations becomes non-existent. I have encouraged them to play beyond these limitations.
You know they're not mutually exclusive, right?
I can pull a story out of anything, but having a set of stats, numbers, classes, etc, that I've pooled together into something mechanical gives me something concrete to work with, and an excellent foundation for how I write my character's personality, past, etc.
If a character has a 7 strength, how has that affected his personality, his upbringing? Maybe he was bullied a lot as a kid, which explains why he's so obsessed with power as an adult. That's why he's an enchanter - because his own strength was never enough, so he forces others into doing what he wants...and with his 9 charisma, that was never something he could naturally do, so he resorted to magic. Looks like I figured out this guy sure isn't going to be a good alignment. His personality might be defensive, he might cringe when someone raises a hand or whatnot, expecting a beating. He probably has a soft spot for those being bullied, or having things taken from them by force.
Meh, I could go on. You get the point.
Seriously, has nobody bothered to google Stormwind Fallacy yet?
It's a problem when they're not filling in the blanks in their character backstory, but rather looking for any advantage they can get in terms of raw stats, feats, etc whether or not they're in the current iteration of the game.
I closed my comment with "this might not be a problem for you". That part was directed at you and your friends and the Stormwind Fallacy which I never googled nor read because I never heard of it.
It's a problem when they're not filling in the blanks in their character backstory, but rather looking for any advantage they can get in terms of raw stats, feats, etc whether or not they're in the current iteration of the game.
Trying to use disallowed material isn't minmaxing. It's cheating. Two completely different things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. At best it's a meme, it's one guy's opinion.
Hardly a true logical fallacy or even a informal fallacy.
Well, the Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy.
Well, if it's not a fallacy, that means it must be a sound argument.
Those really are the only choices, given that a fallacy is defined as an argument that isn't (logically) sound.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
Stormwind Fallacy - (basically, summed up) - "Roleplay and Optimization (or min-maxing) are mutually exclusive" ...which is staggeringly untrue.
Seems like a fallacy to me, unless googling definitions and using the first one that pops up isn't a good enough means for you.
I can dig up an old 1828 Webster's if you really want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had to talk to some of my players about trying to avoid min/maxing. They are my younger players that don't own a single resource book and like to dig through the pfsrd to find the most obscure feats and options. I've encouraged them to stop digging for bonuses and start building their characters as characters - not just a set of numbers that they are trying to push as far as possible.
They explained to me that this attitude is a holdover from playing games like Hero Clix where everything is reduced to pure numbers and if you don't have maxed out numbers, you lose the game.
Why is min-maxing a problem? Well, when they're digging through online SRD's and trying to bring in feats from 3.0 that don't exist in any other iteration of 3.5 or PF, then it is a problem. They're just hunting for bonuses instead of building a character organically.
I encourage roleplaying at my table, though everyone has the right to play the kind of game they like. In my experience, those that like to hardcore min-max do so to the detriment of the roleplaying aspects of the game. Their input in non-combat situations becomes non-existent. I have encouraged them to play beyond these limitations.
Some might not have a problem with any of the aforementioned points, but I find having a table of min-maxers leads to the type of game I don't want to run.
Ah! The beautiful Stormwind Fallacy at work once again.
Explain to me this, how does building the most powerful character mechanically preclude the ability to roleplay him or her? Nothing in role play states you must create a character backstory and personality before development of the character. It is perfectly valid to develop your character based upon what you built after the fact.
Again, people who claim "role play over rollplay" I feel a lot of times are simply people who are just not that good at making character and rather than actually try and get BETTER at it, instead just stick their fingers in their ears and...
It doesn't preclude it. In my example above, the player is giving more thought to the stats, feats, skills, etc and not the backstory. I like a balance of action and roleplay, but when I tell my players that I will consider pretty much any option and then they go and dig up a third part publication for third edition to try to get an extra advantage, it's a problem and it's a pain in the butt to have to field those type of questions endlessly. I stated above this is my preference of roleplaying in that I want people to build them organically. People can play whatever character they like as long as they have a backstory and reason for it. If they don't want to think about their character in that way, then our play styles just won't mesh. They'd be better off playing with a group of fellow yu-gi-oh players that want to brag how they curb stomped Cthulhu last night with a character they rolled up that afternoon. That's not my style of play. I prefer campaigns with characters that are emotionally invested not min-maxed to the gills. They're not mutually exclusive if I have to outright state that for you two, but they are indicative of a certain style of play and it is one that I don't care for.
I prefer campaigns with characters that are emotionally invested not min-maxed to the gills. They're not mutually exclusive if I have to outright state that for you two, but they are indicative of a certain style of play and it is one that I don't care for.
1. Anecdotal observations of similar behavior does not equate a trend.
2. Even if it does, correlation does not summize causation.
3. You don't get rid of tree bark by cutting down leaves, even if both grow off the same plant. Address the actual problem, not the accompanying conditions.
Edit addendum - In other words - if no emotional investment is the problem, address the lack of emotional investment.
If minmaxing is a problem, just admit its a personal preference, because the two are not related. They may possibly be tangentially corequisite phenomena in the groups you personally have played with, but that is not a guaranteed relationship. I've played games with stinky players who were friendly, but it doesn't mean smelliness causes friendliness or vice versa.
I've had to talk to some of my players about trying to avoid min/maxing. They are my younger players that don't own a single resource book and like to dig through the pfsrd to find the most obscure feats and options. I've encouraged them to stop digging for bonuses and start building their characters as characters - not just a set of numbers that they are trying to push as far as possible.
They explained to me that this attitude is a holdover from playing games like Hero Clix where everything is reduced to pure numbers and if you don't have maxed out numbers, you lose the game.
Why is min-maxing a problem? Well, when they're digging through online SRD's and trying to bring in feats from 3.0 that don't exist in any other iteration of 3.5 or PF, then it is a problem. They're just hunting for bonuses instead of building a character organically.
I encourage roleplaying at my table, though everyone has the right to play the kind of game they like. In my experience, those that like to hardcore min-max do so to the detriment of the roleplaying aspects of the game. Their input in non-combat situations becomes non-existent. I have encouraged them to play beyond these limitations.
Some might not have a problem with any of the aforementioned points, but I find having a table of min-maxers leads to the type of game I don't want to run.
Have you ever considered... teaching these younger players how to roleplay? It seems to me like they latched onto the tangible part of the game [the rules] and don't yet understand the value of playing a character.
You may find you get the kind of game you want- regardless of minmaxing- if you take the time to teach your players how to play the kind of game you want.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I am teaching them to think of their characters more organically, and to give them a starting backstory and let them grow based upon what happens throughout the campaign.
I prefer campaigns with characters that are emotionally invested not min-maxed to the gills. They're not mutually exclusive if I have to outright state that for you two, but they are indicative of a certain style of play and it is one that I don't care for.1. Anecdotal observations of similar behavior does not equate a trend.
2. Even if it does, correlation does not summize causation.
3. You don't get rid of tree bark by cutting down leaves, even if both grow off the same plant. Address the actual problem, not the accompanying conditions.
Edit addendum - In other words - if no emotional investment is the problem, address the lack of emotional investment.
If minmaxing is a problem, just admit its a personal preference, because the two are not related. They may possibly be tangentially corequisite phenomena in the groups you personally have played with, but that is not a guaranteed relationship. I've played games with stinky players who were friendly, but it doesn't mean smelliness causes friendliness or vice versa.
I did state it was a preference.
The major fallacy I see at the moment is pretty much anything you type in this thread but thanks for the feedback.fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.Stormwind Fallacy - (basically, summed up) - "Roleplay and Optimization (or min-maxing) are mutually exclusive" ...which is staggeringly untrue.
Seems like a fallacy to me, unless googling definitions and using the first one that pops up isn't a good enough means for you.
I can dig up an old 1828 Webster's if you really want.
I was actually addressing DrDeth there, but...really? I have no sound logic behind my statement?
That seems a bit silly. I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but at least I'm willing to address an understanding of you position. You've seen stuff happen, you think there's a connection, you therefore feel addressing one issue will address another. There's a pattern to it, based upon an unproven assumption. It's a hypothesis, and a legitimate one, but if analyzed using further logic, one that is incorrect.
It appears defensive and stubborn to dismiss even the basis of logic from a person just because you disagree with them. Perhaps you're taking this too personally? I never meant to actually insult you, and if I did I apologize. I'm not changing my position on anything I thus far said, but if I can phrase it in a more palatable means, please let me know.
I did state it was a preference.I prefer campaigns with characters that are emotionally invested not min-maxed to the gills. They're not mutually exclusive if I have to outright state that for you two, but they are indicative of a certain style of play and it is one that I don't care for.1. Anecdotal observations of similar behavior does not equate a trend.
2. Even if it does, correlation does not summize causation.
3. You don't get rid of tree bark by cutting down leaves, even if both grow off the same plant. Address the actual problem, not the accompanying conditions.
Edit addendum - In other words - if no emotional investment is the problem, address the lack of emotional investment.
If minmaxing is a problem, just admit its a personal preference, because the two are not related. They may possibly be tangentially corequisite phenomena in the groups you personally have played with, but that is not a guaranteed relationship. I've played games with stinky players who were friendly, but it doesn't mean smelliness causes friendliness or vice versa.
My apologies. I should've clarified that it is solely a matter of preference, and the other factors are, at best, tangential coincidence.
I am willing to consider most anything at the table for a Pathfinder game including third party material. I just ask that it is actually made for the game we are playing.
If anyone saw my thread on helping me build a custom race for a player, then you'll get an idea of what I consider min-maxing (without the semantic confusion involved). I offered to help build a custom race and the player just went off the deep end of insanity into something that probably couldn't be accommodated with a 40 point race build. That is min-maxing to me. If you want to call it something else, then that is fine with me.
The major fallacy I see at the moment is pretty much anything you type in this thread but thanks for the feedback.fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.Stormwind Fallacy - (basically, summed up) - "Roleplay and Optimization (or min-maxing) are mutually exclusive" ...which is staggeringly untrue.
Seems like a fallacy to me, unless googling definitions and using the first one that pops up isn't a good enough means for you.
I can dig up an old 1828 Webster's if you really want.
I was actually addressing DrDeth there, but...really? I have no sound logic behind my statement?
That seems a bit silly. I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but at least I'm willing to address an understanding of you position. You've seen stuff happen, you think there's a connection, you therefore feel addressing one issue will address another. There's a pattern to it, based upon an unproven assumption. It's a hypothesis, and a legitimate one, but if analyzed using further logic, one that is incorrect.
It appears defensive and stubborn to dismiss even the basis of logic from a person just because you disagree with them. Perhaps you're taking this too personally? I never meant to actually insult you, and if I did I apologize. I'm not changing my position on anything I thus far said, but if I can phrase it in a more palatable means, please let me know.
The internet removes the nuances of inflection and tone to posts. Apologies for my rudeness.
Apology accepted.
Most wouldn't call that minmaxing, but as has been suggested, munchkin. The two often exist together, but one doesn't predict the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was actually addressing DrDeth there, but...really? I have no sound logic behind my statement?
No, you don't. "Sound logic" is a luxury that almost no one outside of the mathematics department gets to indulge in. "Sound logic" means that there is literally no possible way you could be wrong. Believing in the Law of Gravity is, formally speaking, a fallacy (specifically, it's the fallacy of Hasty Generalization), but most civil engineers are willing to accept the unsoundness of their logic in the interests of getting stuff done. (I would have written "all civil engineers," except that, itself, would be another Hasty Generalization since I've not interviewed every possible civil engineer in every possible universe.)
And that's basically what the Fallacist's fallacy says. Just because an argument is formally a fallacy -- as all empirical or observational arguments in the real world must be -- doesn't mean that it's not useful, predictive, or dispositive.
In the case of the Stormwind Fallacy,.... yes, it's a fallacy, because there are people who can design interesting and compelling characters that are highly optimized. On the other hand, most gaming groups have at least one player that does not seem to be one of those people, and thus the Stormwind "Fallacy" is nevertheless a useful heuristic for predicting behavior at the gaming table.
Or to put it another way, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.... but that's certainly the way the smart money will bet."
I imagine in the vast majority of those cases you're mentioning O.Q. it's not that the player is unable to Minmax well and roleplay well, it's that they don't know how to roleplay well but learned to Minmax.
The fertileness of your imagination is noted. Please note, first, that "don't know how to" is not incompatible with "unable to," (and in fact, it's one of the leading causes of inability). Please note, second, that what you just said actually supports the heuristic encompassed by the Stormwind Fallacy.
No, you don't. "Sound logic" is a luxury that almost no one outside of the mathematics department gets to indulge in. "Sound logic" means that there is literally no possible way you could be wrong.
I was actually addressing DrDeth there, but...really? I have no sound logic behind my statement?
I was unaware of that. Thanks for the clarification. I always enjoy learning something new. I disagree with the rest of your post, but respectfully so.
What then would you call something that follows, oh I don't know, logic and reason using a sound and tried manner to reach it's hypothesis, as opposed to, say, emotional tendencies? Because that is what I think of when I hear the phrase "following sound logic", and colloquialisms do alter the meaning and content of language over time. Ain't is here to stay, ironic has more than one definition, can has the ability to replace may when requesting permission, and God help us, nobody will be spelling doughnut correctly in another generation.
Well, the Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. At best it's a meme, it's one guy's opinion.
Hardly a true logical fallacy or even a informal fallacy.
Are you making the claim that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive?
I imagine in the vast majority of those cases you're mentioning O.Q. it's not that the player is unable to Minmax well and roleplay well, it's that they don't know how to roleplay well but learned to Minmax.The fertileness of your imagination is noted. Please note, first, that "don't know how to" is not incompatible with "unable to," (and in fact, it's one of the leading causes of inability). Please note, second, that what you just said actually supports the heuristic encompassed by the Stormwind Fallacy.How?
I'm saying that Roleplaying and Optimization aren't mutually exclusive whatsoever. The fact that a person might know one and not the other is irrelevant, learning the other will result in having both skills and once one has two skills for the same task they usually start using them together [and can be taught to do so if they do not begin to do so instinctively.]
The Stormwind Fallacy is that claims that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive are logically flawed.
So, if you say that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, you agree with the premise of the Stormwind Fallacy.
The Stormwind Fallacy is that claims that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive are logically flawed.
No, the Stormwind Fallacy itself is the claim that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive. The people using the term "Stormwind Fallacy" are pointing out that that claim itself is fallacious.
That said, that claim is obviously fallacious. In fact, almost any high-order generalization like that is generally a Hasty Generalization, because almost every rule has its exceptions.
However, to point out that any specific rule has its exceptions, and therefore the rule itself should be ignored is also a fallacious argument (known formally as the Fallacist's Fallacy). Rules exist for a reason, and there's often a very strong tendency in the direction of the rule, even if it admits of an exception or too.
What then would you call something that follows, oh I don't know, logic and reason using a sound and tried manner to reach it's hypothesis, as opposed to, say, emotional tendencies?No, you don't. "Sound logic" is a luxury that almost no one outside of the mathematics department gets to indulge in. "Sound logic" means that there is literally no possible way you could be wrong.
I was actually addressing DrDeth there, but...really? I have no sound logic behind my statement?
Well, if you remove the words "sound and", you're describing science. Or more generally, common sense.
If you don't remove those words, you're describing mathematics.
What then would you call something that follows, oh I don't know, logic and reason using a sound and tried manner to reach it's hypothesis, as opposed to, say, emotional tendencies?No, you don't. "Sound logic" is a luxury that almost no one outside of the mathematics department gets to indulge in. "Sound logic" means that there is literally no possible way you could be wrong.
I was actually addressing DrDeth there, but...really? I have no sound logic behind my statement?Well, if you remove the words "sound and", you're describing science. Or more generally, common sense.
If you don't remove those words, you're describing mathematics.
Fair enough.
Ah! It's the munchkin experience that gives min-maxing such a bad name, and why many GM's shudder when they come across someone who approaches their character from a more "roll-play" imperative.
I tend to equate the two, but they are not synonymous.
The funny thing is, his explanation is a bit backward, and he doesn't use his words in the way he thinks he is, making it seem like he is saying the opposite of what he is trying to prove (he is trying to prove that optimization and role playing ARE NOT mutually exclusive, but he states his "fallacy" in the negative which suggest the opposite)
It's not that "funny" or unusual. If he really believed it, he wouldn't have named it a "Fallacy," would he?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah! It's the munchkin experience that gives min-maxing such a bad name, and why many GM's shudder when they come across someone who approaches their character from a more "roll-play" imperative.
I tend to equate the two, but they are not synonymous.
Ah! It's the tyrannical experience that gives grognardism such a bad name, and why many players shudder when they come across someone who approaches their campaign from a more "old-school" imperative.
I tend to equate the two, but they are not synonymous.
I submit that the above two quote-boxes are comparable in most respects.
Ah! It's the munchkin experience that gives min-maxing such a bad name, and why many GM's shudder when they come across someone who approaches their character from a more "roll-play" imperative.
I tend to equate the two, but they are not synonymous.
I submit that the above two quote-boxes are comparable in most respects.Ah! It's the tyrannical experience that gives grognardism such a bad name, and why many players shudder when they come across someone who approaches their campaign from a more "old-school" imperative.
I tend to equate the two, but they are not synonymous.
Yes. They're both valid descriptions of a large and visible subgroup of gamers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly I used to scoff at this, as my experience has shown the more optimized the less roleplaying. But then I remember a few noteworthy exceptions.
However, what I have noticed is that in games where there is more NEED to optimize, where combat is emphasized and tactics are critical- Roleplaying TENDS to fall by the wayside. Note this is a tendency only not a hard and fast rule.
I think this is because us mere mortals can only concentrate on a few things at once. And when you must move precisely there, and remember all your bonuses, and think of what you and or your foe is going to do next - it's hard to also act out in character.
This is why sometimes I remember my AD&D games fondly. Not that there weren't groups who said "the hell with RP, I wanna kill something", but that combat movement was rarely important, bonuses might be one or two and thinking like a chess master was largely irrelevant.
So yeah, you certainly can do both- many people dont do both.
...but nitpicking and ignoring the actual point of the thing is more fun then not being a pedantic @$$ and just getting on with the point!