RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any examples of "you're not a roleplayer" in which the evidence included anything other than character-building skill.Usually the examples I see are based on a player having their character take an action that doesn't fit within their character concept. This can also often cross over into metagaming territory.
That would certainly qualify as evidence that someone's not very into (or not very skilled with) roleplaying. I've encountered such a situation once or twice myself, and even pointed it out to the player in question.
But I'm not talking about "When is someone demonstrating a lack of good roleplaying?" I'm talking about "When does someone else accuse you of a lack of good roleplaying?"
And in my experience, all it takes for someone to make that judgment about another player is to see that they started with an ability score higher than 16 or lower than 10 (after racial adjustments), or to see that their AC is higher than a certain number, or to hear them speak of an assumption of being able to get (relevant) magic items sometime during their career, or prefer point-buy over rolled stats, or reference a rulebook in a discussion of how a rule works, or use the word "build" as a noun.
The list goes on. And those aren't hypothetical, either. They're all real things I've seen Person A cite as a reason why Person B obviously doesn't care about roleplaying. Notably absent from that list of things I've seen cited as why Person B doesn't roleplay is literally anything at all relating to actual roleplay.
This brings me back to my post relating to my favorite character: my point was that by any reasonable metric, I'm very clearly someone who is interested in roleplay, and yet I still frequently get labeled as NOT liking roleplay purely on the basis of what they see when they lean over and peek at my sheet or what terminology I use in an abstract discussion about some element of the Pathfinder system.
This, in turn, relates back to why I pointed out that old post from Chris Lambertz. While perhaps you might acknowledge roleplaying inclinations as a preference and only make your determinations about that preference after seeing how they actually do their roleplaying in-game, the truth of the history of the Pathfinder community as a whole is that (1) people are consistently labeled as being unskilled/uninterested in roleplaying based on things that have nothing to do with roleplaying, and (2) the people labeled in such a way are consistently demonized and ostracized. It's not everybody, but it's enough people that it's a very real facet of the Pathfinder community, not just a couple of outliers here and there. And do you know what the Pathfinder community at large uses as its weapon for hurting the people it doesn't like? Terms like "rollplayer," "munchkin," and "powergamer".
That's why those terms aren't okay to actively use as labels here on paizo.com. No matter how neutrally-useful one individual (such as yourself) might find such a term, the fact is that the term has a history in the Pathfinder community, and that history is ugly and shameful. No matter how useful you might find the term, or how neutrally you might mean it, the term has no place in discussions here, because it can't be separated from its history.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Irontruth: Seems like all you're doing in that scenario is just changing what the goal is though. Instead of optimizing for murder you'd optimize for.. other things.
Yup, it's basic human nature to seek out immediate rewards. We sometimes forgo immediate rewards for long term ones, but usually when faced with the choice, we'll take the immediate reward, especially when it comes to something like games.
So, understanding this fact, we can look at what our game system rewards and what it doesn't reward. If it rewards a behavior style that we don't like, we need to remove those rewards, or point them towards something else.
If you are happy with Fighters that only ever want to Full Attack for their entire career, there's really not a lot you need to change about PF. In fact, the game is already set up to basically reward that type of behavior.
If you want Fighters that do anything BUT Full Attack, well, you're going to need to change some fundamental aspects of combat and it's role within the game.
This is the crux of my point, instead of complaining that people make opitimized characters who have to maximize every feat choice just to stay alive, consider that this is what the game encourages. Once you realize that the game itself is encouraging this, you are immediately better armed to house rule the game to fit your desires.
I want Fighters that take (random example) Skill Focus: Profession (Cook) in my campaign. So I take steps to encourage and reward this kind of behavior, because I understand that if I don't, I'm complicit in this kind of behavior never happening in my games.
A group of Rollplayers demonstrating their mastery of mechanics in their natural environment. Just look at them roll.
Seriously, can someone come up with a better term for this? I can't believe that dozens of creative people that frequent these forums are unable to do so.
>And do you know what the Pathfinder community at large uses as its weapon for hurting the people it doesn't like? Terms like "rollplayer," "munchkin," and "powergamer".
Aren't those supposed to be compliments? I am pretty sure those are compliments.
To actually contribute to the discussion, I had characters that began as a mechanical idea(e.g. I wonder how such and such combination of classes would play. I call this top-down approach.) and characters that started as a backstory idea(e.g. what would happen if a succubus got stuck on the material plane and acquired an interest in croissant baking. Bottom-up approach.). First kind had their backstory drawn up as their character sheet got filled out, second kind had their feats determined by their backstory. Sometimes better characters came out of the top-down design than from bottom-up, because some crazy combination of feats and class features lit up my imagination, leading to an interesting story. Sometimes very enjoyable character designs came out of bottom-up designing approach, because that lead me to read up on class features I never considered.
However, I don't remember ever taking an option my character would consider sub-optimal, because...why would my character take an option they themselves consider worse than another option? "Optimisation" is just another facet of roleplaying, at least for me.
Notably absent from that list of things I've seen cited as why Person B doesn't roleplay is literally anything at all relating to actual roleplay.
My guess would be that people who view role-playing a certain way also often have a lot of other preferences that they share. When someone complains about one of these preferences, the response is "You must not be a RPer" in order to have a short and concise statement rather than needing to use several paragraphs to explain.
(2) the people labeled in such a way are consistently demonized and ostracized.
This may due to you hanging out in different subforums than I do, but I honestly cannot remember the last time anyone said anything about someone being a bad RPer which wasn't immediately followed up with one or more snarky responses and "Fallacy, fallacy!" statements.
IME, the vocal Paizo forums community members tilt pro-optimization, so I don't see how a person describing their character's mechanics could be ostracized - There simply aren't enough people for that.
And do you know what the Pathfinder community at large uses as its weapon for hurting the people it doesn't like? Terms like "rollplayer," "munchkin," and "powergamer".
You're probably right about rollplayer and munchkin, but I've actually seen powergamer used by people referring to themselves.
As I eluded to previously, I don't think it is up to poster A to determine that poster B is label x.
I think the labels can be helpful in describing preferences for game ads though. If a GM recruiting for a game says "Powergamers are not welcome," that is helpful info.
For those who don't want to game with powergamers, it tells them that there is a higher likelihood of the players being accepted to the game of not being so.
For the GM it serves as a notice to all players that powergaming will not be tolerated.
And for everyone who thinks that people that use the label powergamer are going to be terrible GMs, it tells them not to sign up.
Fun side note: Auto-correct likes to turn you into Jiffy.
Yup, it's basic human nature to seek out immediate rewards. We sometimes forgo immediate rewards for long term ones, but usually when faced with the choice, we'll take the immediate reward, especially when it comes to something like games.
So, understanding this fact, we can look at what our game system rewards and what it doesn't reward. If it rewards a behavior style that we don't like, we need to remove those rewards, or point them towards something else.
This is why there are laws, rules, customs , and social agreements to reign in basic human nature; humans tend to be selfish.
You could take a game as simple as story time, where one person tells part of a story and then points at another person who continues the story.
If one player tells an incredibly long story and doesn't want to point at anyone else, you could argue that the game is inherently bad (the game doesn't reward you for pointing at someone else.)
Or you could look at the player as not adhering to the social agreement of the game.
In other words, the game isn't the problem in that circumstance, it is the player.
However, I don't remember ever taking an option my character would consider sub-optimal, because...why would my character take an option they themselves consider worse than another option? "Optimisation" is just another facet of roleplaying, at least for me.
Non-optimization happens when you have a concept that is too advanced for you system mastery that you do not know how to fully optimize it, but your desire to play the concept is stronger than the pull to play something old that you know how to optimize.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree. Putting any terms such as Munchkins, powergamers, rollplayers, roleplayers in a player recruitment ad. Is probably the worst thing to do imo. While I appreciate and respect the honest of the person writing the ad. I'm not going anywhere near such a person game. For one that person prejudices are showing upfront. Second we all optimize to a small extent in this game. One has to imo.
So one can build a low str and con Fighter. He just will hit and do less damage as well. While also carrying less in terms of items. Their no roleplaying reason around that. It's all easy to say to roleplay yet depending on the class it's easier to do than others imo. It's just the way the system is built imo.
While I like giving a short explanation of what my character can do. Neither am I in the mood to give the equivalent of War and Peace in terms of description either.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
(2) the people labeled in such a way are consistently demonized and ostracized.This may due to you hanging out in different subforums than I do, but I honestly cannot remember the last time anyone said anything about someone being a bad RPer which wasn't immediately followed up with one or more snarky responses and "Fallacy, fallacy!" statements.
Just because it's followed up by something bad, doesn't mean the first part wasn't bad. Both sides can be bad.
So when I saw a multi-star PFS GM say "Your AC is ##? That's not a character, that's a spreadsheet that you're trying to pass off as a character, and I would boot you from any table I was running," his guilt is unchanged by how people responded to him. The respondents might ALSO be guilty if they reacted poorly, but that doesn't take away his own guilt.
So pointing out that "You're a bad RPer" is often met with snark and cries of fallacy doesn't change the moral nature of the original "You're a bad RPer" statement, whatever that moral nature may be.
How people respond to an action has no bearing on the moral quality of the action to which they're responding.
How people respond to your actions never makes those actions more or less okay than they already were.
IME, the vocal Paizo forums community members tilt pro-optimization, so I don't see how a person describing their character's mechanics could be ostracized - There simply aren't enough people for that.
I won't claim to know which group has the most people. I just know how easily I was able to rattle off a list of things I've personally seen others cite as reasons why Person B is bad roleplayer and doesn't know what this game is all about. None of them were hypothetical.
You're probably right about rollplayer and munchkin, but I've actually seen powergamer used by people referring to themselves.
And I've seen black people use the n-word to refer to themselves and their friends. That doesn't make it okay for someone else to use that term toward them.
As I eluded to previously, I don't think it is up to poster A to determine that poster B is label x.
That's kind of my point. It's not up to Poster A to determine that Poster B is a rollplayer/munchkin/whatever, but they keep doing it over and over, to the point that it made it into the Community Guidelines.
I think the labels can be helpful in describing preferences for game ads though. If a GM recruiting for a game says "Powergamers are not welcome," that is helpful info.
I think it's worth pausing to reflect on how a person could come to think that "[GROUP] are not welcome here" is helpful info rather than divisive toxicity.
Fun side note: Auto-correct likes to turn you into Jiffy.
An upgrade from the usual "Jiggly".
Yup, it's basic human nature to seek out immediate rewards. We sometimes forgo immediate rewards for long term ones, but usually when faced with the choice, we'll take the immediate reward, especially when it comes to something like games.
So, understanding this fact, we can look at what our game system rewards and what it doesn't reward. If it rewards a behavior style that we don't like, we need to remove those rewards, or point them towards something else.
This is why there are laws, rules, customs , and social agreements to reign in basic human nature; humans tend to be selfish.
You could take a game as simple as story time, where one person tells part of a story and then points at another person who continues the story.
If one player tells an incredibly long story and doesn't want to point at anyone else, you could argue that the game is inherently bad (the game doesn't reward you for pointing at someone else.)
Or you could look at the player as not adhering to the social agreement of the game.
In other words, the game isn't the problem in that circumstance, it is the player.
Then why do I have different experiences playing different games?
Just out of curiosity, what is the "most unlike Pathfinder" game you've ever played?
I think it's worth pausing to reflect on how a person could come to think that "[GROUP] are not welcome here" is helpful info rather than divisive toxicity.
I'm happy to discuss it. Some playstyles don't mesh well with one another. Some personalities don't mesh well with others.
I've had my fair share of groups, both as a player and as a GM, where it was obvious that two individuals in the group simply butted heads over and over.
As the usual GM, I don't want to risk the campaign collapsing due to arguments. IME, filtering out people who's playstyle is far different from mine has led to cohesive groups, and a lot of fun for all involved.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You seem to be under the impression that as long as your concept is sound, it makes no difference how you express it.
I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "I like X and I'm interested in gaming with like-minded people" and "Non-X people are not welcome."
And every time someone tries to point out a difference like that, you somehow get it in your head that they're challenging whether it's okay for people to like different things.
Then why do I have different experiences playing different games?
I would guess because you're playing with people who share a similar playstyle preference. As you've stated, some games reward you for doing things other than excelling in combat.
If you play with people who are focused on the rewards, then they are more likely to make those non-excelling-in-combat choices in other systems where they feel they are suitably rewarded.
If the mindset is "Role-playing should be it's own reward" then the suggestion "Change to a system that rewards role-playing" falls flat.
Just out of curiosity, what is the "most unlike Pathfinder" game you've ever played?
Probably an online MUSH/MOO from the 90's.
I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "I like X and I'm interested in gaming with like-minded people" and "Non-X people are not welcome."
Well, we're talking about a game advertisement. You said it's worth reflecting on how someone saying "No x playstyle people allowed" could be considered helpful info.
I assume this means you think it is not helpful, and might even be morally wrong.
I'm saying it works.
Is that a fair assessment?
As an aside, keep in mind that we're not talking about a company policy or such.
We're talking about a hobby in which people spend an inordinate amount of time creating content for the group to enjoy.
There's no obligation for a person to have to accept any player applications that come their way.
Going even further, I would say it is the advertiser (typically the GM)'s responsibility to do everything they can to ensure a good group so as not to waste everyone's time.
Am I missing some pertinent aspect that you're trying to get across?
Yes.
I brought up the topic of how a preference or desire is expressed, and you somehow managed to take it as questioning whether it's okay to express preferences at all.
Okay, so to put in more simple language:
Jiggy: It's inappropriate to say "x playstyle preference is not welcome in this game."
Tormsskull: "I disagree."
Do I have that correct now? Can we move on to discussing why you think it's inappropriate for a person to say "x playstyle preference is not welcome in this game?"
That's what I'm curious to know. Of course, if I still have your position wrong, please correct me.
I think it's worth pausing to reflect on how a person could come to think that "[GROUP] are not welcome here" is helpful info rather than divisive toxicity.I'm happy to discuss it. Some playstyles don't mesh well with one another. Some personalities don't mesh well with others.
I've had my fair share of groups, both as a player and as a GM, where it was obvious that two individuals in the group simply butted heads over and over.
As the usual GM, I don't want to risk the campaign collapsing due to arguments. IME, filtering out people who's playstyle is far different from mine has led to cohesive groups, and a lot of fun for all involved.
Everyone at the table having the same expectations about the game is critical to the enjoyment of everyone there. The tough part about using terms like "roll-player", "role-player", "optimizer", or "powergamer" is that they mean different things to different people.
This guy came up with a questionaire that you fill out during session 0 as a group to make sure that everyone understands what kind of game they are playing.
I'm not sure if I would ask those exact questions, but the idea that there are play parameters that need to be agreed upon by the entire group is really important. Things like what is the GMs role? Is it okay for PCs to fight with each other? Can the players make up things about the game world and how much can they make up? These are questions that need to be answered before play.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes.
I brought up the topic of how a preference or desire is expressed, and you somehow managed to take it as questioning whether it's okay to express preferences at all.
Okay, so to put in more simple language:
Jiggy: It's inappropriate to say "x playstyle preference is not welcome in this game."
Tormsskull: "I disagree."
Do I have that correct now? Can we move on to discussing why you think it's inappropriate for a person to say "x playstyle preference is not welcome in this game?"
That's what I'm curious to know. Of course, if I still have your position wrong, please correct me.
You're closer.
Part of it is how you fill in "X playstyle preference". There's a difference between identifying a group by an actual behavior/characteristic and identifying a group by using a stereotyping label that already has a history.
"People who are mostly just into the numbers and not so much the story are not welcome in this game" is not equivalent to "Rollplayers are not welcome in this game".
Another part of it is how you express the potential clash of playstyles. There's a difference between stating what playstyle the GM has or is looking for, and stating that another playstyle "is not welcome here".
"I like my games to focus on XYZ, and I'm seeking players with the same preference" is not equivalent to "Non-XYZ-focused players are not welcome here."
Acceptable: "I'm looking to run a narrative-focused game where the mechanics are changed on the fly to suit the story. If that doesn't sound fun, this probably isn't the game for you."
Unacceptable: "Rollplayers are not welcome."
Acceptable: "I'm looking to run a game for a group of interesting characters who act like real people. If you're more into established stereotypes (like the growly, drunk dwarf) and a 'kill monsters and take their stuff' type of game, this isn't what you're looking for."
Unacceptable: "Grognards are not welcome."
Are you starting to see the distinction now?
This guy came up with a questionaire that you fill out during session 0 as a group to make sure that everyone understands what kind of game they are playing.
That seems like an interesting take. If I had a group of people that spontaneously decided they wanted to play some kind of TTRPG, I might suggest a tool like that.
The method I am accustomed to for group formation goes something like:
- Person decides to GM a game.
- GM creates setting, content, world, etc.
- GM preps info for players.
- GM recruits players.
In this kind of a situation, a lot of those options are already pre-selected. The ad is helpful in informing prospective players of some of those pre-selected choices (but maybe not as obviously.)
This guy came up with a questionaire that you fill out during session 0 as a group to make sure that everyone understands what kind of game they are playing.That seems like an interesting take. If I had a group of people that spontaneously decided they wanted to play some kind of TTRPG, I might suggest a tool like that.
The method I am accustomed to for group formation goes something like:
- Person decides to GM a game.
- GM creates setting, content, world, etc.
- GM preps info for players.
- GM recruits players.
In this kind of a situation, a lot of those options are already pre-selected. The ad is helpful in informing prospective players of some of those pre-selected choices (but maybe not as obviously.)
You could also reverse engineer it and answer all the questions and make that part of the recruitment pitch. Whether you're forming the group or recruiting for it, I think it's a useful idea to make sure everyone is playing the same game.
Are you starting to see the distinction now?
Yes, I see the distinction.
To save both of us a lot of confusion, were you under the impression that I was referring to a game ad for a PBP game here on Paizo?
I was thinking that what you were posting about acceptable/unacceptable seemed like a bit of a reach. IMO, whatever a GM wants to put in their ad is up to them. Players have the option to apply or not.
As I was re-reading your posts to make sure I wasn't missing something, it dawned on me that you might have been referring to ads posted here, in which case the rules of the community would apply.
Then why do I have different experiences playing different games?I would guess because you're playing with people who share a similar playstyle preference. As you've stated, some games reward you for doing things other than excelling in combat.
If you play with people who are focused on the rewards, then they are more likely to make those non-excelling-in-combat choices in other systems where they feel they are suitably rewarded.
If the mindset is "Role-playing should be it's own reward" then the suggestion "Change to a system that rewards role-playing" falls flat.
Just out of curiosity, what is the "most unlike Pathfinder" game you've ever played?Probably an online MUSH/MOO from the 90's.I think that's a lot of it. If you're focused on those rewards, changing to a system that rewards things you want to do works well. If you're already focused on those things you want to do, adding a system of rewards often winds up distorting it.
For me, thinking about taking character actions in terms of "Will this get me mechanical rewards" backfires for me. It doesn't map to anything my character would actually think.
Simple psych lims and disads like Hero system has, don't have that problem. My character is claustrophobic and therefore tries to avoid enclosed spaces and has penalties within them. That's a mechanic for an in character thing. The only problem I have with such systems is that they tend to be too extreme and serious - only major limitations are represented and thus anything smaller is discouraged.As for different systems, Amber's probably the most different, but that's in different directions than this. Though my fondness for it does relate - largely removing the mechanics from view during play discourages the players from focusing on them and thus letting them influence their actions.
I've shied away from the more narrative based games, because those that even toyed with the concept didn't work...
I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I just approach it differently.
The analogy would be that the game system is a toolbox and the story is the project you're trying to build. One project might be rebuilding a car, while another is making new cabinets. I could use the car tools for the cabinet project, but it's going to be harder and require more effort.
You're right that the group is a significant factor, I haven't claimed that the game system is the only or even the most pressing factor. Rather, my point is that by ignoring the influence of the game in how we play, we are doing ourselves a disservice. By using the wrong game (or not altering the game) we are expending time and effort that don't need to be spent.
In my current game, we've been playing in this game world for about 15 years. I'm not the original GM, but I'm co-GM'ing with original GM and have been for the last 4 years. One of the things that wastes a ton of our time is the magic system. I'd like to just move to a completely different game that is closer to something we'd enjoy, but instead we have to keep tinkering with this one trying to get it to work right. It uses up a lot of my time and effort.
We've moded PF enough that it does encourage roleplaying in our group and rewards it in a way that we enjoy. My players don't immediately look at combat as the prime solution to every problem (or at least not most of them). I still would prefer more mechanical ways to hand narrative control over to the players, but ce la vie.
Even though I do currently enjoy the mythical 10 year campaign most people think is the goal of RPG's, I've found a lot of enjoyment out of shorter games. Either just a few sessions, or a single session. Pathfinder can build a lot of story over a long period of time, but it doesn't do well when you have 3-4 hours and don't already have characters in hand. The highly narrative games occupy much shorter time slots for me, and there the mechanics do force choices and paths, but the goal is to create something compelling very quickly.
I love Apocalypse World style games (or PbtA, powered-by-the-apocalypse), but I wouldn't try to run one as a 10-year campaign. It just wouldn't work. It pushes off in too many directions in too short of a time. Crazy things happen within just one session and so many threads will get revealed and never pulled that it isn't satisfying long term. So I don't pull those games off the shelf if we're trying for a long campaign.
My favorite game of all time is Mythender. In a 4 hour session we can create characters, have an intro fight, roleplay 4-5 intimate moments, then kill a god. Doing the same game in Pathfinder, you wouldn't be done with characters in the first 4 hours. I will never run a campaign of Mythender though. I tried it once and stopped after 4 sessions. For me personally, it's perfect as a one-shot and I get everything I need/want from it in those 4 hours.
It's one of the things I love about the hobby right now, is that there are a lot of choices in games for very different styles of games. That means that not every game is a perfect fit for every group. I do recommend branching out as much as possible, not to find a replacement, but because different games will help highlight what your favorite game does, both well and poor. It'll fuel ideas of how to tweak your favorite game, or fill a gap you always felt, but couldn't name.
Yup, it's basic human nature to seek out immediate rewards. We sometimes forgo immediate rewards for long term ones, but usually when faced with the choice, we'll take the immediate reward, especially when it comes to something like games.
So, understanding this fact, we can look at what our game system rewards and what it doesn't reward. If it rewards a behavior style that we don't like, we need to remove those rewards, or point them towards something else.
This is why there are laws, rules, customs , and social agreements to reign in basic human nature; humans tend to be selfish.
You could take a game as simple as story time, where one person tells part of a story and then points at another person who continues the story.
If one player tells an incredibly long story and doesn't want to point at anyone else, you could argue that the game is inherently bad (the game doesn't reward you for pointing at someone else.)
Or you could look at the player as not adhering to the social agreement of the game.
In other words, the game isn't the problem in that circumstance, it is the player.
Then why do I have different experiences playing different games?
Just out of curiosity, what is the "most unlike Pathfinder" game you've ever played?
I'd say Amber or AD&D...yeah...AD&D.
Odd how the world turns, isn't it.
Primarily it's because AD&D really does emphasis the class as what you are...as well as having far more restrictions on races and a differences between races, class leveling, and even ability scores.
Ironically, I try running my PF games a lot like my AD&D games though.
and Amber...
It's all about comparisons and how you portray them then anything dealing with dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I can make an effective character and roleplay just as well as I'd an ineffective one... Why wouldn't I choose to be effective?"Optimized" and "effective" are not, despite people trying to constantly use them that way, synonyms. Something does not have to be optimal to be effective. It isn't an on/off switch.
Optimize
verb (used with object), optimized, optimizing.1.
to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
2.
to make the best of.
- - -
Again: Optimization (or lack there of) has no impact on my ability to role play... So why would I choose to make a less effective character?
If I'm too powerful for the campaign, I can just hold back... But if I'm too weak, I can't suddenly get stronger.
So again... Why wouldn't I try yo make my character as competent and effective as possible at whatever it is that I want him to be competent and effective?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I can make an effective character and roleplay just as well as I'd an inertective one... Why wouldn't choose to be effective?"Optimized" and "effective" are not, despite people trying to constantly use them that way, synonyms. Something does not have to be optimal to be effective.
Well, to "optimize (a thing)" is to make that thing as "effective" as possible.
And what does "effective" mean? "Successful in producing a desired or intended result".
So, the two things you're wanting to make sure we all know aren't synonyms are
and
.
So, "optimized" is not 100% interchangeable with "effective"; rather, "optimized" is simply the fullest degree of "effective".
Now, you say that something can be non-optimal but still be effective. Well, if we fill in our definitions for those terms, that means you're saying that something which is NOT
can still be
.
I suppose, depending on what your "desired result" is, you may well be right. If your desired result has a gradient of outcomes for which two results can both be considered successful while simultaneously one of those two results is more successful than the other, then you do indeed have a situation where that which is non-optimal can still be considered effective.
However, if (for a given desired result) either of those elements is not the case—that is, if there is only one result that's considered successful, or if all successful results are of equal value with none being superior to any other—then it becomes impossible for something to be less successful than something else and still be considered successful, which in turn leaves no room for a differentiation between "successful" and "most successful". Therefore, in such a situation, "optimal" and "effective" have indeed become synonyms.
Alternatively, we could all just unclench a little, treat each other like real people, and stop devoting all our focus to revealing the mustache-twirling villainy of anyone who voices an opinion contrary to our own.
"Cura te ipsum."
Yeah... Latin sounds classy and all... But your reply really doesn't apply to Jiggy's post.
Iocorum expers sum et haud peritus
Lemmy, not trying to being a dingus here, but was "haud" a typo or something?
. . .
Bibamus, moriendum est, that's my latin motto. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy, not trying to being a dingus here, but was "haud" a typo or something?
I have no idea. I don't speak Latin... But I do have access to the internet, google translator and a few sentences in Latin. I don't have any intention to proofread them, though. XD
I speak fluent Portuguese, though... That's originated from Latin, so it has to count something. :P
If there's a debate in English don't break out into Latin if you want to continue to contribute. This is beyond basic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mellita, domi adsum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a debate in English don't break out into Latin if you want to continue to contribute. This is beyond basic.
Cur non?
Eu vou digitar em Português em vez de Latim porque ninguém vai notar a diferença. Hah!
This thread might have gone slightly off its rails...
Eu vou digitar em Português em vez de Latim porque ninguém vai notar a diferença. Hah!
Digitar, that prolly has something to do with fingers, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eu vou digitar em Português em vez de Latim porque ninguém vai notar a diferença. Hah!Digitar, that prolly has something to do with fingers, right?
It means "to type"... As in... "I'm about to use my keyboard to type this text". So... Yes .
'Physician, heal thyself'
Aimed mostly at the last line of the post.
Which, as Lemmy said, doesn't really apply to Jiggy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both "optimal" and "effective" are weak words without strong context.
That's just discussing semantics, though.
Vini, Vidi, Vici