Really? The Stormwind Fallacy cuts both ways: if you roleplay well, you optimize poorly AND if you optimize well, you roleplay poorly.
LOL. I challenge you to find an example of someone citing Stormwind other than to say, well, exactly what the title of this thread says
Why?
The Stormwind Fallacy exists primarily as a check/reminder to people that good in-character play and good mechanical decisions are by no means mutually exclusive. People cite it, as you say, in threads like this because it's relevant to such discussions. The inverse thing BoF noted - that roleplayers are assumed to optimize poorly/actively pursue bad decisions in game - is almost never called out in public discussions. Nobody posts threads titled "my players are roleplaying too much, how to I get them to make better gameplay decisions?" and sasses roleplayers.
People who like making solid mechanical decisions to go along with their stories, however, get called all matter of unflattering names and accused of Ruining D&D Forever(TM) all'a gorram time. There's an Official Name for it, even - "munchkin", as discussed earlier in the thread.
A challenge for you, Anton: give me the derisive, dismissive cheeky name the D&D playerbase has awarded to Bohemian Failure Monkey overdramatic thespians who actively sabotage their group with obscure, outre characters whose overdetailed, obnoxiously tangled backstories constantly put them in conflict with the goal of having fun adventures? What do we call those? Where's the common-language snarky nickname for people who 'roleplay' too much, instead of people who 'optimize' too much?
The term used on the optimization sites and by militant min/maxers is wanna be actor or Roleplayer (usually said with sneering tone).
Also of note to this conversation we need to be cognizant of the terms ROLL playing and ROLE playing as both are tossed about as insults by the varied factions.
My thesis is that someone who likes to go deep into the weeds of game mechanics to become affective in combat, tends to also get into the story and role play.
Your stated thesis in the thread title includes a "more". I think the presence of that "more" is the only reason there's even a discussion going.
That’s a fair distinction. By “tend” to be into role play “more” I meant more often.
From my experience optimizers are more likely to be engaged in the story and in the dialogue moments. Non-optimizers can go either way.
It’s just anecdotal and I acknowledge others may have different experiences.
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
As far as 5E is concerned, how obsessive are we talking about when referring to diving deeply into the mechanics? I'm asking because other than poring over exhaustive lists of equipment (which in many cases isn't going to be freely available, so that may well be a completely unnecessary effort) and arguably spell lists there's not a ton of mechanically optimized interactions to discover - most of that stuff is pretty obvious if you have a bit of experience with the system, and a lot of the not so obvious stuff is borderline or completely exploitative and likely to get you in hot water with your DM.
And since the Dungeon Dudes were brought up, I'd argue they're not powergamers. They're very knowledgeable certainly - comes with the territory when you play and DM a lot - and they create content about what's strong and what isn't, but to me they don't seem to obsess about optimization. Which is what in my experience the greater majority of players is like: most players will try and pick strong or at least useful options for their character, but not to the exclusion of everything else; they'll work up a concept, an idea for a character, and start from there - not from "what's the most powerful character I can create".
They have lots and lots of content that is focused on optimization, gaining advantage with the game mechanics, and ranking the power level of options. As you pointed out, they also have other content that is strictly about enhancing the playing experience (from both a player and DM standpoint).
That's kind of my point. If you want another example, Treantmonk. He even calls his audience "optimancers." You will not find another content creator who goes deeper into the game mechanics for optimization purposes, and yet anyone who follows him knows he is very much into all aspects of game play.
Anybody who creates content about mechanics is going to cover how it stacks up in terms of power. It's what viewers want from that content. Doesn't make those creators powergamers. Nor does being into all aspects of the game make anyone more into roleplay than people who are into roleplay.
How are you defining “power gamer” in this case?
The fact is that is the content they choose to to create.In the case of Treantmonk, he dives deep into every little detail of the game mechanics, and he even created a baseline damage output chart based on Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast so he can compare options and builds against the baseline.
Contrast that with a content creator like Ginny Di. She produces little to no content related to combat effectiveness.
My thesis is that someone who likes to go deep into the weeds of game mechanics to become affective in combat, tends to also get into the story and role play. It’s not an absolute, it’s a trend I observed.
Taking a step back, your thesis involves someone who likes to go deep. 5e has a lot of weeds. It's got a lot of content into which people might go deep.
I think oddly, 5e channels players toward an introverted focus. The player's handbook is for the player while the monster manual is for the DM.
It's odd, when I'm chilling out in my spare time my interests are more into watching programmes about monsters than engaging in long bouts of self-reflection. I think characters would likely be far more into lore and strategy than they would be into career's advice self-development and asset synergy. They might do whatever it takes to get by while having a real focus on making the most out of their "real" life opportunities. If they are an introvert they might be as focused on finding themselves and their personality as they might be into synchronising their skills. Some players may have a straightforward desire to get deep into RP.
Having said this, a player's interest in mechanics can be compelling and, in some cases, could foster even greater motivation to go deep. Could other forms of 5e interest have similar effects? I think so.
One difference with the mechanically able player is that their characters will be better able to more spectacularly perform. They are the ones that can more easily enter the positive spotlight of achievement rather than the potential negative spotlight of not achieving much, not being especially targeted but still going down. In some cases this success may further encourage motivation and for the player to go deep.
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
That is an interesting thought.
I used to play with a guy in 3.5 who was definitely a min-maxer (thought he was also a very good role player). He really liked building characters that could pull of some kind of gimmick/trick that involved some very specific rules interactions. The kind of thing that you really needed some intense system mastery to conceive of and pull off. When it worked, it was basically a win button, but it really only did work under certain circumstances. So if we went a session or three without him being able to pull off his gimmick he really started getting annoyed.
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
That is an interesting thought.
I used to play with a guy in 3.5 who was definitely a min-maxer (thought he was also a very good role player). He really liked building characters that could pull of some kind of gimmick/trick that involved some very specific rules interactions. The kind of thing that you really needed some intense system mastery to conceive of and pull off. When it worked, it was basically a win button, but it really only did work under certain circumstances. So if we went a session or three without him being able to pull off his gimmick he really started getting annoyed.
Build paradigms are often pretty broad: tank, cannon, healer, sneak, ... those kinds of things and sometimes blends of more than one. Optimisers/min-maxers are often just seeking synergies between various of their assets.
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
I'm trying to correlate what you said with real world examples. I can only think of that realistically happening for sessions that involve little or no combat. But let's say that's not the case.
If I build a Zealot Barb with a glaive, PAM and GWM, so long as there is combat I'm able reap the benefits of my powerful build. The same with essentially any powerful build, even non-martials, or specializing in specific areas. It's hard to go through multiple combats where a damager doesn't get to damage, or a battlefield controller doesn't get to control, etc.
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
I'm trying to correlate what you said with real world examples. I can only think of that realistically happening for sessions that involve little or no combat. But let's say that's not the case.
If I build a Zealot Barb with a glaive, PAM and GWM, so long as there is combat I'm able reap the benefits of my powerful build. The same with essentially any powerful build, even non-martials, or specializing in specific areas. It's hard to go through multiple combats where a damager doesn't get to damage, or a battlefield controller doesn't get to control, etc.
Grog Strongjaw, the "brains" of Vox Machina, was often RPed to often notable effect out of combat but with extra confidence that, if a perhaps inevitable fight did break out, he'd come into his own.
Austin Taye-Shuse, my splint wearing dragonborn paladin, often needs to hang back a bit while the party's going sneaky, sneaky. It's all good. Other characters will get their moments. Austin will get his.
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
I would say they're about as likely to lose interest as a full rp'r if that luminary can't get their fix of improv.
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
I would say they're about as likely to lose interest as a full rp'r if that luminary can't get their fix of improv.
I imagine this is the truth but my experiences unfortunately do not support such a statement.
I have seen the RP focused group get antsy in dungeon scenarios where there is little RP potential between fights. Ironically that is exactly what the system was created around and does best in that kind of game experience IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The term used on the optimization sites and by militant min/maxers is wanna be actor or Roleplayer (usually said with sneering tone).
Also of note to this conversation we need to be cognizant of the terms ROLL playing and ROLE playing as both are tossed about as insults by the varied factions.
That’s a fair distinction. By “tend” to be into role play “more” I meant more often.
From my experience optimizers are more likely to be engaged in the story and in the dialogue moments. Non-optimizers can go either way.
It’s just anecdotal and I acknowledge others may have different experiences.
Definitions that many seam to be misunderstanding...
Optimizer: Wants enough power to take on most challenges
Power gamer: Wants to earn enough power to take on all challenges
Munchkin: Does not want there to be any challenge
Roleplayers can fall into any of the above categories
45 years of experience in the hobby tells me they (min/maxers) are no more invested than any "pure" Role player. But they are more likely to lose investment if the game strays from their chosen build paradigm for more than two sessions.
Taking a step back, your thesis involves someone who likes to go deep. 5e has a lot of weeds. It's got a lot of content into which people might go deep.
I think oddly, 5e channels players toward an introverted focus. The player's handbook is for the player while the monster manual is for the DM.
It's odd, when I'm chilling out in my spare time my interests are more into watching programmes about monsters than engaging in long bouts of self-reflection. I think characters would likely be far more into lore and strategy than they would be into career's advice self-development and asset synergy. They might do whatever it takes to get by while having a real focus on making the most out of their "real" life opportunities. If they are an introvert they might be as focused on finding themselves and their personality as they might be into synchronising their skills. Some players may have a straightforward desire to get deep into RP.
Having said this, a player's interest in mechanics can be compelling and, in some cases, could foster even greater motivation to go deep. Could other forms of 5e interest have similar effects? I think so.
One difference with the mechanically able player is that their characters will be better able to more spectacularly perform. They are the ones that can more easily enter the positive spotlight of achievement rather than the potential negative spotlight of not achieving much, not being especially targeted but still going down. In some cases this success may further encourage motivation and for the player to go deep.
That is an interesting thought.
I used to play with a guy in 3.5 who was definitely a min-maxer (thought he was also a very good role player). He really liked building characters that could pull of some kind of gimmick/trick that involved some very specific rules interactions. The kind of thing that you really needed some intense system mastery to conceive of and pull off. When it worked, it was basically a win button, but it really only did work under certain circumstances. So if we went a session or three without him being able to pull off his gimmick he really started getting annoyed.
Build paradigms are often pretty broad: tank, cannon, healer, sneak, ... those kinds of things and sometimes blends of more than one. Optimisers/min-maxers are often just seeking synergies between various of their assets.
I'm trying to correlate what you said with real world examples. I can only think of that realistically happening for sessions that involve little or no combat. But let's say that's not the case.
If I build a Zealot Barb with a glaive, PAM and GWM, so long as there is combat I'm able reap the benefits of my powerful build. The same with essentially any powerful build, even non-martials, or specializing in specific areas. It's hard to go through multiple combats where a damager doesn't get to damage, or a battlefield controller doesn't get to control, etc.
Grog Strongjaw, the "brains" of Vox Machina, was often RPed to often notable effect out of combat but with extra confidence that, if a perhaps inevitable fight did break out, he'd come into his own.
Austin Taye-Shuse, my splint wearing dragonborn paladin, often needs to hang back a bit while the party's going sneaky, sneaky. It's all good. Other characters will get their moments. Austin will get his.
I would say they're about as likely to lose interest as a full rp'r if that luminary can't get their fix of improv.
I imagine this is the truth but my experiences unfortunately do not support such a statement.
I have seen the RP focused group get antsy in dungeon scenarios where there is little RP potential between fights. Ironically that is exactly what the system was created around and does best in that kind of game experience IMO.