What things would you make forum rules if you could?

[georgie_leech]

They aren't an outlier, they're a widespread thing. You can optimize your character and roleplay. You can not optimize and roleplay - they aren't proportional to one another in the least, and have no effect on one another. The backstory thing I mentioned is just a minor flaw in optimization, one that doesn't even really affect roleplaying. Some characters simply don't have a backstory - and yet they have vibrant and wonderful personalities.

To illustrate this, imagine giving a strong Roleplayer a well-optimised character. Would the fact that the numbers on the character sheet are higher somehow make them worse at roleplaying? Conversely, consider a player who is never in character beyond "I attack" or "I cast X spell." Would they magically gain the ability to soliloquize and make Shakespeare weep if you gave them a Commoner 1 with Skill Focus (Craft (Basketweaving))?

[dascarletm]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

[georgie_leech]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

Restriction of character archetypes doesn't necessarily imply worse roleplaying however. While the mechanically optimal/viable choices in any system may be limited, your ability to roleplay said choices isn't. There's no reason that Vanilla Bean Masters can't also be roleplayed well.

[Fax Celestis]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

The Stormwind Thingamajobber doesn't deal with mechanical successes and failures of the rules themselves, but instead with the abilities and intentions of the player using them.

[Magma Armor0]

While I agree with the general principle, it must be said that these things can infringe on one another.

I'll invent a scenario to demonstrate my point:

Suppose there is a class called Ice Cream Master. Ice Cream Masters can choose a favorite flavor. They get 32 different choices, and depending on what you choose you get a set of back-story elements, and alignment. From an optimization standpoint Vanilla Bean is by far the best. It has he most mechanical advantage, while Chocolate Chip is the least advantageous. From an optimization standpoint it is highly preferred to take Vanilla Bean, and Chocolate Chip turns the whole class dysfunctional.
In this situation your role-playing is hindered if you optimize. You are locked, more or less, into a set of character types.

Agreed with the above that this scenario doesn't exactly disprove the role playing thingy. The only place I could really see that getting in the way is a character going for swiftblade.

"Save us, o mighty wizard!"
"I can't! I can only cast haste until I take a level of swiftblade!"

Although I suppose that would just be roleplaying a character who values his personal power over the lives of the party. Still good (as in skillful) roleplaying, if a bit undesirable.

But the stormwind fallacy is only tangentially related to thread topic, amirite? Can we stay at least mostly on topic for the sake of the thread?

[eggynack]

Agreed with the above that this scenario doesn't exactly disprove the role playing thingy. The only place I could really see that getting in the way is a character going for swiftblade.

"Save us, o mighty wizard!"
"I can't! I can only cast haste until I take a level of swiftblade!"

Although I suppose that would just be roleplaying a character who values his personal power over the lives of the party. Still good (as in skillful) roleplaying, if a bit undesirable.

Or, more accurately, it's someone fully roleplaying their initiation into swiftblade. I somehow doubt that most swiftblades just fall into the class, saying, "Oh, hey. I guess I only cast haste out of third level slots that level. Fun."

[icefractal]

I have a theory about why the roleplaying / character power opposition appears to occur. Memory bias, basically.

Let's say we have a DM that's all about the roleplaying, either not caring about or being actively against CO. Now that DM has four players:
Player A: Weak Character, Poor Roleplaying - Fades into the background and likely doesn't get remembered.
Player B: Weak Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player C: Strong Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player D: Strong Character, Poor Roleplaying - Is remembered as having poor roleplaying. The strength of the character is also remembered, because it's the only notable thing about the PC.

So even though we have an even distribution, the categories that stick out in that DMs mind are "the good roleplayers" and "that bad roleplayer with the powerful character". Do the good roleplayers have powerful characters too? Well, that's not what he remembers about them, and on average they were less powerful, so they're not associated with that.

[icefractal]

Re: Optimization limiting character range.
This can be true, depending on the campaign parameters and what degree of optimization is being aimed for. It's orthagonal to how well roleplayed the character is though. Especially since you only play one character at a time, and there are a lot of characters even within the range of "very optimized". Probably more than you can go through in an entire lifetime.

[eggynack]

I have a theory about why the roleplaying / character power opposition appears to occur. Memory bias, basically.

Let's say we have a DM that's all about the roleplaying, either not caring about or being actively against CO. Now that DM has four players:
Player A: Weak Character, Poor Roleplaying - Fades into the background and likely doesn't get remembered.
Player B: Weak Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player C: Strong Character, Good Roleplaying - Is remembered as having good roleplaying.
Player D: Strong Character, Poor Roleplaying - Is remembered as having poor roleplaying. The strength of the character is also remembered, because it's the only notable thing about the PC.

So even though we have an even distribution, the categories that stick out in that DMs mind are "the good roleplayers" and "that bad roleplayer with the powerful character". Do the good roleplayers have powerful characters too? Well, that's not what he remembers about them, and on average they were less powerful, so they're not associated with that.

I've seen an alternate and similar theory that looks at it from the other end. Basically, if you assume that people with skill in neither roleplaying nor optimization drop out, because they just don't have any knack for the game, then you're left with people from groups B through D. Thus, even if all four categories have an equal number of members, the results would still skew towards roleplaying and optimization being inversely related.

[dascarletm]

Restriction of character archetypes doesn't necessarily imply worse roleplaying however. While the mechanically optimal/viable choices in any system may be limited, your ability to roleplay said choices isn't. There's no reason that Vanilla Bean Masters can't also be roleplayed well.

I agree with you, and I am not trying to implicate that. I'm merely stating that optimization can hinder roleplaying capacity on a case-by-case basis. Not talking about skill. More to the effect of what Magma said.

I fully believe that the general basis of the "Stormwind Fallacy" is true, with this small addendum.