Giant in the Courthouse

[danielxcutter]

Is there a law, fallacy, or other term that talks about people telling me to do something more optimal when I specifically said I wanted something else?

If not, making it now.

DXC's Razor: If a person says he knows that a build choice is unoptimal but they want to do so anyways, then give them advice that makes the choice better, not advice on picking something better.

Because some people barely read the OP, let alone respect my choices.

[Hackulator]

Is there a law, fallacy, or other term that talks about people telling me to do something more optimal when I specifically said I wanted something else?

If not, making it now.

DXC's Razor: If a person says he knows that a build choice is unoptimal but they want to do so anyways, then give them advice that makes the choice better, not advice on picking something better.

Because some people barely read the OP, let alone respect my choices.

The optimization fallacy: The belief that the best choice for a character is always the most optimized one.

[danielxcutter]

The optimization fallacy: The belief that the best choice for a character is always the most optimized one.

Yeah. Either way, could this be added?(I think that DXC's Razor sounds cooler and it's named after me, but if "optimization fallacy" has already been used...)

[Hackulator]

Yeah. Either way, could this be added?(I think that DXC's Razor sounds cooler and it's named after me, but if "optimization fallacy" has already been used...)

No I just made that up, I just think naming something after yourself is kind of gauche.

[danielxcutter]

No I just made that up, I just think naming something after yourself is kind of gauche.

There are currently three terms named after someone at the very least; Grog's Law, the Snowbluff Axiom, and Waker's Law. No, I'm not quite as experienced as them, but I've seen enough of what I mentioned to make that.

Also, mine is a "razor", which is a rule of thumb, and your term is a "fallacy". They talk about the same thing, but have different points. Of course, the choice is entirely up to Waker, so let's wait for him.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are currently three terms named after someone at the very least; Grog's Law, the Snowbluff Axiom, and Waker's Law. No, I'm not quite as experienced as them, but I've seen enough of what I mentioned to make that.

Along with Oberani and Stormwind.

EDIT: Grog's Law sounds like part of the pirate code. "Thou Shalt Give Your Crew The Cheapest Drink, But Yea, In Abundance."

[Hackulator]

There are currently three terms named after someone at the very least; Grog's Law, the Snowbluff Axiom, and Waker's Law. No, I'm not quite as experienced as them, but I've seen enough of what I mentioned to make that.

Also, mine is a "razor", which is a rule of thumb, and your term is a "fallacy". They talk about the same thing, but have different points. Of course, the choice is entirely up to Waker, so let's wait for him.

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight and don't care at all whether either of those things gets added to this post. However, you are certainly not the first person to realize or vocalize that it is annoying to ask for something and then have people tell you they know better than you and you don't want that thing, you want something else.

I mostly think this thread is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

[danielxcutter]

Along with Oberani and Stormwind.

EDIT: Grog's Law sounds like part of the pirate code. "Thou Shalt Give Your Crew The Cheapest Drink, But Yea, In Abundance."

Oh, those were names too? Didn't know that.

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight and don't care at all whether either of those things gets added to this post. However, you are certainly not the first person to realize or vocalize that it is annoying to ask for something and then have people tell you they know better than you and you don't want that thing, you want something else.

I mostly think this thread is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

Yeah now that I think of it I was being a bit annoying and egoistic. Still think that the idea itself is worth mentioning though.

[Telonius]

Here's an axiom for you. I've been giving this advice for quite a few years, and haven't seen anyone cite it. Call it Tel's Axiom if you want:

You should not try to solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.

[Telonius]

Well, no. If it were science we hadn't learned yet then it would work when we tried to do it in real life (and I'm sure at least a few kids have seriously attempted to teleport Shadow Jaunt style). The difference is that until fairly recently, the photoelectric effect was science we hadn't learned yet but it still happened when someone shone a light on an electrified plate. Magic is stuff that never works and never will.

Side note on this one - reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" to my daughter recently, and came across this gem.

And after dinner the Magician did a very useful and beautiful piece of magic. He laid two blank sheets of parchment on the table and asked Drinian to give him an exact account of their voyage up to date: and as Drinian spoke, everything he described came out on the parchment in fine clear lines till at last each sheet was a splendid map of the Eastern Ocean, showing Galma, Terebinthia, the Seven Isles, the Lone Islands, Dragon Island, Burnt Island, Deathwater, and the land of the Duffers itself, all exactly the right sizes and in the right positions. They were the first maps ever made of those seas and better than any that have been made since without Magic. For on these, though the towns and mountains looked at first just as they would on an ordinary map, yet when the Magician lent them a magnifying glass you saw that they were perfect little pictures of the real things, so that you could see the very castle and slave market and streets in Narrowhaven, all very clear though very distant, like things seen through the wrong end of a telescope.

Seems a lot less magical now that we have Google Maps.

[BowStreetRunner]

I always liked this little gem from Steven Brust (the Vlad Taltos series): “No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.”

I've seen more than my share of super optimized caster PCs that had some weakness in their build that stared out at you like the exhaust port in a moon-sized imperial battle station.

[Waker]

DXC's Razor: If a person says he knows that a build choice is unoptimal but they want to do so anyways, then give them advice that makes the choice better, not advice on picking something better.

Yeah, that is definitely something that I've observed a lot here on these forums.

Grog's Law sounds like part of the pirate code. "Thou Shalt Give Your Crew The Cheapest Drink, But Yea, In Abundance."

Grog's Law has always been more of what you would call a guideline rather than a rule.

Call it Tel's Axiom if you want:

You should not try to solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.

And that's another one I've seen every time a poster asks what to do with a toxic party or a jerky DM/player.

[Kaleph]

Pretty sure that's covered by the Oberoni Falacy.

That's not exactly what I was referring to. The Oberoni Fallacy says, that a possible fix of a flaw through Rule-0 doesn't change the fact that the game was flawed in the first place.

What instead I was meaning, is that very often ridiculous in-game events happen, because the DM hasn't followed a standard rule which worked in the first place, with the well-known consequence, that the players weren't anymore in the position of chosing the right course-of-actions. Or, if they would, the consequences of said course-of-actions would be anyhow screwed up by the DM, in case he would arbitrarily resolve it ignoring the rules, the common sense and the verisimilitude.

In many places, especially in RL or on socials (e.g. FB), I hear funny stories of "dumb role-players" and their epic fails where, in most of the cases, the DM's twisted existing rules or improptu created new ones - either because they wanted to railroad the event, or in the name of a rule-of-cool they alone could see, or simply because they were dumb DM's. And, worthless to say, those who champions the thesis of the dumb role-player instead, will always defend him in saying "it's his right, he's the master, he may change the rules whenever he sees fit". Which is a fallacy, in this case (probably more related to "but, Dragons", rather that to "Oberoni fallacy").

[Pleh]

I mostly think this thread is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

My clue was when the original post contained a law named after the thread maker which I had never actually heard anyone reference and included it in the list of references that have stood the test of time.

[Waker]

I mostly think this thread is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

My clue was when the original post contained a law named after the thread maker which I had never actually heard anyone reference and included it in the list of references that have stood the test of time.

Fine, I'll pay attention to your complaints.
As I said right at the beginning, my purpose for making this thread was to consolidate the various frequently used opinions that people reference when they talk about things on a gaming forum. And yes, they are opinions, not set in stone provable facts. On the previous page, there were people arguing about the "Guy at the Gym" and "Oberoni" fallacies, despite them having been around for years. You both seem to have the belief that I'm trying to become famous or otherwise stroke my ego by posting a law with my name on it. How would I accomplish this? By dropping the name in other threads or at the very least putting it in my signature? Anyone can see that I haven't done so, so just maybe I'm not trying to score internet groupies. Hell, you guys have done more advertising for it than I have.
As to why no one has ever referenced it before is because until this thread I never bothered to put a name to it even if I have otherwise stated it.

The rules of D&D exist to give a framework for what a character can do in any given situation. Having ranks in Move Silently lets a character sneak about unnoticed, and the spell Fly obviously details rules on how a character can fly about. Conversely it also limits what a character can do. I might claim my character is a world-class swordsman, but if I don't have the right proficiency or have a bad BAB progression, the concept doesn't hold up. When you design a character, your character concept needs to adhere to the rules as allowed by the aspects of a character's racial and class abilities.

Taken from a thread earlier this month.

I've said it many times in many threads, but I'm a pretty easy going guy when it comes to fluff. There is one thing that is very important to me though and that is that fluff must be supported or at least not contradicted by mechanics. Regardless of how I try to spin it, if my character has crappy BAB and no proficiencies, he ain't gonna be some amazing swordsman. Rangers can fulfill a number of concepts be they bounty hunters, army scouts or rangers (as in, one who protects a forest, countryside etc.) Rogues can be thieves, thief-catchers, spies, assassins... I could go on with the other classes, but you probably get my idea. The class features, skills and other facets of the class support the concept.

Taken from a thread two months ago.
Even if I've never bothered to call it "Waker's Law" before, it is a concept that has existed for some time. If people decide to use it as shorthand for an argument, that's fine. If they don't, that's also fine. As strange as this concept may seem to some, but the adoration of people I am likely to never meet has no real bearing on my self-worth.

[One Step Two]

I think this is an interesting resource, and if I may, I would like to add a Fallacy, or more specifically codify one that has been explored by the Order of the Stick itself, ever since we met Miko in the comics and compared them to O'chul and other paladins, this fallacy applies to anything with the same stigma with crunch/fluff that seem leery in a players hands, such as the Kender race and those who have misgivings with them. I call it:

The Paladin/Kender Fallacy: The portrayal of a character with restrictive/disruptive fluff and/or crunch, does not mean they exist only to restrict and/or disrupt games. Stories can be enriched by them by those who wish to try as easily as they can be disrupted by those who try equally to do so.

It could be seen as an addendum to Tel's Axiom which is fine, because usually problematic classes/races/etc are chosen by people who wish to be problematic. But with that said, the core of the Fallacy is that just because a Paladin has to be LG does not make it a straight jacket of actions, nor does not mean he holds the party's reins, and just as a Kender is disruptive by it's existence, does not mean that they cannot add to a story in some way if they player works with his party to do so.

[Dimers]

"No game is better than bad game." That's the typical formatting, though it's clearer as something like "Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game."

Call it the Bad Game Guideline? Definitely not claiming it as my own -- that'd be hypocritical, given how many times I've violated it.

The Paladin/Kender Fallacy: The portrayal of a character with restrictive/disruptive fluff and/or crunch, does not mean they exist only to restrict and/or disrupt games. Stories can be enriched by them by those who wish to try as easily as they can be disrupted by those who try equally to do so.

That could be an addendum to The Giant's commentary on the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

[Hackulator]

Even if I've never bothered to call it "Waker's Law" before, it is a concept that has existed for some time. If people decide to use it as shorthand for an argument, that's fine. If they don't, that's also fine. As strange as this concept may seem to some, but the adoration of people I am likely to never meet has no real bearing on my self-worth.

Look man, it is clearly bad form to try to name something after yourself.

Now please note that as I say that I am being mostly humorous. While I do think it's bad form, I don't think it's terrible or that you necessarily are trying to get attention. However, it DOES come off a little douchey, and so I'm going to make jokes about it because to be honest, that's just who I am. That combined with the fact that I think a lot of the things people call "fallacies" when it comes to this stuff do not even come close to meeting the criteria for a fallacy means that I'm going to poke fun at this entire thread.

Please don't take it super personally. This is literally an argument about arguments about fantasy made up characters. It's as far from serious as it can be.

[One Step Two]

"No game is better than bad game." That's the typical formatting, though it's clearer as something like "Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game."

Call it the Bad Game Guideline? Definitely not claiming it as my own -- that'd be hypocritical, given how many times I've violated it.

That could be an addendum to The Giant's commentary on the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

So shall we codify both then?

The Giant's Law: It is the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

[danielxcutter]

So shall we codify both then?

The Giant's Law: It is the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

That sounds right.

[Waker]

So shall we codify both then?

The Giant's Law: It is the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

I shall add The Giant's Law.

"No game is better than bad game." That's the typical formatting, though it's clearer as something like "Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game."
Call it the Bad Game Guideline? Definitely not claiming it as my own -- that'd be hypocritical, given how many times I've violated it.

And I'll put in the Bad Game Guideline.

Look man, it is clearly bad form to try to name something after yourself.

I'm less concerned with form. If I could had come up with a descriptive name for the law, I would have used that. However I am notoriously lazy and the path of least resistance led to the name "Waker's Law".

[Tainted_Scholar]

"Selectively building a character to deal with a specific challenge proves nothing about the viability of a class."

I believe this is Schrodinger's Fighter, but I could be wrong.

[ColorBlindNinja]

"Selectively building a character to deal with a specific challenge proves nothing about the viability of a class."

I believe this is Schrodinger's Fighter, but I could be wrong.

I think it's Schrodinger's [Insert Class Here], actually.

[Waker]

I will add Schrodinger's [Insert Class Here] Fallacy.

[Debatra]

"Schrodinger's Build"?

[gooddragon1]

"Schrodinger's Build"?

Actually, I think "Heisenberg's Build" might be more appropriate.

Here's an attempt:
"When evaluating the capabilities of a class, a sample character with a continually changing build in response to challenges cannot be treated as capable against all challenges if some changes would significantly impede their ability to deal with the former challenges."

It's common sense, but I've seen it happen.

[Florian]

I believe this is Schrodinger's Fighter, but I could be wrong.

Nope. Everything with "Schrödinger" in its name are (class) builds that are flexible enough to be changed on the fly to fit the current situation. Schrödingers Fighter is the one that can swap feats on the fly, Schrödingers Wizard can swap prepared spells, and so on.

[Pleh]

Actually, I think "Heisenberg's Build" might be more appropriate.

It may be, but more people are familiar with schrodinger's cat than heisenburg's uncertainty.

[Debatra]

Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

I'm not really sure that applies to the situation, though I'm sure we can come up with something for it.

[Pleh]

I'm not really sure that applies to the situation, though I'm sure we can come up with something for it.

It's similar to schrodinger (they're related physical concepts).

The Schrodinger equation is used to find the allowed energy levels of quantum mechanical systems (such as atoms, or transistors). The associated wavefunction gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain position.

While heisenburg's principle offers a relation in the certainty of position and momentum, schrodinger's equation actually defines that same relationship for a given set reference.

My point being that either name is just about equally applicable as a metaphor in talking about building characters for an RPG. Because either way, it's a metaphor describing the seemingly quantum behavior of character possibility, probability, and uncertainty.