[Shadowjack]

I can understand your situation, All4BigGuns. It seems that everyone has their own take on what they want in their games. That's too bad that you had so many problems when trying to bring your background into the game. If that was me, I think I would just find a new group to play with. But I'm guessing it's not that easy Maybe if I play a game on these boards some time we could play together. But I might be too busy for some time.

About that very weak character, you didn't find it fun at all? I think having someone who is clearly the weakest in the group can be great. But I suppose Shadowrun has more of a professional feel to it and if someone flat out just sucks, realistically the team might not want that person watching their back lol.

[Kat9]

]

What?
 *lots of words*

Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.

For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,

Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.

Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.

[All4BigGuns]

I can understand your situation, All4BigGuns. It seems that everyone has their own take on what they want in their games. That's too bad that you had so many problems when trying to bring your background into the game. If that was me, I think I would just find a new group to play with. But I'm guessing it's not that easy Maybe if I play a game on these boards some time we could play together. But I might be too busy for some time.

About that very weak character, you didn't find it fun at all? I think having someone who is clearly the weakest in the group can be great. But I suppose Shadowrun has more of a professional feel to it and if someone flat out just sucks, realistically the team might not want that person watching their back lol.

It wasn't me playing those "weak characters", it was the other person, and it wasn't fun for the rest of us having to constantly work to compensate for them. And you're quite right in that it's not that easy to find a new group...at least not in the Bible Belt area of the country--which is why we're down to a four-man group after people moved away, lost jobs and homes and various other Real Life events messing with things.

]

What?
 *lots of words*

Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.

For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,

Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.

Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.

You're right that they can mean different things to different people, but the next line is what Min/Max is. It has just gotten a very negative connotation due to the misuse of the term.

[WellsIDidIt]

"Mini-Maxer: A player who attempts to exploit every aspect of a game's rules to maximise character power for minimum cost of any kind - hence, by implication, a variety of power-gamer."

Which is yet another take on the word min(i), and yet another source that does not say anything about minimizing weaknesses.

Uhm...it does in fact say just that, "for minimum cost of any kind." Weakness in a build is a cost of the build. Minimal weakness is minimal cost.

[Triggvi]

I have been gaming for more than 20+ years. The term is Maximum effect for minimum cost. In a points game that means a lopsided character with a huge skill or two and often huge holes that the player feels he will never have to pay for in the role-playing sense. Min/maxing crosses over to power gaming or munchining with relative ease and often.

Optimization is simply point efficiency in my book. It allows you to make a well rounded character and remain as true to your concept as reasonable.

[Reaver]

"Mini-Maxer: A player who attempts to exploit every aspect of a game's rules to maximise character power for minimum cost of any kind - hence, by implication, a variety of power-gamer."

Which is yet another take on the word min(i), and yet another source that does not say anything about minimizing weaknesses.

Uhm...it does in fact say just that, "for minimum cost of any kind." Weakness in a build is a cost of the build. Minimal weakness is minimal cost.

I think the issue is in the 'weakness' part and how various people interpret it...

I understand the point you and All4 are trying to make and agree that it's not the proper terminology to use with the term (but it is used). Look at some other words that have had their terminology changed by slang and people who use them:
Bad: once bad meant, well bad! As in horrible, terrible... Bad! Now it's also meant to mean 'good' or cool, impressive...
Shit: once was an expression for excrement, poor quality, or irrelevance. Then in the mid to late 90's also came to mean 'the best', top o the line, good.
Fat: once meant obese, overweight, or a description of physical characteristics... And again in the mid 90's came to mean cool, awesome, great, etc. (usually spelled as phat for these expressions)

Wonderful thing about english and slang... It evolves with every generation, the meaning of words change as the (general) educational level of the population slides/progresses/changes (however you want to view it)



Also, the implied minimizing of a fault is subject to character creator: usually followed by errors in logic, or irrational understanding of principles.
For example: the afore mentioned "combat monster" who sinks a 1 into charisma and nothing into eteiqutte skills. The usual (il)logical line of thought is: "I want to dominate the battlefield, not talk to or befriend people because combat is the most important part if the game. Besides, it's the face's job to negotiate and talk.)

An other leap in (il)logic is the agility attribute of 1, then a cyberarm with an agility of 14 makes for the best ranged combat specialist. The fault in logic is that the boost to agility ONLY applies to tasks done with that singular arm! So if the character stands still and shoots a ONE handed weapon, he is right... The moment he runs'n'guns, shoots from cover, or any other actions involving other parts of his body, he defaults back to the AVERAGED agility if his total body. The same applies if using a two handed weapon and standing still. Now he has to find the AVERAGE of both arms. Or, if shooting a two handed weapon and moving, once again the total averaged agility.

Many 'Min/max' builds are a result of misapplied logic or faulty logic.... And sometimes trying to explain or show this is like trying to knock down a brick wall with you head; just not worth the effort.


••• forgive grammar, spelling, and structure issues please. In IPhone spellcheck hell ATM

[Katrex]

Yes I think we do. This is why I like letting people just come up with character first. Then giving everything they need.

Sometimes this can mean millions of nuyen on an arcanoarcheology submarine, but so what. Its a fucking great plot hook, and great opportunity for new fights.Avoiding depth charges from corp x while rescuing person y or whatever.

When you say to people Hey do what you like, come up with characters, its works much better than here's some bp. which  people spend like money they get the "I must get the most bang for my buck mentality" and then the role-playing kinda comes after or somewhere in that process.

When you get the freedom to build what you like you don't mind so much their weakness because that's exactly the character you wanted weaknesses and all. Though what i often find is the weakness don't end up being what mechanics he cant do, but end up being that characters personality attitude professionalism, not the  6 in charisma that he glitched.

You get things like the stated up jackpoint character's just -3 on pretty much everything :p Not a 6 4444441111 Skill stated character.

[The Key of E]

Wow, all I can say is



I've only read the first page so far, but I'm impressed by all the awesome responses. I'm also surprised no one has brought up the Stormwind Fallacy (graph) yet.

Anyway, I'll have a more detailed response once I've read the whole thread, but so far I'm giving two thumbs up for the awesome JackPoint community.

[Crunch]

That would be because almost every part of Loremaster's Stormwind Fallacy thread is nonsense.

The position taken, that rules never effect roleplay, is absurd. I think i'm going to start calling it the Loremaster Fallacy.

[Reaver]

That would be because almost every part of Loremaster's Stormwind Fallacy thread is nonsense.

The position taken, that rules never effect roleplay, is absurd. I think i'm going to start calling it the Loremaster Fallacy.

I believe the point they(he) is trying to make is that:

A: The rules govern the 'world' and how the character interacts with the world. And how the character is created.
B: optimization is not at the detriment of ROLEplay.
C: ROLLplay and ROLEplay are not polar opposites (but can be, based on the player)

[Crunch]

That would be because almost every part of Loremaster's Stormwind Fallacy thread is nonsense.

The position taken, that rules never effect roleplay, is absurd. I think i'm going to start calling it the Loremaster Fallacy.

I believe the point they(he) is trying to make is that:

A: The rules govern the 'world' and how the character interacts with the world. And how the character is created.
B: optimization is not at the detriment of ROLEplay.
C: ROLLplay and ROLEplay are not polar opposites (but can be, based on the player)

I understand the point Loremaster et al are trying to make. Unfortunately the position they are arguing against is an absurdist strawman reduction of the argument it's used as a false argument by authority to impugn.

But I don't want to derail the thread so I'll drop this now.

[The Key of E]

Alright, finished reading the thread.

About the Stormwind Fallacy, basically what it boils down to is some people think that Optimization and Roleplaying are mutually exclusive. Think of it like a line. At one end is Roleplayer and at the other end is Optimizer:

Roleplayer <-------------------+-------------------> Optimizer

...and supposedly you can't move further toward one end of the spectrum without neglecting the other end. This is the fallacy, because they are not mutually exclusive. If you did try to plot it, it would be more like the graph I posted earlier showing optimization on one axis and roleplaying on the other. So you can be good at both optimization and roleplaying, good at one or the other but not both, poor at both, or somewhere in the middle.

The reason I brought it up is because it seemed like in the Original Post, Solo was saying that he used to feel this way about how Optimizing is to the detriment of Roleplaying, but then slowly realized he was wrong.

As to the question in the thread title, I don't think you lose anything when optimizing your character. If you already have a good character concept that will be fun to roleplay, that concept will not be negatively affected by making your character more powerful in game terms. Alternately, if you have a weak character concept that concept is neither going to be improved nor hindered by your level of optimization. If your concept is based around certain flaws to enhance roleplaying, you should still be able to create a strong, viable character despite those flaws.

In other words, you don't have to gimp your character to enhance your roleplaying experience. All4BigGuns mentioned a player in his group who did this. Such players tend to be drama queens; while there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with favoring roleplay over mechanics, such players really should be playing rules-lite or free-form roleplaying games rather than rules heavy games like Shadowrun.

I do want to enter the semantics debate regarding the meaning of "min/max." Here's how I see it:

Optimizer: wants to create a powerful character to increase their enjoyment of the game.
Powergamer/Munchkin/Twink: wants to create a powerful character to "win" or break the game.

I had always used "min/maxxer" as synonymous with powergamer/munchkin/twink. However, it seems the majority here think that mix/max really should be synonymous with Optimizer instead. It's possible I've been using the term wrong all along.

[Medicineman]

Optimizer: wants to create a powerful character to increase their enjoyment of the game.
Powergamer/Munchkin/Twink: wants to create a powerful character to "win" or break the game.

thats very close to how I see it
with the Min/Maxer being the Superlative(increase ?) of the Optimizer
and the Munchkin being the Superlative of the Powergamer

HokaHey
Medicineman

[Captain Karzak]

I understand the point Loremaster et al are trying to make. Unfortunately the position they are arguing against is an absurdist strawman reduction of the argument it's used as a false argument by authority to impugn.

But I don't want to derail the thread so I'll drop this now.

I think Crunch understands the Stormwind Fallacy. I think he is arguing that Matt James (Loremaster is his site) is invoking it in a flawed defense of 4e D&D.

So we can stop telling Crunch what the Stormwind Fallacy is all about - Crunch's argument is not with Tempus Stormwind, rather his argument is with how Matt James employs the fallacy to defend the indefensible (yes, I hate 4e).

[Crunch]

I understand the point Loremaster et al are trying to make. Unfortunately the position they are arguing against is an absurdist strawman reduction of the argument it's used as a false argument by authority to impugn.

But I don't want to derail the thread so I'll drop this now.

I think Crunch understands the Stormwind Fallacy. I think he is arguing that Matt James (Loremaster is his site) is invoking it in a flawed defense of 4e D&D.

So we can stop telling Crunch what the Stormwind Fallacy is all about - Crunch's argument is not with Tempus Stormwind, rather his argument is with how Matt James employs the fallacy to defend the indefensible (yes, I hate 4e).

Honestly it has nothing to do with 4E. I'm not a 4E player, but like all systems it has its strengths and weaknesses. My argument is that the Stormwind fallacy is cited to counter an argument that no one is making.

As it is used here, and as far as I can tell on the 4E site, the Stormwind fallacy is used to argue that rules have no influence on roleplay, nope not ever, and that there is absolutely no difference between systems when it comes to roleplaying. As invoked here, Monopoly is every bit as condusive to roleplaying as Vampire second edition. And if someone brings a MDC mecha into your TMNT game that will have no effect on the enjoyment of the other players. That's the Loremaster Fallacy.

That's balderdash. Rules can effect roleplay, and power gaming can be disruptive, and not one damn thing about the Stormwind fallacy says otherwise.

That's not to say that optimisation is always disruptive. For instance, a character whose concept is that he's an Olympic archer should make a character who can shoot a bow at an Olympic level. I'm a fan, especially in action and adventure games, of making sure that the players build characters that will feel competent and exciting. Optimisation is a part of that.

My first suggestion to anyone dealing with a disruptive player of any kind is to lay out clear expectations and have a conversation with their players. Honestly as a GM I won't run for a player I can't have a conversation with about an issue. That's the luxury of having more people who want to play with me than I have time to play with and having a group of gamers that I know and enjoy playing with.

However for new GMs, or GMs dealing with groups that they are unfamiliar with these issues can be more difficult to handle. In fact issues of party balance and power level are often the hardest issues for a new GM to master after those of pacing and focus.

But around here if you ask for help or suggestions dealing with disruptive power gamers at your table you will immediately be met with a chorus of "Stormwind Fallacy." The argument being that because power gaming is not always disruptive there is never any reason to look for solutions to powergaming.

Again, balderdash.