[The Key of E]

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.

I see your point here. The fact that you can roleplay AND optimize at the same time should not be used to defend disruptive powergaming. I only brought up the fallacy because it seemed relevant to the questions Solo asked in the OP.

[All4BigGuns]

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.

And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.

[Solo]

]

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.

I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....

[All4BigGuns]

]

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.

I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....

Well, there shouldn't be any arbitrary "consequences" levied beyond the natural consequence of not having anything to do when your character's narrow focus has nothing to do with the scene at hand. Anything more is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily antagonistic toward the player, IMO.

[Solo]

The objective for me is always to make a character I can enjoy for an entire campaign. Sometimes I intentionally play very weak characters, full of many aspects many others would consider "flaws in design". Some of the most fun I've ever had rping was playing weak characters that had to be resourceful and find ways to compensate for their low power. Other times I've played extremely powerful characters, if that's what I feel like at the time. Most of the time my characters fall somewhere in between. I never make a character with the goal of being the most powerful in the group. I always, always think a lot about my character's background and design him/her appropriately, even at the cost of character power.

On the topic of dump stats. That is one way of looking it at, another way is it doesn't make sense for certain characters to have a 3 Charisma. I just played through a Shadowrun campaign with a 1 in Charisma and it was a lot of fun rping a sociopath who was very unaware socially. I rp'ed her that way the entire campaign and it had a big impact on how others perceived her. It was a fun experience. In terms of character power, She was not min-maxed and I could have made her a lot more powerful if I wanted to. I stuck with her style the whole campaign and it was really a lot of fun. It really made me want to play a higher Charisma character next time, too. I don't feel there is anything wrong with having weaknesses, especially if the GM tries to model the game accordingly.

I'd say my rp group's biggest strength is focusing on the rp aspect of rpgs. We have extensive character histories, long opening stories or speeches to begin each session and sometimes multiple. We play a different kind of character every time and try to push our rp skills as far as we can go. We have had tons and tons of sessions with no combat and even play for more than 24 hours consecutively on some occasions. There are no hard and fast rules when creating characters. Just do what you like. I will just say this though, I personally feel you will have more fun if your character really comes to life and you make a big effort to get into the mindset of that character. Having a bunch of high stats can be fun for many players, sure, but really getting into character is where the greatest rp experiences can be had, that's just my opinion.

I don't think you need to optimize your characters, just do it if you feel like it. Do what you like at the time, that's the beauty of games like this. A lot of players on these boards say things like, "I ALWAYS take X piece of cyberware on my characters." Or, "I never play will Willpower lower than 3." Stuff like that is really not realistic. Sorry to step on anyone's toes but each person in the world is different and it's fun to rp those different personalities. There is no need to place restrictions on the design of your character! It's fun to explore all aspects of games and try a little of everything over time. Having big weaknesses can be just as fun as having big strengths, at least for my group. We try something new with every character, always trying to play new races, new qualities, new gear etc. We play like that in any rpg we play.

I'm not proof reading this so it's probably a bit scattered, but my general message is to just have fun doing what you like to do. Building all your characters with the ultimate goal of being as powerful as possible is a hollow experience for me, but if you like it, great, do it! I would only recommend you try it my way at least once because it can be a lot of fun.

This sub forum I have mixed feelings on. Part of me likes to come here to look at the characters people make. But another part of me doesn't like to see those characters picked apart by people that care nothing about the role playing aspects of the character. I constantly see advice like "This character should not use blades", and then the person that made the character goes ahead and takes that skill off their sheet in favor a more cookie cutter approach. This is especially bad when the character should have a skill like that, based on their character's history. I've had some of my characters picked apart for the most absurd reasons and always because my decisions were not "optimal". I never listen to advice like that, I'm here to have fun and play what I like, optimal or not. It's not like I don't understand how to min max, I just don't enjoy it.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself... just do what you like and try to have as much fun as possible. Trying new things can never hurt and being open minded is the first step to enhancing your role playing experience for yourself and everyone else at your table.

Playing a very flawed character for obvious RP reasons is very different to playing an imbalanced character for dice pool reason. I totally agree with your view here.
RP characters while flawed will have a rich background explaining the choices made at character creation. This I would be ready to access at a table. The previously mentioned sniper with nothing but a shooting skill is something i would be more reluctant.

[Reaver]

]

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.

I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....

Well, there shouldn't be any arbitrary "consequences" levied beyond the natural consequence of not having anything to do when your character's narrow focus has nothing to do with the scene at hand. Anything more is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily antagonistic toward the player, IMO.

Except that the character does not live in a little box while a run is not taking place. Which is what a lot of power gamers seem to think is happening.

The character should have a life... Shadowrunning is what the character does to support his life. Just like you go to work to support your life, you are not defined by your job (unless you let it consume you) after all, you have hobbies (like shadowrun!) and activities you like to partake in, you have friends that you hang out with (I hope!)

All these things are generally missing from a power gamer build. It's like the character folds up into a little ball and sits in a dark corner till someone in the team comes and gives him a kick, points him at an objective and says "Go".

Which again, falls back to the GM for allowing and condoning such play styles. If the GM is not making use of the "after action time" to help promote ROLEplaying, it just more justification to the power gamer for ROLLplaying...

[Crunch]

And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.

With all due respect that's not what I've seen  in the last several threads that touched on the subject.

[All4BigGuns]

And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.

With all due respect that's not what I've seen  in the last several threads that touched on the subject.

I've seen it several times. Maybe not the exact phrase, as that would probably bring a hammer down on their heads from the mods, but the gist has been such. It does seem that the biggest offender is gone though (saw where the individual is now listed as "guest" in a thread that he had posted in).

[Solo]

]

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.

I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....

Well, there shouldn't be any arbitrary "consequences" levied beyond the natural consequence of not having anything to do when your character's narrow focus has nothing to do with the scene at hand. Anything more is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily antagonistic toward the player, IMO.

I don't mean anything ominous with the word consequences.
Just that the character will suck abysmally at anything but his chosen path. If I accept a PC at a table I will do my best to ensure they have fun.

[Crunch]

And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.

With all due respect that's not what I've seen  in the last several threads that touched on the subject.

Again with all due respect not what I've seen. I have seen several people get jumped and cudgeled with Stormwind for daring to ask for help with what they perceive as a problem in their games though.

I've seen it several times. Maybe not the exact phrase, as that would probably bring a hammer down on their heads from the mods, but the gist has been such. It does seem that the biggest offender is gone though (saw where the individual is now listed as "guest" in a thread that he had posted in).

[All4BigGuns]

Except that the character does not live in a little box while a run is not taking place. Which is what a lot of power gamers seem to think is happening.

The character should have a life... Shadowrunning is what the character does to support his life. Just like you go to work to support your life, you are not defined by your job (unless you let it consume you) after all, you have hobbies (like shadowrun!) and activities you like to partake in, you have friends that you hang out with (I hope!)

All these things are generally missing from a power gamer build. It's like the character folds up into a little ball and sits in a dark corner till someone in the team comes and gives him a kick, points him at an objective and says "Go".

Which again, falls back to the GM for allowing and condoning such play styles. If the GM is not making use of the "after action time" to help promote ROLEplaying, it just more justification to the power gamer for ROLLplaying...

What if they're simply expecting that their defaulting the social skills (if such is the case), as an 'average joe' would, be sufficient for the time spent in down time hanging out and such?

Hobbies are generally represented by Interest type Knowledge skills (which since BP generation gives free points there, they probably will have some--less likely in karma generation since Knowledges have to be bought out of the pool of points given).

Most people probably don't play games for "a day in the life of...", so not 'playing out' down time is not necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly doesn't mean the GM is 'condoning Munchkin behavior'. It simply isn't fun for everyone. If it is for you, fine, but that's no reason to dog someone who doesn't think it is.

And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.

With all due respect that's not what I've seen  in the last several threads that touched on the subject.

I've seen it several times. Maybe not the exact phrase, as that would probably bring a hammer down on their heads from the mods, but the gist has been such. It does seem that the biggest offender is gone though (saw where the individual is now listed as "guest" in a thread that he had posted in).

Again with all due respect not what I've seen. I have seen several people get jumped and cudgeled with Stormwind for daring to ask for help with what they perceive as a problem in their games though.

Or maybe people were trying to give insight to help them realize that there wasn't a problem, and they just ignored it while making claims that fit the fallacy. I've seen that one before too.

[Crunch]

telling someone that is having trouble with their game that there's not a problem because you disagree with them, and then using the fallacy to argue something that the fallacy in fact does not say is exactly what I'm talking about.

There isn't necessarily a correlation between bad roleplaying and power gaming. (The actual fallacy)

Is not the same as

Power Gaming is never bad roleplaying or disruptive. (What I see the fallacy used for around here.)

[All4BigGuns]

Power Gaming is never bad roleplaying or disruptive. (What I see the fallacy used for around here.)

Never seen this one before, but I have seen people making the claim that it always is (those are the times I've mainly seen the fallacy mentioned).

Anyway, we ain't gonna agree on this, so let's drop this line.

[JustADude]

The way I read the Stormwind Fallacy, it's not actually saying anything about optimization or power-gaming at all.

My interpretation is that it's aimed at the false idea that a "weak", "flawed", or "sub-optimal" character is somehow better for RP than one that is mechanically optimal... as if somehow actually being well-suited for the line of work you're pursuing is going to diminish your ability to role-play... when, of course, it's actually quite the opposite.

By that I mean that big, glaring flaws are crutches used by RPers who want nice, easy hooks so they don't have to think too hard about their characters. To make an optimized character "pop," you actually have to dig into the little details to bring them to life.

I've written highly involved characters, complete with detailed personal history, family ties, a Character Questions writeup, 3x3 contact grid, a well-researched cultural identity, and their own set of personal agendas that don't have anything to do with the mission at hand. Characters that I knew, inside and out, like they were a real person.

They also happen to be extremely good at their jobs.

So, yeah, I have to call bullshit any time someone says that playing a "flawed character" is somehow better for RPing.

[Black]

I personally enjoy playing characters who have some sort of flaw.  I just enjoy it more.  Its a personal preferance.  After all, roleplaying isnt a competitive sport, so there really is no 'right way' of playing a game. Just play your character the way you enjoy it most, and providing it works with your fellow players and GMs style, then just have fun.

In Shadowrun, I want my character to be competent in his speciality, whatever it may be, but its also a matter of comparision.  Some games, a dice pool of 8 is fine, other games characters have dicepools of 20.  Some games dont require 'optimisation' for the character to be considered competent, some games do.  I think this is the real challenge.  How good do you need to be to be considered 'good' at what you do?  Some games the sniper just needs a good weapon, a solid dice pool and an agility of 4 or 5.  Other games require him to have his agiity much higher due magic/augmentation.  Some games the cops are 1 IP, have standard armour, skills and weapons.  Other games throw enemies with augmentation or other enhancements as standard.  Its a in-group balance issue... but not neccessary a roleplaying style issue.  After all, either way doesn't directly impact how to roleplay your character.

Oh, and good roleplaying doesn't have to be taken to the extreme either.  A 'flawed' character doesn't have to be disruptive to the game and the team.  I have a great player in my current campaign who plays an infiltration experts... who also happens to be a bit of an elitist clean freak paranoid.  The one game were the team needed to break into a safe house via the sewers... or the times his paranoia has kicked in... only for him to be right.  Classic moments in our game.  Good character play, not disruptive, creating moments we all still joke about months later.  And thats why I game.