The Windstorm Principle

[Whisper]

We're all familiar with this:

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

... which basically says that optimization does not preclude roleplaying.

It's commonly used as a defense by character-optimizers when confronted with accusations that they are not playing a role.

But it occurs to me that there is a corollary to this: the notion that characters whose identities are chosen for narrative rather than mechanical reasons either suck, or should be allowed by the system to suck.

I propose the Windstorm Principle:

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

In other words, if I must be an aquatic dragonwrought kobold rather than a dwarf in order not to suck, if I must play a spellcaster instead of a skillmonkey to remain relevant, then what I am playing is not so much a sandbox as a cage, and RPG rules are not so much a simulation as a form of BDSM.

Also propose the Stormfront Fallacy:

The notion that because a race is generally worse at X, all members of that race are worse at X, and this should be reflected in RPG rules.

(Named after the racist website, "Stormfront".)

In other words, just because dwarves are generally not skilled archers is no reason to impose mechanical penalties on a player who thinks it would be fun to play The Dwarf Who Never Misses.



Discuss.

[weenog]

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

No.  If you make something foolproof, they just come out with a better fool.  Some concepts are just stupid and wrong no matter what system you're playing.  That's never going to change.

[Childe]

Your proposed Stormfront fallacy is just a case of faulty generalization. To clarify: it builds on a premise which itself is a sub-conclusion made from a faulty generalization. The final conclusion is, as below, subjective.

Your other proposition, while likely to meet agreement on this forum (if not acceptance as a fallacy), is too subjective to call a fallacy. Perhaps Player A likes systems that inhibit optimization.

[Bozwevial]

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

Counterargument: I wish to play an archer who has no arms.

[SneeR]

Your Stormfront Fallacy addresses a nonissue. I have never heard of someone taking penalties based on race [edit]from the DM outside RAW[/edit] in a game of D&D. Your assertion is not incorrect, but I think that many would agree that many stereotypes are reflected in the rules, if not by actual penalties such as the half-orc CHA penalty, then by a lack of bonuses.

Dwarves are worse archers than elves; this is because elves have a DEX bonus. Elves are, on average, more supportive of being an archer than dwarves.

[Sinfire Titan]

Your Stormfront Fallacy addresses a nonissue. I have never heard of someone taking penalties based on race in a game of D&D. Your assertion is not incorrect, but I think that many would agree that many stereotypes are reflected in the rules, if not by actual penalties such as the half-orc CHA penalty, then by a lack of bonuses.

Dwarves are worse archers than elves; this is because elves have a DEX bonus. Elves are, on average, more supportive of being an archer than dwarves.

I find it very hard to believe that you have never read the rules for races in 3.5.

[veekie]

Yeah, the Stormwind Fallacy is to begin with a term of moderation. It establishes that optimization and character fluff are non-exclusive. Inverting that defeats the whole point, as you go from a desirable moderate to an indefensible extreme.

[SneeR]

Your Stormfront Fallacy addresses a nonissue. I have never heard of someone taking penalties based on race in a game of D&D.

I find it very hard to believe that you have never read the rules for races in 3.5.

I meant penalties applied by the DM which defy RAW, like a penalty to ranged attacks for dwarves, which seems to be what the OP is addressing.
I'll edit that in for clarity, though.

[Halinn]

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

Counterargument: I wish to play an archer who has no arms.

Play GURPS, make a telekinetic archer. Go all in and remove your legs and eyes as well

[Agita]

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

Counterargument: I wish to play an archer who has no arms.

Play GURPS, make a telekinetic archer. Go all in and remove your legs and eyes as well

Or in D&D, be a Soulbow. (You probably want to keep your legs and eyes, though.)

[Prime32]

Get a mouthpick bow and the Prehensile Tail feat.

[TenaciousJ]

Who needs the bow?  Just use Telekinesis to fling arrows.

[sirpercival]

Who needs the bow?  Just use Telekinesis to fling orcish shotputs with reach+chain+greater mighty wallop.

FTFY

[DonQuixote]

Who needs the bow?  Just use Telekinesis to fling arrows.

Well, the character concept was an armless archer, so...

[Prime32]

Who needs the bow?  Just use Telekinesis to fling arrows.

Well, the character concept was an armless archer, so...

Spell Thematics.

[The_Laughing_Man]

...
I propose the Windstorm Principle:

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

In other words, if I must be an aquatic dragonwrought kobold rather than a dwarf in order not to suck, if I must play a spellcaster instead of a skillmonkey to remain relevant, then what I am playing is not so much a sandbox as a cage, and RPG rules are not so much a simulation as a form of BDSM.
...

cage.. BDSM..
Uh, I find your metaphores slightly disturbing..

I think all tabletop RPGs (such as DnD) are team-based games and not single player ones. So you'd have factor in also the other players (working as a team) and the GM rulings. Which is where this principle breaks down. Unless of course the concept is something really silly, in which case I think the system has not failed, instead the failure lies somewhere else.

[TenaciousJ]

Who needs the bow?  Just use Telekinesis to fling arrows.

Well, the character concept was an armless archer, so...

The bow is your mind.  I think Spell Thematics can make bows a part of the spell's imagery.

Be an armless Raptoran if you're stuck on the physical bow.  They can shoot with their feet.

I thought you had to keep at least half the bow and arrow combination to be an archer.
vvvvv

[phaedrusxy]

Who needs the bow?  Just use Telekinesis to fling orcish shotputs with reach+chain+greater mighty wallop.

FTFY

[caelic]

There's a world of difference between "This system doesn't allow you to make a kick-butt archer with no arms" and "Fighters inherently suck in this system."  The original observation has a lot of validity; 3.5, for all its flexibility, simply doesn't facilitate certain character concepts that SHOULD be viable.  The fact that a sword and board fighter sucks eggs is a failing of the system, not a failing of the player who desires to play a competent sword and board fighter.

[Unbeliever]

There's a world of difference between "This system doesn't allow you to make a kick-butt archer with no arms" and "Fighters inherently suck in this system."  The original observation has a lot of validity; 3.5, for all its flexibility, simply doesn't facilitate certain character concepts that SHOULD be viable.  The fact that a sword and board fighter sucks eggs is a failing of the system, not a failing of the player who desires to play a competent sword and board fighter.

I can agree with this 100%.  Note that what counts as appropriate character concepts is doing a bit of work there, but it's usually pretty obvious.  Fantasy literature, not to mention D&D's own art and books, are chock full of dudes in plate mail carrying shields. 

I'd be willing to extend it further.  The fact that iconic blaster wizards -- which D&D might have even invented -- are damn hard to build without serious optimization, or at least are red-headed stepchildren compared to other charopp favorites. 

Generally, I think any system that picks and chooses among genre/game-appropriate archetypes and favors one heavily over another has a serious defect.  You can't expect perfect balancing.  But, you can expect that gross errors can be corrected, especially if they are pervasive.  I should say in humble 3.5 D&D's defense that there's enough material where optimization gets it out of a lot of this trouble.  I find it is not too difficult to build a melee brute or sword and board guy to the practical level of optimization my group demands.  But, the fact that I have to go through flaming hoops to do so is reasonably labeled a system flaw.