The Orgrimmar Fallacy is the erroneous extension of a true proposition, to wit that game mechanics don't prevent role-playing, to the more sweeping generalization that there is no connection between game mechanics and role playing. More specifically, The Orgrimmar Fallacy is a belief that the aforementioned bit of shoddy non-logic is sufficiently interesting, compelling, or unassailable as to merit an official sounding (and capitalized) name.
The reasoning: role-playing is really "communal storytelling" and requires motivation as much as rules. That is, it requires a psychological state of mind such that the players desire to participate in the story. In more traditional forms of storytelling, for example books or, more recently, the cinema, the popularity of a story depended on readers/viewers being sufficiently interested and vested in the details. Relatively subtle changes in the characters, their names, the setting, and the events can spell the difference between success and oblivion.
In any story, including role-playing games, the whole is a manifestation of author/designer intent. Individual elements, while superficially unimportant or ignorable, are usually indicative of the overall "feel" of the work.
Example: eliminating or changing the JarJar Binks character from Phantom Menace would not have "solved" that movie for JarJar haters and made it a great movie for them. The JarJar character was the most prominent example, but not the only example, of a "saturday morning cartoon" feel that the directors & producers intentionally chose for their movie. (In my opinion.)
Likewise, the classes, abilities, equipment, spells, skills, and progression of an RPG are all pieces of "designer intent". The story...the "feel"...of all RPGs isn't identical: the elements included in the rules determine the flavor of the story you're immersing yourself in.
When I read through the rules of an RPG I feel like I'm reading a description of a world, even without a specific campaign setting being described. I can leave out select elements, but that doesn't change my perception of the world I am trying to immerse myself in. If D&D included historically accurate firearms I could leave them out of my game, and try to pretend they don't exist, but it's too late: the world I'm envisioning is the one the designers intended.
A related example is artwork: the illustrations in a game can totally make or break it for me. I never got into the old TSR game "Top Secret" partly because I hated the art so much: I would visualize it when trying to play the game and it sort of spoiled the effect.
Rules are like artwork: they flavor the game. That phenomenon may not affect everybody equally. In fact it's pretty obvious it doesn't: some people could care less about the "flavor" of the rules. Just like some people can say, "Yeah, JarJar was stupid, but the special effects in Phantom Menace were AWESOME!" That's fair, to each his own.
But for some of us, elements of what we consider "bad storytelling" or even "story that I'm just not that into" can't be ignored; for us they are part of the story. Telling us over and over again that "there is no necessary connection between story elements and your enjoyment of it", and giving that premise a capitalized name, isn't going to do the trick.
In other words, the only logical fallacy in this debate is the assumption that "doesn't have to" and "can't" are the same thing.
It's like that one music blogging @$$-O who insists on trying to scientifically prove that Oasis is the best rock n' roll band of all time and not a bunch of self-congratulatory one-hit-wonders.
Final summation: OP is a tit.
I always find it petty and sad when people try to intellectualize personal tastes, in order to prove that the other guy is having the wrong kind of fun.
It's like that one music blogging @$$-O who insists on trying to scientifically prove that Oasis is the best rock n' roll band of all time and not a bunch of self-congratulatory one-hit-wonders.
Final summation: OP is a ****.
Your oh-so-polite (if hastily edited) conclusion surprised me, because I thought you were agreeing with me. I find the whole "Stormwind Fallacy" argument to be a poorly attempted intellectualizing of exactly that: proof that the other guy is having the wrong kind of fun.
I am in no way suggesting that my way of having fun is right; I'm arguing that it is one of many perfectly valid ways of having fun. On the contrary, I feel it is the people who argue that "there is no reason the stuff I wanted added to the game should affect your fun; you are only arguing against it because you're a hater" are the ones trying to dictate allowable forms of fun. They quote the silly Stormwind Fallacy as evidence for that belief.
pre-3e rules were written with entertainment in mind as well as adjudication of a game. In some cases this made the rules harder to understand at times. Still when reading them you really felt like you were talking about a world.
I'm not sure you are saying what I'm getting ready to say so this is my opinion....
I believe good DM adjudicated fluff especially in the spells is a key component of fun and game acceptance. I'm perfectly fine with trying to structure it in a way that affords the fluff haters some method playing the game their way. The effort they are putting into giving the stuff at least a solid default flavor is time well spent. The monster manual is likely going to be one of the best ever and worth the price of admission.
The gist I'm getting from what you are saying is that "Mechanics can influence or prevent roleplaying" - is that the basic premise?
I disagree - the rule books themselves do not prevent roleplaying, they are just that, the rules. A means to an end.
However, rules CAN influence the type of story you want to tell. If you wanted a story about wizards who went around learning spells from scrolls and spell books and then memorizing spells that get wiped away from memory when cast - 4e is not the game for you. 4e doesn't tell that story. It doesn't mean that you can't roleplay in 4e, just not that story.
Sometimes you can work with the rules without house ruling to get the desired effects, such as simply making it harder to rest and using tougher traps/monsters to make a story harder. Othertimes you can make a tweak, such as tweaking wizards so that is what happens with daily spells.
But I would go one bit further, that story can get in the way of story. When the rules have Vancian casting, because the book tells the story idea of magic users that go around looking for scrolls and spell books to increase their power, and prepare spells that get magicaly wiped from their mind, that gets the way in the story of the girl who some how can conjure fire bolts and fly, perhaps because some where in her bloodline is a bit of dragonblood.
I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but could you summarize the entire thing in just a sentence or two? How would I explain it quickly to someone else?
The so-called "Stormwind Fallacy" is a feeble attempt to "prove" that complicated rules and mechanics don't have to inhibit roleplaying. Then, when anybody says, "those complicated rules affect my roleplaying" somebody quotes the Stormwind Fallacy.
I'm just saying that "doesn't have to" is not the same as "doesn't": even though the rules don't have to affect roleplaying for many avid roleplayers they do. The rules of a game set its tone, and the designers' choices for rules and classes determine the feel of the game. Sure, I could take any roleplaying game and roleplay my heart out, but some systems are more satisfying than others.
There have been too many conversations like this:
"I don't want Class X because its presence takes away from my roleplaying experience."
"Stormwind Fallacy! It has no impact on your roleplaying so you must just be trying to keep it out of the game because you're a douchebag!"
"Umm...."
All I'm saying is that for some of us: yes, the rules of the game do set the tone and do affect roleplaying. The only thing falacious about the Stormwind Fallacy is the suggestion that it is sound logic worthy of a name.
EDIT: Drat...that wasn't a sentence or two, was it?
Ok, final attempt:
There is no Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying is storytelling, and if some storytellers say that the design of the game negatively affects their experience, that view cannot be argued away with pseudo-logic, fancy title notwithstanding.
There is no Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying is storytelling, and if some storytellers say that the design of the game negatively affects their experience, that view cannot be argued away with pseudo-logic, fancy title notwithstanding.
Oh yeah, totally. The rules of the game can completely change your ability to tell a story falling under those rules.
I'm just saying that "doesn't have to" is not the same as "doesn't": even though the rules don't have to affect roleplaying for many avid roleplayers they do.
That fallacy is in believing that it's the fault of the rules and not the player.
In other words, they only way they inhibit your roleplaying is if you focus too narrowly/incorrectly and allow them to.
Example: In any edition, it's more important to look at it as what your character can than what your character must.
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are saying.
The gist I'm getting from what you are saying is that "Mechanics can influence or prevent roleplaying" - is that the basic premise?
I disagree - the rule books themselves do not prevent roleplaying, they are just that, the rules. A means to an end.
However, rules CAN influence the type of story you want to tell. If you wanted a story about wizards who went around learning spells from scrolls and spell books and then memorizing spells that get wiped away from memory when cast - 4e is not the game for you. 4e doesn't tell that story. It doesn't mean that you can't roleplay in 4e, just not that story.
Sometimes you can work with the rules without house ruling to get the desired effects, such as simply making it harder to rest and using tougher traps/monsters to make a story harder. Othertimes you can make a tweak, such as tweaking wizards so that is what happens with daily spells.
But I would go one bit further, that story can get in the way of story. When the rules have Vancian casting, because the book tells the story idea of magic users that go around looking for scrolls and spell books to increase their power, and prepare spells that get magicaly wiped from their mind, that gets the way in the story of the girl who some how can conjure fire bolts and fly, perhaps because some where in her bloodline is a bit of dragonblood.
Um, sort of.
No, I am not saying that rules "prevent" storytelling. But they can get in the way of the illusion that I want to create.
Let's say there's a Class X that conflicts with my view of the game world. Lovers of Class X will just say, "Leave it out of your game." But there are some problems with that:
- The game was most likely balanced to assume the presence of Class X. For example, let's say X is one of only two healing classes, and the reason there are two healing classes is that the game is designed with the assumption that you bring a healer. If I leave out Class X now my party MUST have the other healing class.
- Moreover, in all probility Class X wasn't simply tacked on as an afterthought. Let's say Class X is a one-weapon finesse duelist class with abilities like Swing on Chandelier and Discern Wine Vintage. If the designers included those abilities in the game, in all likelihood there are other rules, outside the class, that interact with those abilities. So I can rip the class out, but its tendrils are going to be found throughout the game.
- Finally, the presence of Class X is part of an overall aesthetic the designers were shooting for. If Gnomish Gunslingers are included it is because the designers wanted there to be some technology in their game world. Getting rid of the Gunslinger class isn't going to change that.
In other words, I can delete all JarJar scenes from Phantom Menace, but that's not going to make me like the movie.
I'm just saying that "doesn't have to" is not the same as "doesn't": even though the rules don't have to affect roleplaying for many avid roleplayers they do.
That fallacy is in believing that it's the fault of the rules and not the player.
In other words, they only way they inhibit your roleplaying is if you focus too narrowly/incorrectly and allow them to.
Example: In any edition, it's more important to look at it as what your character can than what your character must.
Sure, it's my fault. It's also my fault I hate JarJar.
Does pointing that out, or me acknolwedging it, result in any change?
I know the combat focus of 4e very much damaged the system's ability to encourage roleplaying in my group. Players felt like they were only there to throw down power-cards, and when they couldn't do that the system didn't have much support for their actions beyond rolling a d20 and adding a number, or the occasional non-combat utility power.
Now the problem with this manifests for us, not because I as the DM wouldn't let the chrachters run away from a faster enemy (assuming they try something mildly creative to achieve it), but that many players wouldn't even consider running away knowing that rules wise they can't, it's impossible. I had a NPC pickpocket another player as the start of a plot thread one time, assuming that the player would chase him down, and there woudl be a dialogue or a fight. Instead the player character (Dwarven rogue) saw that the pickpocket was a human child, refused to give chase at all, on the fact that he child had move 30 and he had move 25. Highly frustrating the player, merely because he couldn;t see past teh rules...
That alone, inhibits player's ability to roleplay. I would go so far as to say at a a baseline that ALL rules by definition inhibit roleplay, each ones chips away at the immersive experience one by one. They are, of course, a necessary evil, they are tools that give players boundries, limitiations, and capabilites.
The so-called "Stormwind Fallacy" is a feeble attempt to "prove" that complicated rules and mechanics don't have to inhibit roleplaying. Then, when anybody says, "those complicated rules affect my roleplaying" somebody quotes the Stormwind Fallacy.
I'm just saying that "doesn't have to" is not the same as "doesn't": even though the rules don't have to affect roleplaying for many avid roleplayers they do. The rules of a game set its tone, and the designers' choices for rules and classes determine the feel of the game. Sure, I could take any roleplaying game and roleplay my heart out, but some systems are more satisfying than others.
There have been too many conversations like this:
"I don't want Class X because its presence takes away from my roleplaying experience."
"Stormwind Fallacy! It has no impact on your roleplaying so you must just be trying to keep it out of the game because you're a douchebag!"
"Umm...."
All I'm saying is that for some of us: yes, the rules of the game do set the tone and do affect roleplaying. The only thing falacious about the Stormwind Fallacy is the suggestion that it is sound logic worthy of a name.
This is not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy's the mistaken belief that optimizers can't roleplay and roleplayers can't optimize. I don't think this belief's necessarily mistaken, so I agree the Fallacy's not as sancrosanct as some here hold it to be.
However, I don't agree with the premise of what you're saying. The complexity of rules and mechanics doesn't, on its own, inhibit roleplaying, especially if we consider the fact that, according to the rules themselves, you're free to change or ignore anything you want to change or ignore.
If you happen to think spellcasting's too complex, and you want to houserule away spells, you're free to do so. But if you think the inclusion of spellcasting inhibits your roleplaying experience, and you're unwilling to houserule it away, that's a -you- problem, not a DND problem.
Not "overrides". Not "compels" or "forbids" or any other absolute. But flavours.
The structure and presentation of the rules flavours the roleplaying of the game using using them.
Not "overrides". Not "compels" or "forbids" or any other absolute. But flavours.
I think this is well-said. It flavors them. It can make some easier than others. In no way does it forbid, compel, or require a certain way. The only thing that is variable is the amount of effort it may require to bring things into alignment with your game desires.
The structure and presentation of the rules flavours the roleplaying of the game using them.
Not "overrides". Not "compels" or "forbids" or any other absolute. But flavours.
It can be extraordinarily difficult to play certain games in ways that they do not support.
It is, for example, very difficult to play Vampire: the Masquerade without vampires being a prominent part of the story. It is possible, but if you don't want to include vampires, you should probably just be playing a different game.
But what happens when it's not the case ?
I mean… What should I do if I don't want to be a fallacist ?
And is fallacist a legal word ?
Is the invocation of any fallacy can be countered by the invocation of a fallacist fallacy ?
Aren't we all fallacists ?
Isn't it more simple to simply assume our bloated egos and just say : "You must be wrong because I'm always right ?"
Player X dislikes Mechanic Y. In some cases, Mechanic Y is not the whole of the problem, but the obvious symptom of an underlying series of design choices which is undesireable to Player X but much harder to point at. Removing Mechanic Y would not fix for Player X a game designed under the same principles that generated Mechanic Y
If this is correct, I agree entirely.
No, because sometimes you'll agree with me. And then you would be right.
(Note: Yes, I know it wasn't that Stormwind. I'm just having fun.)
The Orgrimmar Fallacy is the erroneous extension of a true proposition, to wit that game mechanics don't prevent role-playing, to the more sweeping generalization that there is no connection between game mechanics and role playing. More specifically, The Orgrimmar Fallacy is a belief that the aforementioned bit of shoddy non-logic is sufficiently interesting, compelling, or unassailable as to merit an official sounding (and capitalized) name.
The reasoning: role-playing is really "communal storytelling" and requires motivation as much as rules. That is, it requires a psychological state of mind such that the players desire to participate in the story. In more traditional forms of storytelling, for example books or, more recently, the cinema, the popularity of a story depended on readers/viewers being sufficiently interested and vested in the details. Relatively subtle changes in the characters, their names, the setting, and the events can spell the difference between success and oblivion.
In any story, including role-playing games, the whole is a manifestation of author/designer intent. Individual elements, while superficially unimportant or ignorable, are usually indicative of the overall "feel" of the work.
Example: eliminating or changing the JarJar Binks character from Phantom Menace would not have "solved" that movie for JarJar haters and made it a great movie for them. The JarJar character was the most prominent example, but not the only example, of a "saturday morning cartoon" feel that the directors & producers intentionally chose for their movie. (In my opinion.)
Likewise, the classes, abilities, equipment, spells, skills, and progression of an RPG are all pieces of "designer intent". The story...the "feel"...of all RPGs isn't identical: the elements included in the rules determine the flavor of the story you're immersing yourself in.
When I read through the rules of an RPG I feel like I'm reading a description of a world, even without a specific campaign setting being described. I can leave out select elements, but that doesn't change my perception of the world I am trying to immerse myself in. If D&D included historically accurate firearms I could leave them out of my game, and try to pretend they don't exist, but it's too late: the world I'm envisioning is the one the designers intended.
A related example is artwork: the illustrations in a game can totally make or break it for me. I never got into the old TSR game "Top Secret" partly because I hated the art so much: I would visualize it when trying to play the game and it sort of spoiled the effect.
Rules are like artwork: they flavor the game. That phenomenon may not affect everybody equally. In fact it's pretty obvious it doesn't: some people could care less about the "flavor" of the rules. Just like some people can say, "Yeah, JarJar was stupid, but the special effects in Phantom Menace were AWESOME!" That's fair, to each his own.
But for some of us, elements of what we consider "bad storytelling" or even "story that I'm just not that into" can't be ignored; for us they are part of the story. Telling us over and over again that "there is no necessary connection between story elements and your enjoyment of it", and giving that premise a capitalized name, isn't going to do the trick.
In other words, the only logical fallacy in this debate is the assumption that "doesn't have to" and "can't" are the same thing.
This isn't anything new or special. This is just a tl:dr expression of the old Forge concept of "System Matters".
On an interesting side note, I think "System Matters" puts a definite limit on the practical possibilities modularity can provide.
If I understand right, the fallacy is "Curing Symptom X should cure the disease", while the overall gist is this...
Player X dislikes Mechanic Y. In some cases, Mechanic Y is not the whole of the problem, but the obvious symptom of an underlying series of design choices which is undesireable to Player X but much harder to point at. Removing Mechanic Y would not fix for Player X a game designed under the same principles that generated Mechanic Y
If this is correct, I agree entirely.
No, the OP's point is that a given rule or mechanic (and the presentation of that rule or mechanic) does affect how one receives and plays the game. This is a given. Nobody argues otherwise.
He then goes onto suggest that this disproves the Stormwind Fallacy, which it doesn't, because the Stormwind Fallacy's got nothing at all to do with the complexity of rules and mechanics.
And, finally, his or her underlying message is that 4ers and/or optimizers shouldn't pretend as though what they're asking for -- that is, complex rules and mechanics -- don't, and don't have the potential to, negatively affect others.
"Isn't it more simple to simply assume our bloated egos and just say : "You must be wrong because I'm always right ?" "
No, because sometimes you'll agree with me. And then you would be right.
But having the same opinion on everything has never been enough to agree with another poster in forums.
I invoke the forumite fallacy against you, mister DemoMonkey !
If I understand right, the fallacy is "Curing Symptom X should cure the disease", while the overall gist is this...
Player X dislikes Mechanic Y. In some cases, Mechanic Y is not the whole of the problem, but the obvious symptom of an underlying series of design choices which is undesireable to Player X but much harder to point at. Removing Mechanic Y would not fix for Player X a game designed under the same principles that generated Mechanic Y
If this is correct, I agree entirely.
No, the OP's point is that a given rule or mechanic (and the presentation of that rule or mechanic) does affect how one receives and plays the game. This is a given. Nobody argues otherwise.
He then goes onto suggest that this disproves the Stormwind Fallacy, which it doesn't, because the Stormwind Fallacy's got nothing at all to do with the complexity of rules and mechanics.
And, finally, his or her underlying message is that 4ers and/or optimizers shouldn't pretend as though what they're asking for -- that is, complex rules and mechanics -- don't, and don't have the potential to, negatively affect others.
It having a negative impact on other players isn't an issue, since 5E isn't giving us the option to have complex rules and mechanics in the first place. Some rules having a potential or even likely negative impact on others pales in comparison to the negative impact of having the rules you want and need not exist at all in the first place.
I'm just saying that "doesn't have to" is not the same as "doesn't": even though the rules don't have to affect roleplaying for many avid roleplayers they do.
That fallacy is in believing that it's the fault of the rules and not the player.
In other words, they only way they inhibit your roleplaying is if you focus too narrowly/incorrectly and allow them to.
Example: In any edition, it's more important to look at it as what your character can than what your character must.
Sure, it's my fault. It's also my fault I hate JarJar.
Does pointing that out, or me acknolwedging it, result in any change?
From a system standpoint, it shouldn't. But from your standpoint, it could.
Example: I hated Jar Jar. But when I took my nieces to see it, they absolutely loved him. When I saw it through their eyes and they said why they liked him I listened, re-thought my position and he doesn't bother me any more. They also liked Jake Lloyd. To me, Qui-Gon freaking rocks, and the lightsaber duels were great and apprecdiate the other elements now. I like the movie.
As this topic is only tangentially related to D&D Next, I will be moving it to RPGs General Discussion.
Thanks.
Howdy folks,
As this topic is only tangentially related to D&D Next, I will be moving it to RPGs General Discussion.
Thanks.
Considering it's directly about game design, and the only game that's being designed on these forums right now is Next, I'm thinking you goofed.
Howdy folks,
As this topic is only tangentially related to D&D Next, I will be moving it to RPGs General Discussion.
Thanks.
Bummer. I was trying to have some effect on the Next discussion, where some people get REALLY FURIOUSLY ANGRY at some other people for asking that certain things be left out of the game.
Ogre from the Alpha-Beta Frat told me to call you, "Nerds".
It has been three months and no one got my "Revenge of the Nerds" refference. 
Was a good movie.