-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Someone decent at statistics needed -- help debunk Lhynn's claim
- Thread starter King Crispy
- Start date
It's funny that Dungeonland borrowed features from Adventures in Wonderland, because I kind of want to see how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.
See, that's how he killed Tiamat - Tiamat thought his Death Star wasn't operational. It was like five or six voices crying out in terror, then suddenly silent...
Lhynn
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 9,854
D&D at its core is about having a good time, having good adventures, exploring and getting powerful or die trying. The DM that gave me those items style of DMing was simple, he got a lot of inspiration from the crap he watched on tv, he didnt care for politics or much roleplaying (tho he did do a very good characterization of his characters, and really gave them a unique voice, something i struggle with even today).
He had no qualms with putting shit in front of us we had no hope of overcoming, and he had 0 problems with killing us off. But he did know how to reward us if we decided to take risks.
The kevlar and the M16 i got in an adventure he DMed where he was obviously inspired by Resident evil 1, the party finds a mansion, the rest was what you may imagine.
That campaign ended up with the party turning on eachother, lhynn bleeding out in some street with his own swords on his gut. His fiancee killing herself to stop a small army of powerful undeads, him losing track of his son, a newborn baby. All while the biggest war the world had ever seen started.
After that i only used it in one shot stories or even on short campaigns, usually with different retellings of what happened after that last story ended. Mostly a jaded veteran, a desperate sellsword looking for a way to resurrect someone, etc.
There can be nuance to D&D, but thats an option that comes from the DMing style of the one in charge, and his ideas for the campaign. as long as he doesnt fudge rules and he sets his own homebrew shit at the start of the campaign i do not give a fuck.
As for the band of healing, i merely removed the item when i needed to use it. It didnt affect my ability to fly because i simply equiped the cape before i equiped the ring, MR doesnt negate effects already in place after all. It didnt interrupt the swords power.
Also i dont apretiate your pedantic tone you stupid shit.
It wasnt tiamat, it was bahamut, and it wasnt a fight, it was an almost total wipe. and as the sole survivor i got the fuck out of there as fast as i possibly could. You can guess where the DM got his inspiration from.
Very much this. Regardless of the odds of the roll, if I had gotten that character I would have asked the DM if I could reroll, because playing a superhuman just isn't very interesting compared with playing a flawed character. When I DM, I usually make the players roll for each particular stat, instead of rolling 6 times and then min/maxing. It makes you get wacky stuff like a barbarian with an 8 con but 15 cha which leads to a lot more, you know, roleplaying.
Lhynn
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 9,854
You force the to pick a class before rolling stats?
Lhynn said:
At long last, the most famous of Codex' memes has its origin revealed...
by a retard.
No, they pick the class after rolling. But even then, a lot of the time you'll end up with a sub-optimal build. In my barbarian example, he probably would have picked barbarian because he had great str and decent dex, despite the bad con.
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Stormwind_fallacy
Stormwind fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy is an illogical argument that role-playing and roll-playing are mutually exclusive. It's based off a post on the Wizards of the Coast forums made by a user named "Tempest Stormwind" in 2006.
The fallacy originally references D&D 3.5, but it applies to pretty much any system.
The Original Post
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
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.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
The Stormwind Fallacy is an illogical argument that role-playing and roll-playing are mutually exclusive. It's based off a post on the Wizards of the Coast forums made by a user named "Tempest Stormwind" in 2006.
The fallacy originally references D&D 3.5, but it applies to pretty much any system.
The Original Post
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
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.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,056
Yep
darkpatriot said one chance in 1 million
If the average RPGer rolled 1,000 characters (easily), and there are 5,000 members of RPGCodex, it would be quite unlikely nobody rolled that character once
Look, just trying to get you to admit it was a bullshit party with bullshit scores. It's ok to have fun, but why are you defending your amazing deeds as if they took place legitimately when, upon cross examination, none of it appears to be what you initially say it is? Why are you slowly admitting to this just being for fun a little at a time?
It's not even the all the items in total, it's having a +4 anything at 7th level. That's easy enough to spot, and it's not even just +4, it's practically an artifact. Don't make me the bad guy for pointing out something so obvious.
The best time I ever had in D&D was with a dagger I created that made someone hit by it save v. spells or turn irrevocably gay. Now, this was a bullshit party and By the time I created it, most players had 1's for their spell save, but they all feared it (or so they said.)
Eh, it's just been my experience, maybe it's different for other people, but the games I've played in with non-optimized characters have been more fun. Maybe it's a fallacy, I don't care.
Anyways, I only play with a small group of people who all already know and like each other, and everyone plays a non-optimized build. It's not like there's just one dude not pulling his weight or something.
But he did it twice. All by himself!
Also, I always thought for all the characters I've created with no score above 11, there had to be my opposite out there somewhere. Maybe this is it.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,056
Also, what are the odds that a nerd called Crispy who never had sex in forty years met another nerd called Lhynn on a web forum, where a man called Cleveland Mark Blakemore Last-of-the-Neanderthals is a regular, in a universe where life spontaneously emerged and developed into a civilization with the internet? Also taking into account that an infinite number of these unique universes have occurred an infinite number of times endlessly
All leading up to...
THIS MOMENT
All leading up to...
THIS MOMENT
Gregz
Arcane
Lhynn
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 9,854
It wasnt practically an artifact, it was an artifact, Sword (it was actually shapeless as i understood it, took the form of the weapon the wielder was most comfortable with) of the black dragon, quite simply a shadow dragon soul was used to forge that sword, it had campaign relevance, and Lhynn ended up stabbed with it at the end of it.
As for your examination, it happened 8+ years ago dude, i can barely remember what happened and you demand an exact retelling of the facts. Its more of a story than a blow by blow detailed account of events, you are simply not being reasonable. I do remember the highlights and the exceptional shit that happened due to sheer dumb luck.
As for the gear, it happens often when you make the mistake of overshooting the gear the enemies have when they face the party, for a challenge, without really thinking that the players will get to keep it if they actually engage and beat the encounter. The band of healing was made by the partys cleric, which was actually 6 levels above me, the cape of flight was found in a treasure. The ring (i guess) or MR i have no idea. Getting to level 7 actually took 2 years of play, playing once or twice per weekend, so i dont think its that hard to see how i could have run into powerful magical items, or how i could not remember the less interesting and unique parts of the campaign. Also remember that AD&D didnt have a table of projected gear quality/power per level, or a hidden level requirement on the items. And this was a pattern with all my DMs, some gave valuable shit, other gave tons of crap, but they all kept the magical items and their availability coherent with their world. Which wasnt that hard to do before third edition made gearing up mandatory to have a shot at keeping up with casters.
Explorerbc
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,170
Time for some proper statistics in here.
Roll this OP character or not, that's a 50% chance. For the second character it's also a 50%.
50 + 50 = 100% guarantee.
Sorry Crispy, you were wrong all along
Roll this OP character or not, that's a 50% chance. For the second character it's also a 50%.
50 + 50 = 100% guarantee.
Sorry Crispy, you were wrong all along
ironyuri
Guest
this thread gave me virginity
Lhynn
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 9,854
Fuck, i cant brofist this enough.
Where the heck do you and anydice.com get those numbers from?
The odds of a natural 18 with 3d6 are (1/6)^3 = 1/216 = 0,4629%.
The odds of exactly 15 is 10/216 [there are 216 possible outcomes when throwing 3d6 and 10 of them result in a sum of 15], or 4,63%.
Lhynn claims to have rolled 4 18's and 2 15's. So you multiply those probabilities according to the # of occurence:
(1/216)^4 * (10/216)^2 = 9,8464*exp-13 or 0,00000000009846%.
Of course he rolled a strength of 18/00, too - so you can multiply above probability with 0.01
That would happen in one out of 101 billion character creations.
Now when you roll a 7th time and delete the worst roll, thats when it gets complicated. I might mathsperg about that someday when I'm not in the midst of my exams, but for now I think you coud approximate the probability by just multiplying above chance with 7. Which wouldn't make Lhynn's story that much more credible.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.