When is a character too skilled?

[Oli!]

The Lots of Powerful People vs. Not As Many Powerful People can be summarized like this:

 

A8I9pYCl9AQ

 

 

 

Ysale, Raubahn, etc. are special because lots of people are not, by definition.

 

If exceptions are rules, then they can't be exceptions anymore.

 

It's a meta-issue, but it's still an important meta-issue that ties right back into the original topic. After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?

[Aaron]

"After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"

 

 

I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.

 

Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.

[Oli!]

"After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"

 

 

I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.

 

Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.

 

 

That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means.

 

We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is subjective, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything.

[Ashe]

Hmmm, depends on the RPer and their style of RP.

If someone is a powerful mage or a famous warrior who is "like an ox on the battlefield" or some bs...then that's fine....but when someone who is maxed out  OOCly with all their jobs tries to tell me that they are ICly all of those jobs AND MORE I'm like...."Okay, good luck with your life."

.....

I would think there are people who would think Ashe is OP...but I've had him felled by plenty of people >> I don't think he's won any fights against anyone he's fought actually >> ICly he uses black mage to make up for the fact he's a shitty mage at risk of

Black Mage 50+ quests: spontaneous combustion if used too much or incorrectly

....and can use ninjutsu skills because that is what he actually had proper training in. 

 

....A lot of people assume that he is straight up a mage because it's....funny xPP 

 

.........

I guess the long story short is be sensible? If you are ICly the character you run the MSQ with and have defeated Titan a bajillion times then Imma question your life decisions....but if you are like....a reasonable person >> whatever.

[Aaron]

"After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"

 

 

I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.

 

Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.

 

 

That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means.

 

We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is relative, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything.

. . . . you do know what fallacy means right?

 

What you said was in fact a logical fallacy. I quoted because I found it weird how people kept using that phrase.

[Warren Castille]

When everyone is too skilled, no one is.

 

When everyone is able to handle any problem that comes their way, no one needs help. People aren't exceptional anymore because every person can do everything. I don't need to call an electrician because I can do all the stuff I need myself, so nobody is an electrician anymore. There's no such thing as a specialization when everyone is special.

[Aaron]

Yeah that's called being normal, which falls outside the bubble of being too skilled.

[Warren Castille]

Not exactly, but it'd be arguing semantics now. That's the point though. When everyone is capable of everything, no one stands out and it kills excitement and the point of compelling fiction.

[Aaron]

If I want to debate semantics then gawddammit Warren let me debate semantics !!!

 

You don't see me ruining your fun when you do it ;_;

[Oli!]

"After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"

 

 

I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.

 

Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.

 

 

That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means.

 

We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is relative, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything.

. . . . you do know what fallacy means right?

 

What you said was in fact a logical fallacy. I quoted because I found it weird how people kept using that phrase.

 

 

You're agreeing with the phrase by arguing it. Warren explained it much more elegantly, but what it boils down to is this:

 

Let's replace Skilled with, say, Special, herein defined as Having a Unique Quality (similar to someone being Uniquely Better than Everyone Else contained in the original argument.)

 

We then say, that "Everyone is Special, therefore No One Is."

 

This is not a fallacy, because it explains that Everyone has a unique quality that sets them apart from everyone else, therefore making "being special" a uniform trait within a population. Because it is then a uniform trait, No One has the Unique Trait of Being Special. Therefore, no one is Special, and the word becomes meaningless in this context.

 

If Everyone is Too Skilled, the word "too" implying that they are more skilled than everyone else, then the word loses its relativity, because Everyone possesses that quality.

 

It can be distilled further into this phrase: If Everyone is , then having quality is Normal (Normal being defined herein as something possessed universally).

 

If everyone is Highly Skilled, being Highly Skilled is Normal.

 

If everyone has Red Skin, then having Red Skin is Normal.

 

If everyone is Special, then Being Special is Normal.

 

The phrase is, therefore, not a fallacy. It merely states that if everyone can claim to be a cut above the rest, or otherwise distinct because of their skillset, appearance, or otherwise, then no one is a cut above anyone else, or distinct because of their skillset, appearance, or otherwise, because these are things that everyone has. If everyone is Highly Skilled, "Highly" being a relative term which relies on someone who is Lowly Skilled for comparison, then, relatively speaking, no one can have any higher skill than anyone else, because no one has a Lower Skillset for comparison.

 

The meaning of the phrase, and the argument that you put forth, are indistinguishable.

[Aaron]

No, I'm pointing out how that phrase is a fallacy and leads to confusion.

 

If everyone is so skilled no one is skilled -> means everyone is still normal so that defeats the purpose of asking what is too skilled for a character.

 

Being too skilled is something the masses cannot possess as it refers to something a singular entity posses (hence "too" skilled). If they do it's no longer too skilled but the average. The entire population can not be too skilled at something and still be equal.

 

Here I'll post an example.

 

Tim and Jimmy are both normal people with basic knowledge of sword fighting. Dave comes in and beats both Tim and Jim at the same time. Dave is too skilled for Tim and Jimmy.

 

Now Tim and Jimmy catch up and can stalemate Dave one on one. Now nobody is skilled right? Incorrect because here comes Tommy who beats all three now equally skilled people in a sword fight.

 

Being too skilled is like a ladder. There's no such thing as everyone being equal in skill at one point in time, because there's always a way or person who can andhas surpassed that cap.

 

It's like comparing the stuff in DBZ to anime in general, and then tossing Superman in the mix aka the famous (and painfully one sided) Superman vs Goku . It's a fallacy.

[Aaron]

For reference if all this sounds circular (which I'm pretty sure it does)

 

 

If everyone is skilled, no one is skilled falls under the "Heroes All" category of fallacies. Which yes, there are fallacy categories.

[Oli!]

For reference if all this sounds circular (which I'm pretty sure it does)

 

 

If everyone is skilled, no one is skilled falls under the "Heroes All" category of fallacies. Which yes, there are fallacy categories.

 

 

The Heroes, All fallacy is actually just a form of this statement that is constructed in order to argue against the opposite of what this statement says.

 

"Heroes All (also Everybody's a Winner). A contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or to feel bad). Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or present, is a national hero, every student who competes in the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner's tee shirt. This corruption of the argument from pathos, much ridiculed by American comedian Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if everyone wins nobody wins, and if everyone's a hero nobody's a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is that, as author Alice Childress writes, "a hero ain't nothing but a sandwich." See also "Soldiers' Honor."  The counterpart of this is the postmodern fallacy of "Hero-Busting," under which, since nobody in this world is perfect, there are not and never have been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was a racist, Martin Luther King Jr. had an eye for women, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), the Pope is wrong on women's ordination, Mother Teresa was wrong on just about everything, etc., etc. "

 

 

source

 

 

 

If you look closely, you'll actually see the phrase we're arguing is used to define the argument itself. It's not a fallacy at all.

[Oli!]

No, I'm pointing out how that phrase is a fallacy and leads to confusion.

 

If everyone is so skilled no one is skilled -> means everyone is still normal so that defeats the purpose of asking what is too skilled for a character.

 

Being too skilled is something the masses cannot possess as it refers to something a singular entity posses (hence "too" skilled). If they do it's no longer too skilled but the average. The entire population can not be too skilled at something and still be equal.

 

Here I'll post an example.

 

Tim and Jimmy are both normal people with basic knowledge of sword fighting. Dave comes in and beats both Tim and Jim at the same time. Dave is too skilled for Tim and Jimmy.

 

Now Tim and Jimmy catch up and can stalemate Dave one on one. Now nobody is skilled right? Incorrect because here comes Tommy who beats all three now equally skilled people in a sword fight.

 

Being too skilled is like a ladder. There's no such thing as everyone being equal in skill at one point in time, because there's always a way or person who can andhas surpassed that cap.

 

It's like comparing the stuff in DBZ to anime in general, and then tossing Superman in the mix aka the famous (and painfully one sided) Superman vs Goku . It's a fallacy.

 

This is all irrelevant, because the argument itself does not address this situation. It addresses that if Dave, Tim, and Jimmy are the only people in the universe, Dave is better, and then Tim and Jimmy attain his exact level of mastery, then everyone is therefore just as skilled as Dave was, and therefore no one is more skilled than anyone else, meaning that any notion of High Skill becomes impossible because there is no comparison.

[Aaron]

A fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

 

 

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

 

 

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

 

 

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

[Oli!]

A fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

 

 

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

 

 

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

 

 

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

 

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact.

 

Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is , no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement.

 

It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally , regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison."

 

If logical statements had to be True when compared to the current observable state of reality, not only would the logic-based scientific speculation that got us to our point of technological advancement be "wrong," but market and political analysts, theoretical physicists, speculative mathematicians, artists and philosophers, Astro- and Xenobiologists, and just about anyone in any field that does not deal solely with what's immediately demonstrable in reality itself, would be absolutely worthless and always wrong according to that frame of thinking.

[Aaron]

A fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

 

 

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

 

 

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

 

 

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

 

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact.

 

Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is , no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement.

 

It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally , regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison."

For the record, I'd like to thank you for indulging my petty semantics thirst Warren denied me (That dirty Highlander scum). I feel more than sated now lol.

 

And ah, I see what you're getting at. The initial reason I pointed it out is because generally when I see people say that phrase it always sounds like a cop out so everyone can have people play things beneath the level the phrase user is saying. And seeing as how majority of the people on this forum love putting some skeletal aspect of realism in this game you can see how I came to that observation.

 

In any case I think a more appropriate term when talking confines of parameters would be "Special always to some, never special to all." Because rpers generally always want to be more more skilled than others for the most part or stand out in something. It'll impress some but it'll never impress everyone.

 

Which again I guess this just reverts back to your earlier statement of it being all relative. Seems I was so into this discussion I got sidetracked myself trying to keep it going lol

[Oli!]

A fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

 

 

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

 

 

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

 

 

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

 

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact.

 

Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is , no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement.

 

It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally , regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison."

For the record, I'd like to thank you for indulging my petty semantics thirst Warren denied me (That dirty Highlander scum). I feel more than sated now lol.

 

And ah, I see what you're getting at. The initial reason I pointed it out is because generally when I see people say that phrase it always sounds like a cop out so everyone can have people play things beneath the level the phrase user is saying. And seeing as how majority of the people on this forum love putting some skeletal aspect of realism in this game you can see how I came to that observation.

 

In any case I think a more appropriate term when talking confines of parameters would be "Special always to some, never special to all." Because rpers generally always want to be more more skilled than others for the most part or stand out in something. It'll impress some but it'll never impress everyone.

 

Which again I guess this just reverts back to your earlier statement of it being all relative. Seems I was so into this discussion I got sidetracked myself trying to keep it going lol

 

The thing is, personal takes on what people use an argument for doesn't make it a fallacy. It's still a Logically True Statement, and one that happens to relate to some capacity to what someone is saying. The post where I quoted the Heroes All fallacy is perhaps the most concise highlighting of why it isn't a fallacy.

 

Logical Statements are like tools. Although it may be used in a certain way, when examined properly, it will remain the same, as it is self-contained and still retains its stated meaning. You can use a hammer to bash someone's head in just as readily as you can use it to build a house, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, objectively, a hammer. You can describe it as a murder weapon or a construction tool, but when pressed for details, it will be a Hammer. Similarly, you can use a logical statement for one side of an argument, or another side of an argument, but when examined, the meaning and truth of it will be intact.

 

And yes, this does bring us back around into Subjectivity.

 

 

 

 

 

(I also happen to play some dirty highlander scum.)

[Warren Castille]

Nerds.

[Oli!]

Nerds.

 

 

gZEdDMQZaCU

[strident]

I personally take the route of "One field of expertise, one field where they know what they're doing but not an expert, then one or more minor talents" For my character Colson, for example, his expert skill is Conjury, his skilled but not expert field is carpentry, and his misc talents include first aid and basic cooking. He know's how to wrap a wound and cook 1 or two recipies, but he's not a master doctor or a Bismarck chef.

[Branson Thorne]

I'm not really sure I have an answer to this.

 

Much as in real life, I would assume our characters could be pros at multiple things. Now sure we don't go around punching out dragons with our fists, but we still have the capability to learn well, pretty much anything we want, as long as we put in the effort.

 

I do not have a problem with people who are weapon masters with the spear, sword and bow. Those are skills required for war and conflict which seem to be rather abundant in FFXIV.

 

My rule of thumb would just be that I could make him as skilled as I wanted, as long as it didn't turn me into the God of Eorzea, and expect me to beat anyone my character would be in conflict with.

[Michaux]

This is a subject I've been thinking about a lot while I've been developing Solenne. She has two very different branches of skills - conjury on the one hand, and skills associated with her background in espionage on the other. So even though most of the world knows her in her capacity as a healer, she is also proficient at lockpicking, pickpocketing, acting, and to a lesser degree, assassination. She can wield a pair of knives in combat if she has to, but it's certainly not ideal - poisoning, or creeping up behind a victim and quietly slitting their throat, would be much more her style. I don't think that's overpowered - combat is a last resort for her since it's not her forte, and she doesn't really have any other major skills - but it is something that I've been chewing over a lot.

 

I have a history of creating aggressively ordinary, underpowered characters. I assumed that this gave me extra RP cred, but it backfired when I realized that I was getting bored with those characters. Solenne is my first major attempt to develop a character who is a little out of the ordinary, and I'm more enthusiastic about RPing her than I have been about any character in a long time. 

 

So anyway, I think a balance is necessary. Characters need plenty of room to grow, but they also need a chance to shine. As an RPer, I want to interact with characters that are fascinating in some way, whether it's because of a diverse skill set, an unusual personality trait, or creative background story elements. I don't mind if people want to make their characters a little exceptional. Most of us aren't trying to play average citizens, after all.

[Zetchryn]

I stick to something I've seen true in a lot of people. The P+H+D category.

 

What is your profession?

 

What is your hobby?

 

What is your dream?

 

People who choose a lifelong profession or vocation are, generally, quite skilled at it. In this example, we'll use my character Rhaya, who is a businesswoman. She is a skilled trader, specifically a manager and broker for a team of crafters, and while she's not the best in the world, it's how she puts food on the table.

 

Her hobby is music. Not like a bard, per se, but she knows how to play the piano quite well, and can play the violin passably. As this is something she enjoys doing, she practices it whenever she gets a chance, as it is what she does to relax.

 

Her dream is to save people. Specifically, to heal people. Her natural inclinations towards a conjurer help with that, and as it is her dream, she fervently seeks out more knowledge to this. If she became a powerful enough conjurer, she might drop her profession for her dream.

 

She has weaknesses, of course, but I'm not a fan of the whole idea of someone min/maxing, as it were, saying that BECAUSE they're flawed in x and y, then they're really good at z.

 

Now, some people might have overlap in those three fields, which is fine. But that's the formula I've found to work.

[Kellach Woods]

I just do what I want.

 

And what I want is to be a bumbling fool with flashes of brilliance.