molonel said:
Let me point something out to you. I've stated that my views are my opinions. I've acknowledged that other people differ in their opinions.
Assertions of facts are not opinions; that is, they can be correct or incorrect. An incorrect assertion of fact is a factual error.
What you quoted are two separate statements. The first, that our difference on this matter is not philosophical, but factual. That is, philosophy has nothing to do with our disagreement. Our disagreement is whether video game "RPGs" are actually role-playing games (and in turn should be considered as part of the RPG market, number-wise). This is a question of fact. We have conflicting assertions of fact, not statements of philosophical outlook. That is what I mean by factual, not philosophical.
The second statement you quoted is related to the first. Belief has nothing to do with what we are disagreeing about. Our disagreement is on what the fact of the matter is.
A fact can be demonstrated and proven.
It is encouraging that you understand this.
You have placed a higher burden of proof upon yourself, and then, failed to meet it.
We have equal burdens of proof because your assertion is one that turns upon fact, not opinion of that fact. I admit that I have not cited criteria that differentiates video game "RPGs" from actual RPGs (though most anyone with knowledge of both industries should easily see the distinction,
in my opinion); this too is a factual assertion that may be proved or disproved. It is not a matter of opinion.
But how MUCH of the market does it now comprise? That's the question. It is unquestionably smaller than it was.
I disagree, and do question it (though this is a factual matter that can be proven or disproved . . . I may be wrong); once again, the OGL is premised upon the demonstrated fact that D&D is the market leader and that any growth in the market adds to the market leader's share. Because of this, using D&D's number of players gives a pretty accurate view of the number of players of role-playing games in general.
But, then again, there are now more roleplaying games than ever before. Let me parse that, because both meanings are equally true: There are more tabletop games than ever before.
I notice how you have shifted your terms. We began measuring
number of players and now you are using
number of games.
There are more roleplaying games of all varieties than ever before.
This is a completely different assertion than "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before."
The shifting sands of your argument and the imprecision of your terms may make this debate ultimately fruitless, in my opinion.
Like I said, I've never seen anyone compile those numbers.
Compiling the actual numbers of players of actual role-playing games is how to uncover the fact of the matter (numbers that do not include players of video games). Your basic assertion may turn out to be correct.
Well, rational discussions generally have a habit of challenging unspoken or unproveable assumptions.
And shaking out precision in the terms we use to make assertions.
[And of course, rational discussions cannot have habits, only tendencies, but that is probably just nitpicking.
]