Gentlegamer said:
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.
Except that the qualities that define a "roleplaying game" are open to interpretation. We aren't dealing with chemical formulae or mathematical equations. God didn't scribe the true definition of a roleplaying game and hand it to Moses. Jesus didn't explain to us what a roleplaying game was in the Sermon on the Mount. There are differing opinions with different starting points and assumptions.
So, yes, this is a philosophical discussion.
You are not going to "prove" in any realistic or believeable sense that a video game cannot be a roleplaying game, especially given that there are people here who have roleplayed in video games, and say so.
And, I'm willing to be money that you are not going to be convinced that a video game can be a roleplaying game.
Gentlegamer said:
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.
No, our apparent difference is that I am content to call my opinion what it is: an opinion.
Gentlegamer said:
It is encouraging that you understand this.
Ah yes, the glorious height of Enworld dialogue: the shin-kicking under the table.
Stop dancing, and ante up. Or admit that you can't back up the "facts" you assert.
It's just that simple.
Gentlegamer said:
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.
And, of course, your opinion simply reflects the facts you fail to demonstrate. Yes, we've covered this ground rather thoroughly.
Gentlegamer said:
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.
Again, you are very good at bald assertions.
Gentlegamer said:
I notice how you have shifted your terms. We began measuring number of players and now you are using number of games.
No. As a matter of fact, I have said that there are both more overall games, and more overall players.
These are not mutually contradictory ideas, either.
Gentlegamer said:
This is a completely different assertion than "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before."
No, it is a concurrent truth, and the larger number of games services the larger number of players.
Gentlegamer said:
The shifting sands of your argument and the imprecision of your terms may make this debate ultimately fruitless, in my opinion.
As opposed to your tapdancing and refusing to ante up any of your so-called "facts" which don't need to be demonstrated because, well, you said so?
You are drifting in the aether of your own assertions, my friend.
Gentlegamer said:
And shaking out precision in the terms we use to make assertions.
What was that Gary was saying a little while ago about, "Do as I say, not as I do?"
You're providing an excellent demonstration of that habit.
