Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Computers beat up my role player
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gentlegamer" data-source="post: 3660282" data-attributes="member: 2425"><p>Assertions of facts are not opinions; that is, they can be correct or incorrect. An incorrect assertion of fact is a factual error.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is encouraging that you understand this.</p><p></p><p>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, <em>in my opinion</em>); this too is a factual assertion that may be proved or disproved. It is not a matter of opinion.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I notice how you have shifted your terms. We began measuring <em>number of players</em> and now you are using <em>number of games</em>. </p><p></p><p>This is a completely different assertion than "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before."</p><p></p><p>The shifting sands of your argument and the imprecision of your terms may make this debate ultimately fruitless, in my opinion.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>And shaking out precision in the terms we use to make assertions.</p><p></p><p>[And of course, rational discussions cannot have habits, only tendencies, but that is probably just nitpicking. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gentlegamer, post: 3660282, member: 2425"] 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. It is encouraging that you understand this. 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, [i]in my opinion[/i]); this too is a factual assertion that may be proved or disproved. It is not a matter of opinion. 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. I notice how you have shifted your terms. We began measuring [i]number of players[/i] and now you are using [i]number of games[/i]. 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. 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. 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. :)] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Computers beat up my role player
Top