The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[pawsplay]

It's red. There is no definition issue. You don't see astronomers or astrophysicists or paint mixers arguing over what color something is once it's measured. That's a problem unique to philosophers.

I take it you've never mixed paint. Also, I feel the need to point out that astronmers deal almost entirely in multiple spectra, in addition to having some serious red-shift issues to look at.

Dude, it's done all the time. Go look at a USGS map. All those green blobs with forest markings are forest. All the bits that aren't, aren't. The USGS definition specifies density, canopy cover, root density, tree size, and distance between trees. It also includes bits about whether or not an area denuded or thinned is still a forest or not and if two areas separated by such an area are a single forest, or two forests.

Well, you've proven one thing: You didn't read a single bit of what I wrote in that paragraph.

That's because philosphers get paid to argue over questions, not answer them.

That's actually not true.

My nickname on this board is Krensky, my real name is X. I was born on [Month] [Day], [Year] by the United States Civil Calender, at HH:MM Eastern Standard Civil Time to [Mother] and [Father]. I grew up in [town], and attended [Elementary, Junior High, High School, and College]. I truthfully identify myself as such, and I have official, legitimate documentation that demonstrates it.

That in itself identifies me uniquely. Unless you want to claim that there is another human being in the history of the species that shares those quantities.

There are thousands. I can identify another human being who has those identical characteristics, yet shares no more than a handful of molecules in common with you. Go back about three years and find the person living under your identity, and you will discover an entirely different physical being with all of those characteristics.

Atomic Tune-Up: How the Body Rejuvenates Itself : NPR

Add in the elements of my DNA, my facial structure, my dental records, my distinguishing scars, my fingerprints, etc you get a pile of features that narrow me down to being 1 in several billion. Heck, from the ones I listed I'm fairly confident it's 1 in more then all the humans who ever lived.

What if I remove your fingerprints and scars, then clone you from some of your DNA? Wouldn't that make the clone "you" and the current you no-longer-you?

Because the people working on the problem have a vested interest in not solving it. Like consultants.

You have a very strange understanding of what philosophy is for. For instance, the people writing the DSM-V, which defines mental illness and will affect billions of people to the tune of trillions of dollars, are faced with countless really difficult philosophical questions which must be answered to some satisfactory degree for them to finish. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in solving philosophical problems, such as what defines a human being.

There is no consensus to be reached. You're (not you specifically) arguing over an inherently subjective topic while steadfastly refusing to develop an objective, working definition. In fact, I doubt you could even do that since not everyone involved is rational (not that anyone is crazy or inferior, that's not the meaning of rational being used here) and is operating using different criteria and with different priors. Truth in any sense other then not false is meaningless construct. My sole criteria for truth is the boolean one.

"There is no consensus to be reached" is not only logically impossible (otherwise we couldn't agree that we couldn't agree) but can be empiracally be demonstrated to be false, since several people in this discussion have agreed on many things.

"Boolean truth" is a nonsense phrase. Boolean logic produces the same kind of truth as any other kind of logic.

If one person wants to say all RPGs are D&D and another wants to say that only OD&D is D&D and I want to say that 4e (while objectively D&D) doesn't feel like D&D are any of us wrong? No. In fact we're all correct because we're all (assumedly) honestly relating the results of our purely subjective classification systems.

How is that everyone can be correct but no one can be wrong? What if one of us believes the others are wrong, are they also correct? Radical subjectivism is a failed approach to truth.

Also, Boolean logic doesn't allow for more than one truth.

You're using "subjective" in an unprecise way. You are implying that because we each have subjective opinions, talking about those opinions is subjective. But actually, we can verify with each other that we hold those opinions. Wittgenstein's later theory talked about the idea of a "private language" and concluded there is no such thing.

I'm pointing these things out in order to be informative, perhaps to spur others to read up on these topics, perhaps even so you can reflect later on what I have said and consider whether there may be some value in it. At this point it appears to me you are mainly interested in squelching dissent and have little real interest in what I have to say. Since you're intent on polluting the discussion and I can't stop you, I'm pretty much done for now.

 

[pawsplay]

I had hoped you understood that by parameters, I wasn't saying that each one individually made me unique because that would make me an idiot.

I do understand. Do you understand that you are defining your identity based on a number of factors that individually are mutable and non-exclusive?

There's not a biologist out there that would say "birds can fly" is a defining feature of birds when trying to construct a syllogism about birds. They KNOW better; they know that is a false statement which could lead to a flawed conclusion- as you do here.

I didn't say it was a defining feature. I just said it was true. Do you want to claim it is not true that birds fly?

It's not a false statement, any more than it's a false statement what you claimed above about how you can be distinguished from other beings. You aren't wrong but the logical components you are using to prove that you are you are not sufficient. Which should not be surprising, since as I've pointed out, the smartest people in history have not been able to come up with any approaches to answering such questions outside of very narrow contexts.

They would probably mention something about the underlying anatomical features common to functioning and non-functioning and differently functioning wings (covering not just finches, but ostriches & penguins as well).

If I cut off a bird's wings, does it stop being a bird?

 

[Lanefan]

I am going to posit that it is possible to create a new game out of 4e that, to an outsider, might look an awful lot like 4e, but which, to someone who really understands and enjoys what 4e has to offer, might feel substantially different. Or even limiting. Possibly even so limiting that using this new system might be difficult (or very difficult) for some current 4e group’s playstyle.

I will further posit that it is possible to create such a game that actually models the way some people play 4e right now. And it might actually facilitate what they want out of the game. To them, it will seem like a true evolution from 4e.

To many people playing 4e now, I would posit that the change and level of change might seem obvious. I would also posit that, for those people to whom the new game seems like a true evolution, the change and level of change might not be so obvious. They might blame 4e players for having a narrow perspective, for not understanding other games, which the new game borrows ideas and mechanics from. They might even argue that there is no real change.

Finally, I am going to posit that this has already happened. More than once. Except the game being changed wasn’t 4e.

A rather obvious example is the 0e-1e-2e progression. At the time those looked like huge leaps and changes in game design from the perspective of someone playing any of them; hindsight tells us they weren't that big at all compared to what has come since.

Lan-"I thought 'orange' was a fruit that does d2-1 temp. damage when thrown"-efan

 

[Krensky]

I take it you've never mixed paint. Also, I feel the need to point out that astronmers deal almost entirely in multiple spectra, in addition to having some serious red-shift issues to look at.

No, I just maintain the fancy devices and computer systems used to do so. The people behind the counter may disagree between themselves and with their clients about whether two paint batches match, but not about what color they are. Well, the disagree with customers a lot, but they do it quietly when the customer isn't around.

And you're confusing two different types of spectrometry. I am not referring to emission spectra used to determine a star's composition, but the color value used in stellar classification.

Well, you've proven one thing: You didn't read a single bit of what I wrote in that paragraph.

I did read it. I disagreed with it because it's patently false. I then explained why it's false. You're claiming that no definition of forest will be sufficient to actually define what a forest is. The USGS disagrees. So do I.

That's actually not true.

Yeah, couldn't resist. As we all know philosophers don't actually get paid.

My two friends with philosophy degrees who work in call centers and the third with a bachelors and masters in in who works as a policeman are cases in point.

There are thousands. I can identify another human being who has those identical characteristics, yet shares no more than a handful of molecules in common with you. Go back about three years and find the person living under your identity, and you will discover an entirely different physical being with all of those characteristics.

And me three years ago is still me. What's your point?

What if I remove your fingerprints and scars, then clone you from some of your DNA? Wouldn't that make the clone "you" and the current you no-longer-you?

No. It wouldn't have my experiences, and it would not have been born to my mother. It certainly wouldn't have the chosen or earned elements of my identity. It would not have eaten at my mother's table, or my grandmothers'. It would not be me.

You have a very strange understanding of what philosophy is for. For instance, the people writing the DSM-V, which defines mental illness and will affect billions of people to the tune of trillions of dollars, are faced with countless really difficult philosophical questions which must be answered to some satisfactory degree for them to finish. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in solving philosophical problems, such as what defines a human being.

I have a minor in the topic and it's one of the preferred topics when it comes time to shoot the breeze with my friends. As for the other two, commenting on them violates the politics rule.

"There is no consensus to be reached" is not only logically impossible (otherwise we couldn't agree that we couldn't agree) but can be empiracally be demonstrated to be false, since several people in this discussion have agreed on many things.

So show me where people with two different priors in the conversation have been swayed to change their opinion, or to synthesis their's with another's rather then just constantly repeating the same points over and over with a few tweaks or nudges.

Since almost everyone here has a different set of priors and most of us aren't particularly rational on the topic. This, like the other threads are most just people trying to rationally explain an irrational preference. I don't like 4e. I don't find it fun or satisfying. I have no rational explanation for it, because there is none. 4e is a perfectly fine game, which I do not like.

No matter what arguments or explanations are made, my preference will not change, nor will a fan of 4e's change. Part of this is because our priors are different. Part of it is because neither of us are purely rational about it.

"Boolean truth" is a nonsense phrase. Boolean logic produces the same kind of truth as any other kind of logic.

As I said. True is not false. False is not true. That's it. Anything else is a meaningless construct.

How is that everyone can be correct but no one can be wrong? What if one of us believes the others are wrong, are they also correct? Radical subjectivism is a failed approach to truth.

Because there is no Truth or Falsehood to any of those positions.

As a very simplistic analogy, which of the following is true?

2+2=4
2+1+1=4
2+2=1+3
2+2!=5
2+2=sqrt(16)

The same thing applies to all of the arguments in all of these threads. Bob says A, Jim says B, Doug says C, and then Helen says not D. They're all right because none of them can be wrong about their subjective preferences (baring insanity or self-deception). Since those preferences form their priors, as long as they limit their argument to A, B, C, and D they will not come to an agreement because, even if they are perfectly rational, their starting conditions are so different they can not converge as long as their priors are still valid for them.

Also, Boolean logic doesn't allow for more than one truth. [/spoiler]

Again, you're assuming I mean truth in some universal, Platonic way.

1+1=2 TRUE.
1+1=9 FALSE.

Anything beyond that is meaningless. Typically, it's also the first step in convincing you to buy or to buy into something.

You're using "subjective" in an unprecise way. You are implying that because we each have subjective opinions, talking about those opinions is subjective. But actually, we can verify with each other that we hold those opinions. Wittgenstein's later theory talked about the idea of a "private language" and concluded there is no such thing.

Not at all. It's not subjective. It's pointless. Unless the different party's to this debat change their priors or suddenly all become rational Bayesians, this debate will never end.

And Wittgenstein? Really? The man couldn't tell the difference between a rabbit and a duck.

I'm pointing these things out in order to be informative, perhaps to spur others to read up on these topics, perhaps even so you can reflect later on what I have said and consider whether there may be some value in it. At this point it appears to me you are mainly interested in squelching dissent and have little real interest in what I have to say. Since you're intent on polluting the discussion and I can't stop you, I'm pretty much done for now.

Ah, ad hominem and retire the field. A classic.

 

[Lalato]

Thanks, Kresnky... for pointing out the futility of this thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do understand. Do you understand that you are defining your identity based on a number of factors that individually are mutable and non-exclusive?

If you look at a real object- even a human being- as having the 3 traditional physical dimensions plus a fourth, existing in time, the paradox resolves. The past is not mutable, and depending on your personal views of time, the future may not be either.

I didn't say it was a defining feature. I just said it was true. Do you want to claim it is not true that birds fly?

In the context of constructing a valid syllogism, its not exclusive & absolute enough to be used as a true statement. It is falsifiable- see the Ostritch and Penguins- which means it must be discarded and/or revised.

If I cut off a bird's wings, does it stop being a bird?

Nope- and if you wanted to account for dismembered birds or those with birth defects (which I didn't) in the syllogism, all you'd need to do is add a phrase like "would normally have" or "-barring injury or birth defect-" before describing the structure of an avian's wings.

 

[BryonD]

If I cut off a bird's wings, does it stop being a bird?

No, but if you say "think of a bird" most people will assume wings.



Separately,

It may stop being a "bird which is capable of providing function X".



I guess by the same token, Rome was still Rome, even after it burned to the ground....

 

[pawsplay]

If you look at a real object- even a human being- as having the 3 traditional physical dimensions plus a fourth, existing in time, the paradox resolves. The past is not mutable, and depending on your personal views of time, the future may not be either.

Actually, it's the fourth dimension that's the tricky end. You replace upwards of 90% of the molecules in your body every year of your life. If you're thirty years old, picture a succession of twenty or thirty physical "you"s, or to put the fourth dimension back in the picture, imagine yourself as being part of the housedust in your house, biological matter in your plumbing, particles of oxygen the present "you" has yet to breathe. Identity vanishes.

In the context of constructing a valid syllogism, its not exclusive & absolute enough to be used as a true statement. It is falsifiable- see the Ostritch and Penguins- which means it must be discarded and/or revised.

I am not actually trying to prove that ostriches can fly. I am generating an argument against the ability to treat many symbols in natural language as categoricals.

Compare:

Birds can fly.
D&D has orcs.

Both are true. Both are inadequate to be categorical. And that is my point. I am not trying to generate a syllogism, but refuting any categorically-based way of defnining what is or isn't D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Regardless of whether it's to resolve a dramatic situation, if the jump is something the character should be reasonably capable of on any routine jump attempt, I would consider an artificial limit on his jumping to be reason to throw the game system in the recycle bin.

Well, in a d20-ish game the way that this sort of case is handled is by taking 10.

It's pretty easy to envisage a game in which, instead of rolling d20 every time a jump is made, we work out how far the PC can jump based on taking 10 with Athletics/Jump skill, and then when the PC wants to jump further - ie a non-routine or dramatic jump - the player of the PC has to play a "jump card". A "jump card" might be defined as allowing a jump equivalent to a roll of 20 on the skill check.

You may or may not care to play such a game - it would be even more different from core 3E than is 4e, because 4e also allows rolling a d20 and trying to score higher than 10, at the risk of scoring less than 10 - but I don't think it's obviously an unplayable game that will produce absurd or half-baked action resolution.

I would accept an arbitrary limit only for going above and beyond the call with the character's capability. Whether a jump happens to resolve some dramatic situation or not seems immaterial to me. What I'm concerned with is results beyond the character's reasonable capabilities.

Fair enough. I've sketched above how such a system might work, building on d20 as a starting point.

In a system like HeroWars/Quest or Maelstrom Storytelling you might want something a bit different. Maelstrom, for example, has this to say about resolving a jump check:

[F]ocus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character. ... If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.​

In a game played in this sort of fashion, 3 jump cards might do the job without any need for a mechanic to resolve routine jumps - because these wouldn't be jumps that evoke any "danger or emotional reaction".

 

[billd91]

Well, in a d20-ish game the way that this sort of case is handled is by taking 10.

It's pretty easy to envisage a game in which, instead of rolling d20 every time a jump is made, we work out how far the PC can jump based on taking 10 with Athletics/Jump skill, and then when the PC wants to jump further - ie a non-routine or dramatic jump - the player of the PC has to play a "jump card". A "jump card" might be defined as allowing a jump equivalent to a roll of 20 on the skill check.

And I see that you're casting the 3 jump cards in exactly the way I'm referring to them to make them palatable. If the rules of the game define the character's ability to jump as X (whether requiring all jumps to be based on taking 10 or rolling 1d20), giving them the ability to do X+ an arbitrary number of times per day really is giving them something above and beyond their normal ability. So it's fine as I see it.

Now with respect to defining a task by difficulty alone rather than achieving a specific real-world defined result, the question would be whether the jump cards again allow you to exceed your normal ability or at least remove the uncertainty of achieving a desired level of success - both of which really are cases of exceeding normal ability - or whether they allow you to actually resolve a jump-appropriate task by jumping at all or some arbitrary number of times regardless of how many jump-appropriate tasks are generated though the characters' actions. Again, I'd accept the former. I'd reject the latter.