D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[Ovinomancer]

On which subject?

Your claim was that @pemerton 's explanations don't care for the differences between Story Now games. I mean, pemerton's knowledge of/word count toward/care in analyzing the mating habits of three-horned lilywompouses is pretty terrible (and I think he'd admit that!). However, by the strength of the enormous amount of word count and care he's put forth in discussing his own experience with various games (and discussing his analysis and extrapolations of the AW text, which, as someone who has played a lot of AW, its spot on despite the fact that he hasn't run it yet), this claim isn't fair to him.

I was discussing that particular claim (not a general claim about word count and care about any/all other subjects).

I've read your (I think its yours from recollection!) analysis of various 5e class stuff and its quite good! If someone were to make the claim that your analysis there isn't thoughtful or effortful, I would dispute that claim similarly! LET IT BE KNOWN TO ANY AND ALL WHO MIGHT DARE TO BESMIRCH FROGREAVER'S 5E CLASS ANALYSIS FOR LACK OF CARE/EFFORT/THOUGHTFULNESS, YOU MAY INCUR THAT WRATH OF A DISTURBINGLY PITHY RIPOSTE FROM ONE MANBEARCAT.

Totes. I disagree with some of @FrogReaver's class/feat assumptions/analysis, but I cannot deny he's put a lot of work into it. I would never say that he hasn't tried to address things, or tried to showcase differences/impacts of various approaches. All of my comments in those threads have been about specific differences and their outcomes, not dismissing his effort entirely because it's axiomatic or something.

 

[FrogReaver]

On which subject?

Your claim was that @pemerton 's explanations don't care for the differences between Story Now games. I mean, pemerton's knowledge of/word count toward/care in analyzing the mating habits of three-horned lilywompouses is pretty terrible (and I think he'd admit that!). However, by the strength of the enormous amount of word count and care he's put forth in discussing his own experience with various games (and discussing his analysis and extrapolations of the AW text, which, as someone who has played a lot of AW, its spot on despite the fact that he hasn't run it yet), this claim isn't fair to him.

I was discussing that particular claim (not a general claim about word count and care about any/all other subjects).

I've read your (I think its yours from recollection!) analysis of various 5e class stuff and its quite good! If someone were to make the claim that your analysis there isn't thoughtful or effortful, I would dispute that claim similarly! LET IT BE KNOWN TO ANY AND ALL WHO MIGHT DARE TO BESMIRCH FROGREAVER'S 5E CLASS ANALYSIS FOR LACK OF CARE/EFFORT/THOUGHTFULNESS, YOU MAY INCUR THAT WRATH OF A DISTURBINGLY PITHY RIPOSTE FROM ONE MANBEARCAT.

All I know is that I’ve never heard the appeal to word count fallacy before. It’s so hard to respond in good faith and with any meaningful counterpoints to a claim so far out there.

 

[Manbearcat]

All I know is that I’ve never heard the appeal to word count fallacy before. It’s so hard to respond in good faith and with any meaningful counterpoints to a claim so far out there.

Dude.

Come on.

There is no fallacy here.

It’s simple. If someone says “you haven’t addressed x” and someone has spent an absurd amount of time writing virtual utterances that clearly have thought and care put into them, one way to say that is “a lot of word count.”

Why in the world are you doing this? You’re picking a fight with me over the biggest nothingburger possible.

 

[niklinna]

Why in the world are you doing this? You’re picking a fight with me over the biggest nothingburger possible.

I have observed a trend on this and a few other threads, of people taking a side comment or highlight as essential to an argument, or reacting only to the side comment or highlight, and ignoring the argument itself.

(argument: 2 a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong)

 

[Ovinomancer]

All I know is that I’ve never heard the appeal to word count fallacy before. It’s so hard to respond in good faith and with any meaningful counterpoints to a claim so far out there.

HIT IT! Beat that strawman! Knock it's stuffing out! NO MERCY!

I mean, snark aside, do you actually think that the argument only about total words and not, like, obviously about how much effort has actually been made to explain and demonstrate differences in the face of your claim that it hasn't been done? Here's what you claimed:

Are there profound differences of play between story now games?
Are there profound differences of play between modules and living sandbox games?

If so why doesn't your explanation care about these profound differences?

And @Manbearcat rightly pointed out the massive amount of effort and care that has gone into answering these questions repeatedly -- answers you are pretending do not exist. At the point, wordcount refers not to just number of words, but that effort and care and how much of it already exists answering these questions. To pretend, at this point, that the argument is just one of total words said without relevance puts the bad faith entirely on you.

 

[Lanefan]

HIT IT! Beat that strawman! Knock it's stuffing out! NO MERCY!

Only if I get xp for killing it and taking its stuff! Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Only if I get xp for killing it and taking its stuff! Otherwise, what's the point?

You'll have to check with @FrogReaver on that one.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have observed a trend on this and a few other threads, of people taking a side comment or highlight as essential to an argument, or reacting only to the side comment or highlight, and ignoring the argument itself.

(argument: 2 a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong)

You mean like @manbearcats snip of 3 lines out of my much larger comment that’s led to this tangent?

 

[Manbearcat]

You mean like @manbearcats snip of 3 lines out of my much larger comment that’s led to this tangent?

Look. I want to discuss games and analysis. Please don't do this crap and draw me into this.

What you're trying to tar me with isn't even close to what @niklinna is talking about, and you should know that if you're going to attack people with the claim of "logical fallacies."

1) You made multiple claims in the post to pemerton that I drew from.

2) I pulled out one claim that I thought was unfair (because it clearly is); pemerton hasn't shown his work to distinguish various story now systems.

3) In my post to you, I disputed your claim with my own claim (pemerton has in fact shown his work to distinguish various story now systems) cited multiple independent lines of evidence to dispute your claim:

a) pemerton has done exactly this with multiple gaming systems he has run with in-depth analysis and play excerpts (and I named the games).

b) pemerton has analyzed AW's text in extreme detail (and as someone who has played a ton of AW, the analysis is spot on).

c) pemerton has poured a truly unparalleled word count in the effort of (a) and (b) above.



I hope its clear to you and to all the audience that doing (2) and (3) (pulling a singular claim from a post of multiple claims, then citing multiple lines of evidence to support the claim) is a world away from taking an auxiliary line of evidence (3c above; unparalleld word count on a subject is indicative of care and effort - but not expertise nor execution in analysis) and contorting it into some other claim which I didn't make (something like word count on a subject is proportionately indicative of care, effort, expertise, and execution in analysis...a claim I don't remotely hold as true).

Go ahead and have the last word. I'm done with this tangent. I don't know what the point of it was, but its not remotely conducive to anyone understanding games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You mean like @manbearcats snip of 3 lines out of my much larger comment that’s led to this tangent?

Ah, so those questions, which were posed to an isolated statement by @pemerton, aren't meant to have any independent merit -- they are not actually asking the questions they are asking -- without the entirety of the rest of the post? They are vestigial questions, not meant for serious response? One should, in fact, be expected to think them unimportant and not making any points? Here's the part, again:

Are there profound differences of play between story now games?
Are there profound differences of play between modules and living sandbox games?

If so why doesn't your explanation care about these profound differences?

The remainder of that post you're complaining about is the same kind of false equivalence that I and others have pointed out -- that people can be tall and telephone poles are tall does not make people telephone poles. Similarly, you're imagining of a backstory-first framing that results in the same outcome as the play example does not mean that these things are the same. It just shows that you're mistaking ends for means, and dismissing that means have any impact. It's essentially trying to say that a road trip from around the country that stops in Vegas, where you hit lots of touristy places on the way, stop to spend time with extended family in many states, and form lots of huge memories on the way, is the same thing as just taking a cheap flight to Vegas because, after all, you ended up in the same place. So, then, boarding the plane is just like getting in the car, and sitting in the plane is just like sitting in the car, and you both stop in Vegas is pretty much the same thing.