D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

[Hex08]

the problem with the appeal to authority is that it discounts expertise...

I have personal experience (non professional) that he dumb password restrictions at work make the passwords less safe. (people end up having to write down and hide passwords, and many of the people you see use the same hiding place on the desk)

My buddy who works in IT security (actually two) have very technical reasons why the password requirements at best are a minor inconvenience to modern hackers...and these dumb double auth things I hate even more are better.


if someone disagrees with me that the stupid password requirements work they throw "your personal experience isn't data" and "Your 'friend' in IT is an appeal to authority... so I can't use my own experience, and I can't quote someone that is an expert and at that point how can you say ANYTHING?

And this is kind of a variation on the point I made earlier, arguing fallacies isn't productive. With a little effort it's not hard to find an exception to any informal fallacy, it's kind of built into their nature.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And this is kind of a variation on the point I made earlier, arguing fallacies isn't productive. With a little effort it's not hard to find and exception to any informal fallacy, it's kind of built into their nature.

I would say even when they ARE applicable there are few occasions that quoting one does anything to help the conversation... and it seems they are more used to shut down conversations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You can certainly think that all you want; but if you don't even try to understand why I used the specific term "rational" (for example) instead of adopting your own usage just so you can argue, you won't see why I am no longer interested in this conversation, and why I clearly don't think it's relevant.

This requires me to not think you're making a pretty idiosyncratic use of rational. I'm not going to get into the definitions game, because that almost always leads stupid places, but it does not seem either the most common nor the most useful application of that, and I've explained why. So if we're going to claim I'm doing this just to argue, I can claim you're doing yours just to get a tautology.

Like you said, this is not an exchange that is going to lead anywhere, but I'm not required to play it the way you like just because you like it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would say even when they ARE applicable there are few occasions that quoting one does anything to help the conversation... and it seems they are more used to shut down conversations.

They can sometimes be a useful shortcut. But they're just that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They promised every race (not class) to be in the 5e PHB after many fans cried about the gnome race no one even plays.

They did actually say something to the effect of "every PHB class will be present in some form," that may not have been the exact wording but they definitely went out of their way to give the impression that if X was a default, first-book-set option in the past, you'd get it. The general failure to produce an actually Warlord-like option was a major point of consternation at release. Particularly because the people who were pleased with 5e kept giving delaying excuse after delaying excuse after delaying excuse. "It'll show up in a packet soon. Don't worry about it." "They'll include the Warlord Fighter and the tactical combat rules in the final packet, you'll see." "They just saved that stuff for later because those designs are harder! It'll be in the PHB when it's published." "Oh, come on, you can't expect them to include EVERYTHING in the PHB. Give it a couple years."

Yes, I literally did have someone (usually several people) tell me each and every one of those excuses, without exceptions. Including that last one. I had someone explicitly tell me that I couldn't form a valid opinion about whether 5e was good and actually fulfilling promises like this unless I gave it at least 2-3 years first. After having already waited through nearly three years of playtest. Yeah, I was...not particularly enthusiastic about that argument, as you might guess.

All the new to 4e classes are doable as new classes in 5e. The issue is that the designers decided early that they weren't adding new classes to the PHB that weren't in the 3e PHB besides Warlock. All new classes would be setting only and due to the slooooow publishing schedule of 5e, only one was created.

For a definition of "doable" so weak and watered-down it would fairly resemble certain popular beers, sure.

And no, they didn't decide those things early on--or else they did so and never told anyone. As an example, Mearls explicitly tweeted that there WOULD be martial healing in 5e, and if players didn't like that, they could simply choose not to play those options (or, if DM, choose not to allow those options). And y'know what came of it? Diddly-squat.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

the problem with the appeal to authority is that it discounts expertise...

An easier example for most people to understand is argumentum ad hominem (attack against the person).

That's a classic example of a fallacy in informal logic. But there are a few issues with how you see it being used-
1. First, the definition subsumes a lot of work. It has to be an irrelevant attack on the person (usually- can be directed at whatever entity is making the argument) instead of the argument. There are a lot of perfectly relevant attacks on people that are made.

ex. Tom has faked his data on all ten of his experiment. I am not going to spend my time going through the eleventh.


2. Second, people use heuristics to evaluate arguments all the time- character evidence matters. If someone is a ... you know, lying liar, we use that to evaluate the person. Something might be irrelevant to the argument, but probative to our desire to spend time evaluating the argument.

3. Finally, it doesn't take Aristotle to remind you that logos isn't the only part of an argument. Ethos and pathos matter as well. We are not all rational homo economicus; we are subject to those slings and arrows of human passions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, I literally did have someone (usually several people) tell me each and every one of those excuses,

i will confirm as resent as 2019 i was still seeing some of these

And no, they didn't decide those things early on--or else they did so and never told anyone. As an example, Mearls explicitly tweeted that there WOULD be martial healing in 5e, and if players didn't like that, they could simply choose not to play those options (or, if DM, choose not to allow those options). And y'know what came of it? Diddly-squat.

yup...and again weather thins were lies or misspoken or spin or just things changed... this happened

 

[overgeeked]

the problem with the appeal to authority is that it discounts expertise...

Not really.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not really.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

I;m not clicking that.

it is USED to discount expertise

 

[payn]

3. Finally, it doesn't take Aristotle to remind you that logos isn't the only part of an argument. Ethos and pathos matter as well. We are not all rational homo economicus; we are subject to those slings and arrows of human passions.

This. As has been said citing a fallacy is often done without adding anything more to shutdown or end a discussion. Sometimes that's appropriate because the original argument is so offensive towards those in the discussion that it doesn't merit a comprehensive response. If a person seems to be arguing in good faith, with sound reason, and hasn't proved to be a troll, then you should likely forget the fallacy drop and just further engage the discussion, IMO.