D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

Huh? It's not fallacious to appeal to authority. Given that most of us are not geniuses, we rely on authorities for most of our knowledge.

So now you're claiming that Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy? Why, because you know better than everyone else?

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy, because it doesn't show the rightness or wrongness of the argument, so appealing to it to show rightness or wrongness is fallacious. This happens regardless of your knowledge level or IQ, or how much you rely on authorities.

Hell, as a lawyer you should be extremely aware of the dueling experts situations that happen routinely in courtrooms, where authorities get paid to contradict each other over the same set of facts.

 

[AlViking]

Useful in what way? Do you expect proponents of traditional games to be so influenced by GG's opinions that informing them of something he said that supports your point of view would suddenly cause the scales to fall from our eyes? You'll notice that the vast majority of the game designer quotations being thrown about in this discussion (no matter if it's Gary Gygax, Ron Edwards, or someone else) are made by the non-traditionalists. Perhaps that is because the opinions of such people simply do not hold the same weight for us that they do for you. If that is the case, I'm not sure what having a new Gygax quote is going to do for you.

I appreciate the Gary helped commercialize a game I've enjoyed but the guy said a whole lot of things I disagree with.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fail forward does not have to lead to success at the task in some manner. It just means that failure will still result in the story moving forward by not leaving the situation the same as before you started. Which is actually impossible since in your example the situation was door at house that we never tried to open, and afterwards was door at the house that we tried to open and failed. That moves the story forward incrementally.

A more accurate definition would be "that failure will still result in the story moving forward in a way the players of that style find interesting, by not leaving the situation the same as before you started."

Yea, success with complication is just one implementation of fail forward. Probably the most common though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I know GMs used to be that way back in the day, but...if a bad roll or two is all it takes to wipe out months of investing in a character's story, actually engaging with the world, then what the hell are we doing? If it's that disposable, then it's better suited to a board game.

High stakes are a value for some people. I'd certainly not say people playing RuneQuest think they're playing a board game and you can absolutely lose a character at the wrong time from a crit and a bad hit location roll.

It's one thing if PC death happens because of player decision, but if I happen to roll a 1 on the check* (and then a 2 on the saving throw, I guess), my character dies, it means investing in the game was a waste of time.

Again, not everyone thinks its a waste of time.

*Especially if one has a GM that calls for checks every 30 feet or so...at that point, your chance of death is quite high; even if it's only 1 check, assuming one only fails on <4, it's a 15% chance of instant death, about 2% with a similar save.

Different problem I think, though one I can understand contributing to you concern.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was a more general point, though I think there's very few combat systems of any detail that don't produce some degree of that. Its probably possible to avoid it there with a detailed system, but it would likely have to be super-fussy in time management and other elements.

I was thinking about WotC's 5.5 comments regarding the player's responsibilities to the social contract as they see them. Nothing to do with combat.

 

[TwoSix]

So now you're claiming that Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy? Why, because you know better than everyone else?

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy, because it doesn't show the rightness or wrongness of the argument, so appealing to it to show rightness or wrongness is fallacious. This happens regardless of your knowledge level or IQ, or how much you rely on authorities.

Hell, as a lawyer you should be extremely aware of the dueling experts situations that happen routinely in courtrooms, where authorities get paid to contradict each other over the same set of facts.

An appeal to authority is fallacious in the case where the authority isn't a credible responder to the question being asked.

The reason those experts are questioned is to allow the jury or judge to make a considered decision on the relative credibility of each witness. If calling expert witnesses was entirely fallacious, it wouldn't keep happening!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do you offer a save?

Because the chances of falling to your death are legitimately less than 1 in 20, and because I'm playing a game with people whom I don't want throwing things at me. G still matters, even if I value RP more.

 

[TwoSix]

Got it. The chain from #10,425 made it appear to be connected. Also, am I misreading some hedging in your above ("is always" seems to imply "sometimes is")?

It's been a long thread...

You could even say it's "exhausting".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I know GMs used to be that way back in the day, but...if a bad roll or two is all it takes to wipe out months of investing in a character's story, actually engaging with the world, then what the hell are we doing? If it's that disposable, then it's better suited to a board game.

It's one thing if PC death happens because of player decision, but if I happen to roll a 1 on the check* (and then a 2 on the saving throw, I guess), my character dies, it means investing in the game was a waste of time.

*Especially if one has a GM that calls for checks every 30 feet or so...at that point, your chance of death is quite high; even if it's only 1 check, assuming one only fails on <4, it's a 15% chance of instant death, about 2% with a similar save.

So what you're saying is...you have a preference? Excellent!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was thinking about WotC's 5.5 comments regarding the player's responsibilities to the social contract as they see them. Nothing to do with combat.

Then I'm afraid I've lost the thread.