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

[FrogReaver]

Character death due to arbitrary roll is not high-stakes, though; it's random crap. In fact, character death is the least imaginative of stakes to be high.

Most everything bad that happens in an RPG is random crap coming about due to die rolls.

Thus, I think it’s something more than randomness that’s the underlying issue here.

I’d also suggest that if character death wasn’t high stakes that it’s hard to make sense of why something low stakes would bother you that much?

 

[Eric V]

Right. It’s not so much that experts aren’t useful. It’s that experts can be wrong. Which is why appeal to authority is a fallacy in the first place - being an expert/authority doesn’t mean you are correct.

The second issue is, who decides what makes a person an expert/authority?

No, that's not quite right; it's a fallacy when one appeals to an authority that lacks expertise in the matter being discussed...like when Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about biology when he's an astrophysicist. (Although his mistakes are still likely to be closer to the truth than the average person's, I suppose.)

I don't think anyone thinks experts must be right; just that they are much more likely to be right.

As for what makes an expert...it's not as difficult as all that. Qualifications and credentials aren't hard to figure out.

 

[FrogReaver]

Still more than 1 in 100 though...which is pretty high, considering the character dies otherwise. In the real world, would you engage in a particular activity for money (gold in the RPG) if you knew you had a 3% chance to die by doing so? It's just weird to me that the G matters somewhere between 5% and 2%; "you can't throw things at me for you being really unlucky, though I suppose you can if you are merely pedestrian-unlucky."

In the real world people take substantial risks to their life for money all the time. Oftentimes they also choose leisure time activities that are a lot more dangerous than necessary as well. So yes, I can imagine all that from the real world.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, that's not quite right; it's a fallacy when one appeals to an authority that lacks expertise in the matter being discussed...like when Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about biology when he's an astrophysicist. (Although his mistakes are still likely to be closer to the truth than the average person's, I suppose.)

You are so mistaken here I don’t think I will be able to unpack it for you. Appeal to authority isn’t when a non-authority in a particular field makes a claim, it’s when an authority in that field makes a claim. Look it up. By all means validate my claim independently, I don’t want you to take my word for it just because I sound like some self proclaimed authority.

 

[Eric V]

1)Most everything bad that happens in an RPG is random crap coming about due to die rolls.

2)Thus, I think it’s something more than randomness that’s the underlying issue here.

3)I’d also suggest that if character death wasn’t high stakes that it’s hard to make sense of why something low stakes would bother you that much?

1) Sure, a series of them...like in combat. Of course, even then, players can decide to retreat; I can't decide to not fall.

2) Any game involving dice will have randomness, sure...but to take a player out of the game based on one roll is something even board games don't do anymore.

3) Sort of my point; if the only "high stakes" is my character dying (on one random roll, no less), then there's not much point in investing much in the game. Hence, everything is low-stakes because...who cares?

 

[Eric V]

You are so mistaken here I don’t think I will be able to unpack it for you. Appeal to authority isn’t when a non-authority in a particular field makes a claim, it’s when an authority in that field makes a claim. Look it up. By all means validate my claim independently, I don’t want you to take my word for it just because I sound like some self proclaimed authority.

"Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand." Italicized point is what makes it a fallacy.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand." Italicized point is what makes it a fallacy.

Whatever your source is incorrect as well.

 

[Eric V]

In the real world people take substantial risks to their life for money all the time. Oftentimes they also choose leisure time activities that are a lot more dangerous than necessary as well. So yes, I can imagine all that from the real world.

All the time, huh? With 5% chance of dying every time? Or every 30 feet?
I don't really believe you, but whatever.

 

[Eric V]

Whatever your source is incorrect as well.

"You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject..."

 

[FrogReaver]

"You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject..."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority​

'Appeal to Authority​

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority .'

Here's some evidence of the proper definition.