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

[pemerton]

Sounds to me like this statement contradicts the notion that we should simply rely on testimony coming from a supposed expert.

You are the one referring to "supposed" experts.

Do you think that the rules of Burning Wheel are only "supposedly" authoritative on how Luke Crane intends the game to be played?

 

[pemerton]

"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.

I'm sure you appreciate the irony here - what makes that definition authoritative? And suppose that it is authoritative, @FrogReaver and @Maxperson have asserted that it would in any event be a fallacy for me to accept it on that basis!

 

[pemerton]

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.

Well, I think your "proper definition" is silly. I learned a few nuclear decay sequences in high school physics. I learned that the standard nuclear decay properties are either alpha or beta particles.

I have no evidence for any of that stuff other than what I learned. I have never built, owned or operated the apparatus for performing experiments on radioactive materials, and would not know how to even start the process of doing so.

According to you, for me to believe all that stuff is a fallacy! Which is sufficient to show that you concept of what counts as a fallacy is fallacious.

 

[pemerton]

Another note - if you're referring to the rules from BW you should say so

I have, including in the post that you quoted.

 

[FrogReaver]

What error do you think I have made in reading the rules of Burning Wheel and applying them in play?

Nope not going to happen. We weren’t talking specifically about Burning Wheel despite you bringing into the conversation as an example at an earlier point.

 

[Pedantic]

I'm confused. Earlier you were saying that it was OK for a PC to listen at the door, hear there were guards, and then choose another way around. Now you're saying that's wrong somehow? See:



Or are you thinking that if the PCs are trying to go from A to B, get stuck because of a door, and take another passage, they can't still get to B?

Anyway, for whatever reason, picking here was preferable to the PCs, but they couldn't get through here, so they went over there.

We're going around in circles and I think I'm not explaining myself well. My whole point is that fail forward design structure can render player decision making less impactful; you're trading player ability to learn about and manipulate the situation for a more procedurally dynamic situation.

I don't know how you game, but my players don't get an entire map of the location, complete with the location of the inhabitants, traps, and other hazards, before they go there. Even the time they were doing a heist on one of the PC's family estates; the character didn't know all the details. They have to explore and learn those things. If they picked here, it's because here was convenient in some way: it's the front entrance, it's unguarded, it's the only way they found, the path seemed easier, whatever. They are not going to have any idea that here is preferable until they explore.

Right, but they do the reconnaissance to get an advantage. They plot the guard routes, they practice on the window lock and so on. They're making choices to force a desired outcome, and gaining information to avoid unwanted outcomes. If those outcomes are not subject to their ability to gain information or make choices, but instead contingent on the rolls they trigger, there is no point in doing the reconnaissance, because there is no advantage. The best gameplay advice would be "roll better," instead of a set of steps that make it harder to fail heists.

The ability to make bad choices is built into fail forward design. In fact, it's a lot of its point, which is, they're not going to get a "nothing happens" result. Instead, something will happen. Whether that thing is good, neutral, or bad is up to the typical combination of player actions and dice rolls.

That is exactly like in tradgaming. The only real difference is that it's more clearly spelled out in many modern narrative games, including when those consequences are supposed to happen, where it was more of an assumption that GMs just knew this in many older tradgames.

No, it is utterly different! The consequence is a function of the player's roll, not a function of their decisions. It would be ideal as a player to only roll when the risked failure outcome is "nothing happens." A fail forward design prevents that from happening, unless you want to start getting into just outright negotiation.

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I really don't know what else I can do to explain this. The point of games is to use systems to get to a desired goal. Those systems should present a series of interesting decisions as you try and navigate them. I want that to be a thing in my RPGs, wherein players can use systems to try and to reach the desired gamestate, and for their decisions to matter in whether or not they get there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think so. Unless there's something that would keep people from hearing through the door (magical silence, soundproofed walls), or putting your ear to the door would trigger a Grimtoothian-style door trap, a PC who wants to listen at the door does so. Mind, they don't have to hear everything through the door--it is a door, so words will be muffled--but they'll hear at least some stuff.

Yes, that was something that took me a while to get as well when I started with PbtA.

Well, there's room for some dice. The GM could rule that the Discern Realities move was triggered. A Defy Danger could be rolled, say using INT. Or the PCs just hear something, where as simply barging the door into a dangerous place calls for the GM to drop a hard move on them. Those all seem reasonable options to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are the one referring to "supposed" experts.

Do you think that the rules of Burning Wheel are only "supposedly" authoritative on how Luke Crane intends the game to be played?

How the heck is this getting twisted into me saying anything about how Burning wheel should be played?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I think your "proper definition" is silly. I learned a few nuclear decay sequences in high school physics. I learned that the standard nuclear decay properties are either alpha or beta particles.

I have no evidence for any of that stuff other than what I learned. I have never built, owned or operated the apparatus for performing experiments on radioactive materials, and would not know how to even start the process of doing so.

According to you, for me to believe all that stuff is a fallacy! Which is sufficient to show that you concept of what counts as a fallacy is fallacious.

But that’s not my claim. Maybe ask me about my belief instead of making silly assumptions about it?

 

[pemerton]

How the heck is this getting twisted into me saying anything about how Burning wheel should be played?

Because I referred to the Burning Wheel rulebooks as evidence of how Luke Crane - one of the designers who coined the notion "fail forward" - intends such action resolution to work. And you said that I was committing a fallacy in relying up the authority of that text.