False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[jdrakeh]

1) Appeal to Law: You must play by RAW or you are having badwrongfun

2) Appeal to Probability: 3.5 is broken because it can produce Pun-Pun.

3) False Dilemma: You can only play 1E, 2E, 3.5 (or Pathfinder) or 4E, not multiple versions of the game

4) Fallacy of Necessity: You must own and use every rulebook for a system that exists

5) Nirvana Fallacy: Pathfinder is a horrible system because it is compatible with 3.5

...And, in before lock.

Aww. . .

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Stormonu again.

 

[TarionzCousin]

"People who play X aren't capable of playing Y. They just aren't smart/clever/cool/imaginative enough."

Where X = D&D and Y= NWoD, for example. Or vice versa.

 

[Maggan]

"People who play X aren't capable of playing Y. They just aren't smart/clever/cool/imaginative enough."

Made me think of this:

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who plays Game X hates Game Y."

A nasty variant of this is:

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who is a true fan of Game X hates Game Y."

/M

 

[Cadfan]

Made me think of this:

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who plays Game X hates Game Y."

A nasty variant of this is:

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who is a true fan of Game X hates Game Y."

/M

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore, I hate anyone who loves Game Y. Therefore, because everyone else in the world thinks and reasons like I do, anyone who loves Game Y hates me. Therefore I am justified in hating them."

This form of reasoning explains a lot of unfortunate facts about our world.

 

[Fifth Element]

A nasty variant of this is:

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who is a true fan of Game X hates Game Y."

The Hateful Scotsman Fallacy, perhaps?

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore, I hate anyone who loves Game Y. Therefore, because everyone else in the world thinks and reasons like I do, anyone who loves Game Y hates me. Therefore I am justified in hating them."

The Circular Jerk Fallacy?

 

[Umbran]

Care to elucidate? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Sure.

Take the assertion, "Most RPG players are casual, 'beer and pretzel' players."

A reasonable person should (imho) accept this as plausible. It breaks no major physical law or conflict with known data, so maybe most players are B&P types. But, that does not mean I should accept the assertion as being true.

 

[Fifth Element]

Take the assertion, "Most RPG players are casual, 'beer and pretzel' players."

A reasonable person should (imho) accept this as plausible. It breaks no major physical law or conflict with known data, so maybe most players are B&P types. But, that does not mean I should accept the assertion as being true.

Fair enough. That skates pretty close to 'perceptions' to me, since unless you have hard data for that assertion it's based on your own experiences. I agree that it should be accepted as plausible, of course.

 

[Umbran]

Fair enough. That skates pretty close to 'perceptions' to me, since unless you have hard data for that assertion it's based on your own experiences.

Well, that's kind of the point.

When someone speaks of their own experiences, the "reasonable observer finds it plausible" guideline makes sense.

When someone speaks on a larger scope - beyond the point that their personal experiences are likely to be a good basis - then that guideline tends to be less reliable.

This boils down to how the statements, "Most gamers are X," and, "In my experience most gamers are X," are in no way equivalent, and we often forget that they aren't interchangeable.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Take the assertion, "Most RPG players are casual, 'beer and pretzel' players."

A reasonable person should (imho) accept this as plausible. It breaks no major physical law or conflict with known data, so maybe most players are B&P types. But, that does not mean I should accept the assertion as being true.

There are some problems with this thinking.

For example, "Most cats like to swim" breaks no major physical law (are there minor physical laws?) and conflicts with no known data, so maybe most cats do like to swim. But, that does not mean that I should accept the assertion as being plausible.

As another example, "Bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest" breaks no major physical law (are there minor physical laws?) and conflicts with no known data, so maybe Bigfoot does roam the Pacific Northwest. But, that does not mean that I should accept the assertion as being plausible.

This boils down to how the statements, "Most gamers are X," and, "In my experience most gamers are X," are in no way equivalent, and we often forget that they aren't interchangeable.

This is true, but again ignores that the "reasonable observer finds it plausible" guideline is, itself, based upon personal observation. No observer can actually be objective enough to state what a reasonable observer should objectively find plausible.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

This boils down to how the statements, "Most gamers are X," and, "In my experience most gamers are X," are in no way equivalent, and we often forget that they aren't interchangeable.

Yeah, I see what you're saying now.