False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, there's a difference - a vanishingly small difference. So can you understand why the difference in people's reactions between what you're saying here and "you are understanding your experiences wrong" would also be vanishingly small, I hope.

Given the proposition that 90% of the people in the world are boring, most people will assume that they are therefore boring, and object to the statement. Some people, though, will assume that they are (or may be) the exceptions. Some other people will simply decide that they don't care about the opinion of the speaker in the first place -- their estimates are different.

IOW, to the proposition "90% of all people are boring" you will hear different responses:

"Hey! You think I'm boring!"

"Hey! You think I'm exceptional!"

"Hey! You don't know what you're talking about!" ​

Why do people respond the way they do? That's a question for philosophers and psychologists, I suppose. Some might say there is a vanishingly small difference between "90% of all people are boring" and "You, you sir, there in the red shirt, you are boring."

And, as "vanishingly small" is a concept of valuation, one cannot make a claim that they are objectively wrong.

(Shrug)

If you don't see any substantive difference, I suppose there is no substantive difference for you.

I see a substantive difference.


RC

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I see a substantive difference.

There's also a substantive difference -- which continues to elude people -- between saying, "I think your experience is wrong," and "I think your description and interpretation of other folks' experience is wrong."

This is -- however formally one wants to reason -- an easy and important distinction to understand. The failure to understand it and recognize its significance gives me, at least a lot of information.

 

[Hussar]

It is my opinion that "fudging is a generally bad decision. If the DM fudges, the players are almost certain to discover it, which will lead to the game being less than what it could be. If the DM is capable of resisting the urge to fudge -- especially if he can do so because he has elminated the urge through better prepwork -- the game will almost always be better.

This I pretty much agree with, with two added bits. First, if the DM is fudging very often (and the definition of very will vary) then it is probably due to other issues at the table - either with the system, or with understanding the system. Which, I suppose, would be alleviated by better prep work.

The second, is that for those issues that come up once in a very blue moon (DM rolls three attacks, all of them for criticals, all doing lots of damage for example) a bit of fudging may not be a bad thing, nor does it require reworking the system.

There is a set of people to whom this does not apply, but IME it is a vanishingly small set, and if you tell me that you are one of them, I am not likely to accept that as plausible without some evidence that it is so." (I went on to say that I do accept that Piratecat was a member of that vanishingly small set.)

This is the part that people have an issue with. It's completely unnecessary to add. And it smacks so much of elitism. "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here. Is this required? Do you really need to add this to your definition?

 

[jeffh]

This is the part that people have an issue with. It's completely unnecessary to add. And it smacks so much of elitism. "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here. Is this required? Do you really need to add this to your definition?

There are people who are professional football players, navy SEALs, Peter Gabriel former Magic: the Gathering world champions, or Peter Gabriel (okay, one person who is the latter) to name some claims I've seen people make online. That doesn't mean I automatically accept these claims as plausible. Those are perfectly appropriate occasions for going in skeptical and possibly revising that attitude as new evidence comes in.

Raven puts being a successful fudger in that category, and while I disagree with him I don't find his view outrageous, nor do I think he is anything other than sincere in holding it.

 

[The Shaman]

"If you play [insert pre-3e edition of D&D], it's just nostalgia."

"All fighters in First Ed AD&D play the same."

"Rules balance = game balance."

Quoted for truth, and because I have to spread experience points around . . .

 

[Fifth Element]

This is the part that people have an issue with. It's completely unnecessary to add. And it smacks so much of elitism. "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here. Is this required? Do you really need to add this to your definition?

Indeed. It doesn't add anything to the argument. It smacks of semantic gamesmanship as well - "I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that it happens so infrequently that it effectively doesn't happen."

There's a vanishingly small difference between the two.

 

[Hussar]

Well, all that aside, honestly, I don't think it's even really needed.

"Fudging is a heavy handed DM tool where the DM over rules the in game results. While it is possible for fudging to have a positive result, usually, particularly if done frequently, it will break down the fourth wall, lead to players being very upset and will generally hurt your game."

To me, this is a pretty good summary of my views on fudging. I don't have to get personal about it because, that definition will catch most of the bad stuff anyway. My beef with how RC puts it is that it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1. Essentially, RC is saying that his views of the game trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years. Never mind not believing random Internet guy, it's a pretty strong position to take when you're saying that you don't believe Gygax, Cooks, both Zeb and Monte, and every other person who was involved in developing the game.

That's a pretty big leap to take. Despite all the changes to edition, you can find a paragraph entitling the DM to fudge in every DMG produced. IMO, that puts a pretty big flag on the top of the hill that says that fudging can be a good thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My beef with how RC puts it is that it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1.

Really? 3e, for example, says that the default is no fudging, and offers specific cautions about fudging. 4e offers the same cautions. The only place I differ from those authors, AFAICT, is that they believe that the DM can probably fudge without being caught, whereas I believe that the players generally will catch on.

What happens when the players catch on is described in 3e better than in 4e, if memory serves, but 4e also cautions against that very thing.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is the part that people have an issue with. It's completely unnecessary to add. And it smacks so much of elitism. "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here. Is this required? Do you really need to add this to your definition?

If you go back in the thread that spawned this part of the discussion, you will see that it was not orignally part of my posts. It came about because, specifically, when I stated I was giving my "general" opinion, I was asked if I now worked in the Pentagon. When I said I didn't believe what I was saying necessarily applied to everyone (and included an example of a person I believed it didn't apply to) I was accused of OneTrueWayism, arrogance, etc., etc.

So I made my position more clear.

You say, "This is the part that people have an issue with". I say, "They had that issue before that part appeared". I can only conclude that what people had an issue with was the general statment:

Fudging is a generally bad decision. If the DM fudges, the players are almost certain to discover it, which will lead to the game being less than what it could be. If the DM is capable of resisting the urge to fudge -- especially if he can do so because he has elminated the urge through better prepwork -- the game will almost always be better.​

That was, pretty much, all that was required to start the bally-hoo.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

My beef with how RC puts it is that it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1. Essentially, RC is saying that his views of the game trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years.

Oh, back to topic....This is an example of "Appeal to Authority".

If folks didn't disagree with Gary, there would be no 3e and 4e. Expecting no one to disagree with the WotC designers is bound to lead to disappointment.

Despite all the changes to edition, you can find a paragraph entitling the DM to fudge in every DMG produced.

I do not in any way, shape, or form, argue that the GM is not entitled to fudge. I simply argue that it is a bad practice.

IMO, that puts a pretty big flag on the top of the hill that says that fudging can be a good thing.

I think that puts a pretty big flag on the top of the hill that says

(1) Lots of GMs fudge, and if we tell them it's a bad thing, they will be offended (as EN World has proven lately, IMHO),

(2) Even though fudging is not generally recommended, there are times when it may be the lesser of two evils,

(3) Therefore, fudging should not be proscribed, but non fudging should be the default mode of the game.


RC