False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Hussar]

Umm, no? No one is offended by the idea that you shouldn't fudge.

People are offended by the idea that if you fudge, you will always be caught and your game will be poorer for it. People are further offended when you discount nearly all evidence to the contrary by saying that they are actually misinterpreting their own experiences.

Saying that fudging is a bad idea is hardly a new or offensive idea.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and as far as "appeal to authority" well, yes and no. It's an appeal to many authorities. If it was only one, I'd agree with you. However, EVERY DMG suggests that fudging can be used. Not that it should be used all the time, but, they certainly don't say,

"Fudging will always lead to a poorer game and with better prep you should never need to fudge".

Is appealing to every authority a fallacy?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umm, no? No one is offended by the idea that you shouldn't fudge.

I have firsthand experience of the contrary.

People are offended by the idea that if you fudge, you will always be caught and your game will be poorer for it.

Where did you get the word "always" from? Are you suggested that people are offended by what they are reading, or by what they are making up from what they are reading?

People are further offended when you discount nearly all evidence to the contrary by saying that they are actually misinterpreting their own experiences.

I cannot answer this sufficiently without getting threadbanned, because I cannot specifically answer to the quality of "evidence" given.

However, as has been noted time and again, my telling you somethng isn't evidence. My telling you someone else's experiences is even less "evidence". So, if I say, "I like my DM to fudge" that is at least me talking to my experience. If I say, "My players like me to fudge" that is me claiming to know someone else's experience.

I was given three specific examples where people claimed fudging was good. One example seemed to me to be trying to score points, and seemed more concerned with having an ironclad argument than with exploring the issue in good faith. Both the first and the second demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to apply rational thinking to the discussion. For these reasons, I dismissed their anecdotes as implausible. The third individual, who did not supply testimony himself, I accepted as being exceptional (within the bounds of my experience).

So, to be clear, I accepted 1/3rd of all cases presented.

EDIT: In this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185608-post153.html), Plane Sailing replies to Neonchameleon. Neonchameleon says "I read 4e stat blocks and just know it afterwards." Plane Sailing replies "Then you are a god among men in memory terms". Should people find this offensive? AFAICT, "Then you are a god among men" is pretty well equal to "Then you are a member of a vanishingly small set".

EDIT EDIT: I would bet that it wouldn't be hard to find a number of other posts, including by those who are offended, that either (1) make use of the idea of a "vanishingly small set" or that discriminate information based upon the source. In fact, I would expect that it would be extremely easy to do so. This also makes me leery of the offense taken, and makes me question whether the offense is based less upon the question raised ("Why should I believe this, when it flies in the face of my experience?"), but more upon the (potential) answer.

Saying that fudging is a bad idea is hardly a new or offensive idea.

Hardly new, but apparently offensive to some.

Oh, and as far as "appeal to authority" well, yes and no. It's an appeal to many authorities. If it was only one, I'd agree with you. However, EVERY DMG suggests that fudging can be used. Not that it should be used all the time, but, they certainly don't say,

"Fudging will always lead to a poorer game and with better prep you should never need to fudge".

Is appealing to every authority a fallacy?

It is a fallacy to say that an idea is wrong on the basis of appeal to authority.

If your beef with how I put it is that "it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1" or that I am saying that my "views of the game trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years", then, yes, that is strictly an appeal to authority.

Hussar, I certainly hope that your views of the game, within your opinion of how it is best to be run, trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years, for you.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Appeal to Authority

I think that this idea could use a little more input.

There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.

The interesting thing about this is that my statements about my experience are a sort of appeal to authority. Whether or not you believe my statements is based upon whether or not you trust me to correctly remember and interpret my experience, and whether or not you trust me to be honest in my statements.

The first is based, at least partially, upon how honest you believe I am with myself, and whether or not you believe I apply rational thinking to my own beliefs. This last in based, in turn, at least partially upon your prior experience of me, and your perception of whether or not I have ulterior motives in the statements I am making.

For instance, say you and I were discussing oof and foo.

I accepted that it was better, in general, to oof than to foo, but argued that foo was good because it was not always possible to oof. I further accepted that, in general, the better one oofed, the less one had to foo. Further, I accepted that, in general, the more one applied oof, the better the outcome than if one applied foo to cover the lack of oof.

But I foo, and fooing is much easier than oofing. And I protest that, despite the foregoing, foo is not only acceptable, but my players prefer I foo. And, I begin to claim that the idea that it is better to oof than foo is insulting. And, I claim that you should not be using critical thinking to examine the issue.

Hmmm.

Under those circumstances, is my authority enhanced? Or do you have reasonable grounds to suspect that my authority is compromised?

I think you know my answer.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

EDIT: In this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185608-post153.html), Plane Sailing replies to Neonchameleon. Neonchameleon says "I read 4e stat blocks and just know it afterwards." Plane Sailing replies "Then you are a god among men in memory terms". Should people find this offensive? AFAICT, "Then you are a god among men" is pretty well equal to "Then you are a member of a vanishingly small set".

Interestingly, Benimoto isn't offended. In this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185888-post162.html) he writes "I find this kind of statement slightly surprising because back when I was DMing 3e a lot, I considered myself somewhat of a god among men for remembering how gaze attacks worked."

It bears out something I said earlier:

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.

RC