False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Fifth Element]

You can hopefully see that this is (very probably) untrue, and that the fault lies within the logical construction, and in the way the terms are defined.

Once again, you're resorting to a ridiculous example. Come away from theoretical extremes and into the realm of productive discussion. To rephrase, "Different people like to play games in slightly different ways" should be self-evident.

For instance, I've never played in a game in which the DM rolled his dice openly. But others claim to do that, and since it's a very minor difference from how I play I have no trouble believing it. If I were to try to argue that it does not happen because I've never seen it happen, I would expect to be called on it.

therefore doesn't actually rationally follow. The "different ways" is not an infinite set, containing all possible variables. It is, instead, a set with undefined limits.

True, but irrelevant when discussing a specific example. When discussing a minute difference in playstyle, refuting that minute differences exist is the extraordinary claim, and produces the onus of evidence.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, you ignored the second part of that.

I did, because deciding to disengage from a fruitless discussion is neither a logical fallacy, nor is it irrational.



RC

 

[Hussar]

It's only fruitless if you decide that the other person is being deliberatly obtuse. Being asked for clarification should NEVER result in an instant shut down of communications. Nor should every disagreement automatically be decried as a failure of understanding.

However, ((And I'll freely admit, I've never seen you do it)) I've seen both happen more often than is comfortable. Then again, it's become my main source of Ignore Poster subjects.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Reductio Ad Absurdum Fallacy: Thinking that pointing out extreme examples that produce ridiculous results is a fallacy, rather than a reason for caution concerning the underlying logic... Also known as the Well Of Course You Can Come up With a Ridiculous Example If you Want to, That Doesn't Mean My Logic is Ridiculous Because It Necessarily Generates That Result Fallacy.

Once again, you're resorting to a ridiculous example.

When discussing a minute difference in playstyle, refuting that minute differences exist is the extraordinary claim, and produces the onus of evidence.

Sure. But who defines what is "minute"? If you ask me to believe a thing, then surely you realize that what I believe is "minute" is more relevant to my belief than what you believe is "minute"?

IOW, do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife? Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years? Do you believe it if I say it happened at my gaming table, and that all my players also say it happened?

Does it change your mind if I claim believing so is only minutely different from other things you believe?

I should hope it does not.

It's only fruitless if you decide that the other person is being deliberatly obtuse. Being asked for clarification should NEVER result in an instant shut down of communications.

Agreed.

But also, it should be accepted that

(1) a pattern of (apparently) deliberate (or general) obtuseness in multiple threads can cause a rational poster to assume the same in any given thread -- it need not be proven over and over again. And,

(2) at some point in any given exchange, a pattern of (apparently) deliberate (or general) obtuseness can cause a poster to rationally stop expending energy in a given direction.

Yes. How else could you possibly be inspired to create your own mammoth RPG?

That is largely the fault of WotC.

Or, WotC should largely get the praise.

You decide.




RC

 

[Dragonhelm]

The Edition War Excluded Middle: The assumption that any critic of 4E must be a 3.X/Pathfinder fan, or vice versa. (This one seems to be shifting a bit as the OSR gains prominence, but there's still a number of gamers who don't fall in to any of the three categories.)

I personally find the idea that you can't be a fan of multiple editions/game systems to be a huge fallacy. Some of us like D&D of all editions, and realize that each edition has its own unique things to offer.

Problem is, it's hard to debate editions with folks from a logical standpoint. People are as fervent about that as they are about religion or politics. Or Mac vs. PC.

 

[Fifth Element]

Sure. But who defines what is "minute"? If you ask me to believe a thing, then surely you realize that what I believe is "minute" is more relevant to my belief than what you believe is "minute"?

I leave it to using reason to decide. Yes, it's a subjective term. But it is a word and it has meaning. If someone is intentionally obtuse and argues that (for example) the ghost of Gary Gygax DMing his game has the same degree of difference from my play experience as rolling dice in a slightly different location than I do, well, there's not much I can do about that.

Does it change your mind if I claim believing so is only minutely different from other things you believe?

No, because minute does have meaning. There is always a degree of subjectivity in words, but if you argue that all words are completely subjective then how will you ever have a conversation with someone?

You can always argue as to where the line should be drawn between, for instance, minute and not-minute. But the examples you're giving in this thread do not fall anywhere near that line.

 

[Fifth Element]

The "it means what I say it means" fallacy: using words in ways which depart from the standard meanings of the words, without explanation of this difference.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Fallacy - % dice systems have a bell curve because you roll 2 dice.

And for my second one - Gamers are smarter than other people (if this were true the previous fallacy wouldn't come up soo often)

 

[Fifth Element]

Sorry everyone, for letting him drag me into this again. I'm out.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's only fruitless if you decide that the other person is being deliberatly obtuse.

"Deliberately" need not be an element.