Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5185493" data-attributes="member: 18280">I have firsthand experience of the contrary.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?  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 (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185608-post153.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185608-post153.html</a>), 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.Hardly new, but apparently offensive to some.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</blockquote>

Verification