Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4000867" data-attributes="member: 42582">I never said it didn't. I said it doesn't support grim & gritty play. My evidence (which Reynard noted and responded to) is that mid-level fighters can beat great cats in hand-to-hand, unarmed combat. As it happens you've given me another example: any human being being killed by a house cat in a standup fight isn't grim & gritty - it's just (blackly, perhaps) comical.Of course you can threaten mid-level AD&D fighters by attacking them with Ancient Red Dragons breathing 88 hit point fire cones. But just like the wizard vs house cat cage maatch, that isn't grim & gritty play, even though it might be highly lethal. It is superheroic play.I don't think I've ignored anything.Tell me - what is your view of the unarmed fighter vs great cat combat? And what heroic element of the (non-magical parts of the) RM mechanics allow mid-level fighters to reliably defeat great cats unarmed? The only ones I can think of coming close would be a good combo of Adrenal Speed/Strength and Stun Resistance - but these are (i) the most controversial aspects of the RM skill system among long-time RM players, and (ii) given the Bare Hand attack table in Arms Law, may not be enough to pull it off.If by "opposite" you mean "contradictory", then in fact not X does entail Y (assuming a standard logic in which excluded middle holds). So by "opposite" I assume you mean "contrary". Then what you say is true. But not obviously relevant to my post, for a couple of reasons.First, if we are talking about something like genres or playstyles, there are only a (reasonably small) finite number of them that are relevant. So showing that one is not facilitated may licence an inference to another being an implicit premise of the game, especially if some reasons are given for ruling out further alternatives, or if it is taken to be obvious why those further possibilities can be ignored (which is not a fallacy - enthymetic arguments are incomplete, but not therefore fallacious - and in ordinary disocourse they make up the overwhelming bulk of all arguments presented - only mathematical logicians normally make all their premises explicit).Second, I claimed that the absence of facilitation of a particular playstyle entails limits on the scope of a game's facilitation of playstyles (and thus refuted the claim that the game is generic) - which is a (sound) inference to the contradictory rather than a (fallacious) inference to the contrary.As I noted in my follow-up post, there is a question of degree about the limits, but I think I have already dealt with that. (Perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction, but that is not an issue of fallacies but detailed questions of evidence and interpretation.)I would expect that to tell me more about Newton, Keppler and the gravitational constant than about logic.Perhaps I should apologise for being overly rude, but I do get frustrated when posters on forums try to rebut through alleging fallacies that aren't there, rather than actually discussing the evidence and interpretation offered and pointing out the actual errors (the latter is what Henry and Reynard both did). Most people, when they are wrong, are wrong because of substance, not form.</blockquote>

Verification