Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In fifth-edition D&D, what is gold for?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 6998302" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>Because the two claims aren't symmetric. The statement "x is a problem" is a limited claim relating to the speaker's experience--it's true so long as the speaker (or anyone else) finds x problematic. The contrasting claim "x isn't a problem" is a sweeping claim relating to the experience of everyone else--it's false if even a single person finds x problematic.</p><p></p><p>Of course, if only a single person finds x problematic, it's highly likely that x isn't worth fixing. And depending on the costs of solving x, it might not be worth fixing even if its widely considered problematic. There can also be plenty of debate regarding the best solution for x. Consider the following analogy:</p><p></p><p>Let's say you're having a problem with your neighbors being too loud. You go to a city council meeting to request that your community enact a noise ordinance. Person A stands up to oppose your request, stating that they don't think that a noise ordinance is the best way to address your problem because <reasons>. Person B stands up to oppose your request, stating they think the costs of imposing a noise ordinance are too high to justify fixing the problem. Person C stands up to oppose your request, stating that <em>their</em> neighbors aren't too loud. Person D stands up to oppose your request, stating that loud neighbors aren't a problem.</p><p></p><p>By definition, you're the only one qualified to say whether your neighbors' volume is a problem--whether or not something is a problem is a judgment call that every individual has the right to make for themselves. Persons A and B have respected that autonomy, but have suggested (respectively) that another solution might be better, or that the problem isn't worth fixing. Person C hasn't respected that autonomy, suggesting that the problem shouldn't be fixed merely because they don't have a similar problem, effectively prioritizing their own experiences over yours. (Note however, that Person C's experience may be relevant to Person B's counterargument, insofar as it contributes (albeit anecdotally) to the cost/benefit analysis B is undertaking.) Person D isn't merely failing to respect your autonomy, they're going further and implying either that (1) they know better than you what you consider problematic or (2) you're lying about what you consider problematic; both implications are inherently hostile, and serve only to attack you.</p><p></p><p>If my explanation or my analogy helped clear things up, fantastic. If not, I suspect that we may disagree as to what it means for something to be "a problem". Within the scope of a given community, I consider the set of all "problems" to be a superset of the problems of all members of that community. I suspect that you may be using an alternative definition, whereby within the scope of a given community, the set of all "problems" consists only of those problems that the members share. Is my suspicion correct? (If so, I'm happy to explain why I consider my definition to be more useful.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 6998302, member: 6802765"] Because the two claims aren't symmetric. The statement "x is a problem" is a limited claim relating to the speaker's experience--it's true so long as the speaker (or anyone else) finds x problematic. The contrasting claim "x isn't a problem" is a sweeping claim relating to the experience of everyone else--it's false if even a single person finds x problematic. Of course, if only a single person finds x problematic, it's highly likely that x isn't worth fixing. And depending on the costs of solving x, it might not be worth fixing even if its widely considered problematic. There can also be plenty of debate regarding the best solution for x. Consider the following analogy: Let's say you're having a problem with your neighbors being too loud. You go to a city council meeting to request that your community enact a noise ordinance. Person A stands up to oppose your request, stating that they don't think that a noise ordinance is the best way to address your problem because <reasons>. Person B stands up to oppose your request, stating they think the costs of imposing a noise ordinance are too high to justify fixing the problem. Person C stands up to oppose your request, stating that [I]their[/I] neighbors aren't too loud. Person D stands up to oppose your request, stating that loud neighbors aren't a problem. By definition, you're the only one qualified to say whether your neighbors' volume is a problem--whether or not something is a problem is a judgment call that every individual has the right to make for themselves. Persons A and B have respected that autonomy, but have suggested (respectively) that another solution might be better, or that the problem isn't worth fixing. Person C hasn't respected that autonomy, suggesting that the problem shouldn't be fixed merely because they don't have a similar problem, effectively prioritizing their own experiences over yours. (Note however, that Person C's experience may be relevant to Person B's counterargument, insofar as it contributes (albeit anecdotally) to the cost/benefit analysis B is undertaking.) Person D isn't merely failing to respect your autonomy, they're going further and implying either that (1) they know better than you what you consider problematic or (2) you're lying about what you consider problematic; both implications are inherently hostile, and serve only to attack you. If my explanation or my analogy helped clear things up, fantastic. If not, I suspect that we may disagree as to what it means for something to be "a problem". Within the scope of a given community, I consider the set of all "problems" to be a superset of the problems of all members of that community. I suspect that you may be using an alternative definition, whereby within the scope of a given community, the set of all "problems" consists only of those problems that the members share. Is my suspicion correct? (If so, I'm happy to explain why I consider my definition to be more useful.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In fifth-edition D&D, what is gold for?
Top