Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Raven Crowking]

What's the party level, and do they have the default wealth? What's the CR? Is this an end boss encounter or is it a random encounter? Did the PCs have ample opportunity to avoid the encounter, or was it thrown against them without their ability to avoid it? Is the battle stacked against them in some way beyond the usual assumptions (things like in an antimagic field or underwater)? Does the party have some kind of advantage against the enemy (bane weapons, etc)?

There are so many options available in this game that there is no default.

See, I guess here is where we differ. I thought it was quite clearly indicated in the game rules that there is a default. I was under the perhaps misguided belief that the DM was running the game, setting up the encounters, etc., and that the DM had the authority to do this. I was not under the impression that the DM was forced to design by committee. In fact, the rules seem to me to be rather clear that the DM adjudicates.

Hence, presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law. You, on the other hand, seem to want innocence to be proven. Unfairness can be proven, assuming some reasonable standard of fairness. How can fairness be proven, though, given that the other side will say "Ah, but what if....?" "Ah, but did you take into account that.....?" This line of reasoning almost always falls into circulus in demonstrando, as this thread demonstrates more than amply.

ThirdWizard, you suggest that fairness can be determined by popular vote. I.e., if enough people vote that the encounter is unfair, then it is unfair. This is known as "argumentum ad numerum":

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example:

"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it."​

"Enough people say it" is simply not a sufficient means to determine that something is unfair.

In fact, that is a big problem with this thread, isn't it? We have a lot of people who will say that the encounter as described is unfair. They will then say why they think it is unfair. They will then be shown that this isn't the case/isn't necessarily the case, and they'll instead pick some new reason why it is unfair. The same thing happens repeatedly, and the ground keeps shifting. Conditions for it being unfair are agreed upon, then the side that thinks the encounter is unfair ditches those conditions when it is obvious that the encounter cannot be said to meet them.

Such a shifting morass doesn't demonstrate that the encounter is unfair. One might say that "There are so many options available in this game that there is no default", but this isn't true. The authority of the DM is the default. As a result, any encounter is fair unless there is reason to believe otherwise.

We are not given reason to believe otherwise in the OP.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

None of those two options: the default is "I don´t have enough information."

I see your point, though; you think that in doubt, the DM is "innocent". The move is also quite astute: if I respond "fair", then you can easily point that there´s no enough evidence to condemn the encounter; if I say "unfair" you accuse me of being biased.

Please describe the conditions that would make this encounter unfair, so that we can examine them in light of the OP.

I take it from your reply that you voted OTHER?

 

[Someone]

I would have voted other to your hypothetical two liner scenario. As for the conditions that would make me think a encounter is unfair, they are thoroughly repeated along the thread once and again and I see no need to bore the personnel.

Specially as your standards are impossible to meet by definition: you first suppose the encounter is fair and then demand 100% proof, not merely good evidence, that it´s unfair. No encounter would be unfair by that way of reasoning, because 100% proof is impossible outside math. I don´t see the need to bash my head against that particular wall.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In this particular case, I offered three conditions that, if met, would render the encounter unfair. I then began working with a set of assumptions that, if accepted, would mean that the first two conditions were automatically met.

How this becomes "you first suppose the encounter is fair and then demand 100% proof, not merely good evidence" I'm not certain. Perhaps you would care to rephrase that?

As for the reasons you think the encounter unfair, I suggest that your reasons do not meet even the slightest criteria of evidence, unless one presumes a priori that the encounter is unfair. Which, yes, is a bias, and one that is contra-indicated by the Core Rules.

Just as one can prove guilt, but cannot prove innocence, one can prove unfairness, but cannot prove fairness. A presumtion of fairness is the only framework from which one can derive a rational -- or, for that matter, fair -- conclusion.

RC

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The authority of the DM is the default. As a result, any encounter is fair unless there is reason to believe otherwise.

Even if I accept this premise, meeting any single one of your 3 conditions to prove unfairness qualifies as a reason, even if it is not yet proof.

Are you arguing there is absolutely no reason to believe that the encounter is unfair or that there is not sufficient reason to believe the encounter unfair?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even if I accept this premise, meeting any single one of your 3 conditions to prove unfairness qualifies as a reason, even if it is not yet proof.

Are you arguing there is absolutely no reason to believe that the encounter is unfair or that there is not sufficient reason to believe the encounter unfair?

I am arguing that there is not sufficient reason the believe the encounter unfair.

Specifically, while A + B + C offers sufficient reason to believe the encounter unfair, the components taken alone are not unfair, nor are two of the components taken together without the third.

(Each of these components has been examined exhaustively in this thread, and when a claim that the encounter is unfair has been made on the basis of these components, it was always the synthesis of these components that the claimant relied upon. No one, or even two, of these components is unfair in and of itself.)

I would also agree that there could be many components D, E, F, etc., that could take the place of one or all of the components that I listed which could make an encounter unfiar, but that there is insufficient reason to believe that there is any such additional component in the scenario described in the OP.

There are many, many ways to be unfair. All of them leave, IMHO, sufficient information to come to the rational and demonstrable conclusion that something is unfair. If something is unfair, that it is unfair can be demonstrated. We can certainly say, for example, that X as presented is fair, but if we later discover that critical components were missing from the presentation, we must change our mind and determine that X is not fair.

Since the OP described a hypothetical situation, there are no critical components that we will later discover (though the conditions of the situation may be altered to create a new hypothetical situation).

RC

 

[Someone]

How this becomes "you first suppose the encounter is fair and then demand 100% proof, not merely good evidence" I'm not certain. Perhaps you would care to rephrase that?

Huh? Two recent examples:

presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law

((Hint: not in this case, not even more than somebody is tall until proven short))

...We have a lot of people who will say that the encounter as described is unfair. They will then say why they think it is unfair. They will then be shown that this isn't the case/isn't necessarily the case...

Emphasis mine. You don´t require evidence: you want proof. It´s an impossible standard to meet; the scenario won´t ever proven unfair, short of the DM appearing and saying "Yes, I designed the scenario so it was unfair", and even in that case.

 

[ThirdWizard]

See, I guess here is where we differ. I thought it was quite clearly indicated in the game rules that there is a default. I was under the perhaps misguided belief that the DM was running the game, setting up the encounters, etc., and that the DM had the authority to do this. I was not under the impression that the DM was forced to design by committee. In fact, the rules seem to me to be rather clear that the DM adjudicates.

Okay, so by your reasoning here, there's no such thing as unfairness. The DM is God and all he does cannot be wrong. Because, that's what you sound like here, and if that's what you think, then your bias in this thread is going to make this debate impossible.

Hence, presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law. You, on the other hand, seem to want innocence to be proven.

Totally unfounded and horrible analogy. Fairness isn't like following the law. Fairness is something the DM watches as he designs obstacles for the PCs to overcome.

Second you see my "I can't determine fairness one way or the other without more information" to mean "I think the DM is acting unfairly unless otherwise proven." You do realize, dont you, that you could just as well say my stance was "I think the DM is acting fairly unless otherwise proven?" And, just for the record, those are both wrong.

When dealing in hypotheticals, I need information to make an informed oppinion. I find this highly better than your way of dealing with it in which everything is fair unless somene can prove to you that it isn't.

Again, your bias in this matter is showing through. How can you expect to debate when you are so clearly biased toward "fair" being the default, even when no information is given whatsoever? That is like a scientist declaring his hypothesis to be proven correct because his experiment was inconclusive.

Unfairness can be proven, assuming some reasonable standard of fairness. How can fairness be proven, though, given that the other side will say "Ah, but what if....?" "Ah, but did you take into account that.....?" This line of reasoning almost always falls into circulus in demonstrando, as this thread demonstrates more than amply.

Okay here it is for you again:

Fairness is like fun. It is subjective.

Fairness must be applied to context. See the sword duel example above. Give a judo master and a kendo master swords and tell them to fight. That's not fair. You can't just take everything out of context.

You surely cannot believe that there is a 100% objectively fair trap scenario that would be fair for all groups everywhere. Surely! Because that's what objectively means, by definition.

ThirdWizard, you suggest that fairness can be determined by popular vote. I.e., if enough people vote that the encounter is unfair, then it is unfair. This is known as "argumentum ad numerum":

It isn't a falacy.

Raven, its like you're trying to prove what is objectively fun. I'm sorry, there is no formula to follow. But, if you want to know what is fun, you can poll a large number of people. If a lot of people find it fun, then you can be safe claiming it to be fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Someone, since I can state my criteria for tall (over X inches, for example), please state your criteria for fair.

ThirdWizard, nowhere did I say "there's no such thing as unfairness. The DM is God and all he does cannot be wrong." As a statement of fact, I agreed that the trap/encounter would be unfair if three conditions were met, and then determined that the wording of the OP supported reasonable assumptions that met at least two of those three conditions.

You use a scientist making a hypothesis in your example. As you know, within the sciences no hypothesis is valuable unless it can be disproven. "Frogs can move mountains, but choose not to" is not a scientific hypothesis because it is a hypothesis that cannot be disproven. There is no way to supply evidence against.

"This scenario is unfair even if we cannot say why" is similarly flawed. If the scenario is unfair, you ought to be able to say why. Then your reasoning ought to be subject to analysis. If the analysis shows that your reasoning is flawed, it does not automatically mean that your conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that your conclusion is not correct for the reasons given, and ought to be re-examined.

(As an example, you could say "Because herring are fish, the sky is blue." Even though the reasoning is wrong, the conclusion is not. Still, the entire argument must be re-examined at that point if one desires to claim rationality.)

Fairness is like fun. It is subjective.

Fairness must be applied to context. See the sword duel example above. Give a judo master and a kendo master swords and tell them to fight. That's not fair. You can't just take everything out of context.

You surely cannot believe that there is a 100% objectively fair trap scenario that would be fair for all groups everywhere. Surely! Because that's what objectively means, by definition.

Presumably, when we are talking about fairness we mean (from dictionary.com):

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.​

Of these definitions, (2) is granted by the Core Rules. You could have a social contract within your own gaming group that alters the Core Rules (i.e., would this be fair in my game), and in that way fairness is like fun. Not everything would be fair in every game, nor would everything be fun in every game. However, this is an "A (event) + B (special case social contract) = unfair" situation, where neither A nor B are unfair alone.

As far as bias, dishonesty, and injustice -- surely if we are claiming any of these we can make a supportable, rational argument? In this way the question of fairness is exactly like that of innocence. A condition (guilt, bias, dishonesty, and/or injustice) is claimed to exist. Placing the burden of proof on the accused (prove that this condition does not exist) is bad reasoning, poor logic (it is actually a specific logical fallacy called shifting the burden) and grossly unfair.

BTW, argumentum ad numerum certainly is a fallacy. Research it if you don't believe me.

So is attempting to conflate one position (a claim of unfairness must be rationally supported to be considered true) with another, easily refuted position not taken by the person you claim (you're trying to prove what is objectively fun). That fallacy is called "the straw man".

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

By those two definitions, anything is fair so long as it doesn't deviate from RAW because it is proper under the rules and the DM isn't being dishonest with the group.

But, surely you don't believe that, because you admit that there can be unfair traps, even though you can follow the two definitions and still fail on the 3 point definition given above.

BTW, argumentum ad numerum certainly is a fallacy. Research it if you don't believe me.

Then you're guilty of arguing your oppinion as fact.

Logical fallacy has no place in a debate on oppinion, which is what this is.


Here's the most important thing you're going to need to explain to me:

You keep saying that there it is possible to build an objectively fair trap. However, you admit that some would find this objectively fair trap to be unfair. How can you resolve these two seemingly contradictory statements?