Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[gizmo33]

Raven Crowking, ThirdWizard-
I can't tell exactly what you guys are disagreeing over but I'm starting to suspect that there's not as much of a disagreement as it seems. I agree with both of your posts (the parts I understand) so how can you disagree so much with each other? Maybe there are just a few (minor) points to be ironed out.

RC - From what I gather, you would want "fairness" to be objective and universal. This IMO is sensible. A term like "fairness" implies something universal, because it really only has context in agreements between people. It makes no sense to use subjective personal standards in those cases. By nature, "fairness" has to be something that parties have a chance to agree to. Defining it as "whatever an individual wants" defeats the purpose. No one wants to be called "unfair" based on someones personal standard, because "unfair/fair" has connotations of a universal opinion from society. In other words, it strongly implies that most/all others would have the same opinion (about your trap, or whatever).

Therefore, it makes sense that you would want to choose the most inclusive definition of fairness. If some possible play-style deems a trap "fair", then it serves no purpose to call the trap otherwise.

ThirdWizard - I think the problem here is the use of the word "fair". You agreed with me that campaign standards were reasonably set by individual DMs. Equating "not suitable for my campaign" with "unfair" IMO is mixing the personal with the universal. When you're making a comment that you intend to be taken in the context of your own campaign and preferences, the use of the word "unfair" may be construed by some to be meant as a universal comment, ie. a comment on their play style, or a universal comment. Using "fair" with your gaming group is easier because they understand the context.

*If* there were to be a universal standard, judged by some Council of Fairness, I believe that RCs recommendation (as I understand it) that it be a liberal definition is sensible - even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath. The individual DM would still have to decide, with no input from the Council, whether or not a particular trap was appropriate for his gaming group. This is the kind of environment that I believe ThirdWizard is arguing for, and it's the kind of environment that RCs recommendations create - so where's the dispute?

So if anything I've written has been a clarification, maybe you two can agree that you don't disagree that much.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I disagree.

Obviously.

For a trap to be objectively fair, there has to be an objectively correct way to to handle traps.

Now I disagree. For a deadly trap to be objectively fair, there has to exist the means to handle the trap, and there have to be sufficient clues to denote a trap. A nusiance trap would not have the same standards.

How about this? The objectively correct way to check for traps is to make a Search check and assume you are correct in your check. Therefore, the only objectively fair traps are those which can be detected with the search skill of the PC with the highest possible Search check. Therefore, the trap in question is objecively unfair.

Not remotely.

(1) How is making a Search check objectively better than Taking 10 or Taking 20?

(2) By what means do you determine that one should be able to assume that the check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched?

(3) If you don't bother to maximize your check, why would it make any difference who makes the check in regards to the highest possible Search check?

(4) Should the Aid Another action be performed?

(5) What if the person with the highest possible Search check is not a rogue? In this case, the individual cannot detect certain traps.

Can you prove that wrong? If it is objective, you can provide a proof to the contrary.

Done.

(Though, of course, you will say not done. )

No, it isn't. And it is insulting. If there is an objectively fair way to handle traps, then there has to be an objectively correct way to approach traps as a PC. Otherwise, the trap wouldn't be objectively fair. If there weren't an objectively fair way to approach traps in game as a PC then it would be impossible to know if a trap were fair or not unless we know the group's playstyle.

Not at all.

You are essentially claiming that fairness only exists within the context of a certain playstyle. In other words, you must have A + B to determine whether or not A is fair. I do not believe your proposition is true.

You seem to draw this conclusion because a given thing that I might say is fair would not be fair within the context of your playstyle. Nonetheless, it is obvious that A can be fair, and B can be fair, without A + B being fair.

You are, essentially, making the claim that if A + B is not fair, A (trap/incident) cannot be fair....but somehow B (playstyle/context) can be (or else what could be the source of your feelings of insult?).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC - From what I gather, you would want "fairness" to be objective and universal. This IMO is sensible. A term like "fairness" implies something universal, because it really only has context in agreements between people. It makes no sense to use subjective personal standards in those cases. By nature, "fairness" has to be something that parties have a chance to agree to. Defining it as "whatever an individual wants" defeats the purpose. No one wants to be called "unfair" based on someones personal standard, because "unfair/fair" has connotations of a universal opinion from society. In other words, it strongly implies that most/all others would have the same opinion (about your trap, or whatever).

Mostly correct. The value of the idea of normative behavior, particularly in something like the philosophy of ethics, is that one can attempt to achieve some degree of objectivity. An ethical philosophy mandates that the general opinions of societies related to ethics are accountable to rational examination in the same way that the opinions of individuals are. In other words, something isn't unethical or unfair simply because most people think it is; some demonstrable and abnormal disparity must exist.

This is not altogether dissimilar from the "reasonable man" test in law. It is not enough to say that the general opinion might be X, but rather one tries to determine if, in a given situation, a reasonable person would agree and/or believe X.

One does not have to disprove all possibilities to find someone guilty of a crime; one needs merely to remove believable possibilities until guilt is established "beyond the shadow of a doubt". In this case, whether or not the trap is fair is not as consequential as determining guilt related to a crime, and the determinant of unfairness can therefore be reduced accordingly....let us say "beyond reasonable doubt".

IMHO, the "proofs" offered that this trap is unfair, in this case, fall far below a reasonable standard.

So, rather than promoting "the most inclusive definition of fairness....even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath" I am promoting a reasonably inclusive definition of fairness, that recognizes that there is a difference between intrinsic fairness and whether or not something is fair within a particular subset of context.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Now I disagree. For a deadly trap to be objectively fair, there has to exist the means to handle the trap, and there have to be sufficient clues to denote a trap. A nusiance trap would not have the same standards.

In your oppinion.

That's what you keep missing. That is your oppinion. That is not fact. That is not objective truth. That is a logical conclusion based on what you've come to learn playing the game of D&D. Someone else's logical conclusion could be completely different but that doesn't make it illogical or less objective than yours. You can't proclaim that you are correct and expect me to just accept that.

(1) How is making a Search check objectively better than Taking 10 or Taking 20?

I never said they weren't taking 20.

(2) By what means do you determine that one should be able to assume that the check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched?

By the RAW.

(3) If you don't bother to maximize your check, why would it make any difference who makes the check in regards to the highest possible Search check?

It doesn't. But, then, you can't prove that that is a bad thing, can you?

(4) Should the Aid Another action be performed?

No.

(5) What if the person with the highest possible Search check is not a rogue? In this case, the individual cannot detect certain traps.

Then you can't use those certain traps.

Done.

(Though, of course, you will say not done. )

You are correct, not done.

All you've done is submit reasons that this style of play wouldn't work for you. You haven't submitted any proof that this is a not objective. For example, expecting that the majority of D&D players have an above average intelligence shouldn't be done, so we have to conclude that the Search skill should be all that is necessary for the vast majority of D&D games out there. To say otherwise would be to penalize gamers of average intelligence. Thus, we can't assume any creative thought whatsoever.

Not at all.

You are essentially claiming that fairness only exists within the context of a certain playstyle. In other words, you must have A + B to determine whether or not A is fair. I do not believe your proposition is true.

There is no "absense of B." B is always present. Always. Even if you don't know it is. You have a B that you are using to form what you believe is fair. Same for me. We can't remove ourselves from these contexts.

If you had played in only my games your whole life, then do you not think that your oppinion on what is fair and what is not fair would be closer to mine?

You seem to be claiming some kind of objectivity that is above other people's. Where do these credentials come from? What makes you the final arbiter in what is fair and what is not fair more than I? You are making the claim that you are a better judge of what is and is not fair than the majority of ENWorld itself!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Someone else's logical conclusion could be completely different but that doesn't make it illogical or less objective than yours.

No...but someone else's logical opinion wouldn't have an ever-shifting burden of proof, either. A logical opinion does not rely upon logical fallacy. Moreover, a logical opinion can be examined, and examing that opinion is not an insult to the person who promoted it.

I never said they weren't taking 20.

"Using Search =/= to "Taking 20 while using Search".

By the RAW.

Please tell me where in the RAW it states that one should be able to assume that one's Search check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched? If not, please tell me which statements you infer this from.

All you've done is submit reasons that this style of play wouldn't work for you. You haven't submitted any proof that this is a not objective. For example, expecting that the majority of D&D players have an above average intelligence shouldn't be done, so we have to conclude that the Search skill should be all that is necessary for the vast majority of D&D games out there. To say otherwise would be to penalize gamers of average intelligence. Thus, we can't assume any creative thought whatsoever.

You don't really believe that, do you?

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

No...but someone else's logical opinion wouldn't have an ever-shifting burden of proof, either. A logical opinion does not rely upon logical fallacy. Moreover, a logical opinion can be examined, and examing that opinion is not an insult to the person who promoted it.

I don't know what ever-shifting burden of proof you're referring to. And, relying on logical fallacy? What are you talking about? I gave a reason for the trap to be unfair just as objective as your reason for it to be fair. And, yet you can give no proof that it isn't objective.

"Using Search =/= to "Taking 20 while using Search".

Fine, it doesn't matter. They should be able to roll a 1 and find any trap. Prove that is "wrong."

Please tell me where in the RAW it states that one should be able to assume that one's Search check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched? If not, please tell me which statements you infer this from.

The RAW doesn't state that, but it does state that all traps can be found with a Search check. The playstyle indicates that all traps should be able to be found by a party if it is to be used against that party. This isn't my playstyle, but I don't claim that it is a less objective playstyle than my own. To do so would be... insulting.

You don't really believe that, do you?

Actually, you would have to if you were going to establish some kind of objective standard for what is and what is not fair. You would have to establish the lowest common denominator. If most D&D players are not of above average intelligence, then an objective trap cannot require an above average intelligence to bypass. That wouldn't be fair.

 

[Lanefan]

By the RAW.

So if it's there to be found, and you take 20, you *have* to find it? More evidence why "take-20" is a bad rule...

Then you can't use those certain traps.

What?! Are you telling me that as a DM I can't design a trap into a module that can only be found the hard way? Poppycock, says this old curmudgeon!

Lanefan

 

[ThirdWizard]

So if it's there to be found, and you take 20, you *have* to find it? More evidence why "take-20" is a bad rule...

What?! Are you telling me that as a DM I can't design a trap into a module that can only be found the hard way? Poppycock, says this old curmudgeon!

Lanefan

Not at all. I'm saying that if someone has that certain playstyle, you can't tell them that they are playing the game objectively wrong. I'm saying that they aren't having wrongbadfun, and they are just as entitled to play the way they think is best as you are entitled to play the way you think is best.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is no "absense of B." B is always present. Always. Even if you don't know it is. You have a B that you are using to form what you believe is fair. Same for me. We can't remove ourselves from these contexts.

Is your playstyle the only playstyle which is fair?

If you believe so, then we are obviously not going to agree. If not, then you must believe that there are other playstyles which are fair.

These things form a set. Let us call it "Fair Playstyles".

If you do not believe that there are unfair playstyles, then the set is inclusive of all playstyles. However, even if the set is empty or contains only one playstyle, we can create another set called "Unfair Playstyles".

Now, I would argue that a playstyle in which the DM tries to kill the PCs, or a playstyle in which the DM tries to force the PCs to take actions he directs, are automatically part of the set of Unfair Playstyles. In essence, I would argue that the set of Unfair Playstyles consists of those playstyles in which the intent is not to play fair. YMMV.

I would then argue that something which falls into the set of "Fair Playstyles" is either fair or an aberration (because anyone can make a mistake, even if their intent is to be fair).

A thing can be unfair because it is not intended to be fair in the first place, or a thing can be unfair because it doesn't live up to the intent to be fair. However, the context of fairness itself is the set of Fair Playstyles, not the subset of My Favorite Playstyle.

If you had played in only my games your whole life, then do you not think that your oppinion on what is fair and what is not fair would be closer to mine?

I don't know. Does the question mean that I never played in any other games, or that I was never given the opportunity to study logic, philosophy, and ethics? If it means only the first, then I would imagine not. It does not follow that because your game is fair, games that are not like yours are unfair. One does not have to have experience of multiple playstyles to recognize the logical fallacy involved here:

If my game is fair, then games unlike mine must be unfair.

If a salmon is a fish, then things unlike salmon must not be fish.​

The problem is not that the statement is wrong per se. The problem is that, because what makes a salmon a fish is not determined, you do not know how something must vary from a salmon in order to not be a fish. Using this reasoning, one could easily conclude that sharks, skates, rays, eels, and even trout are not fish. Yet they are all fish.

As a salmon is an object in the set Fish, your fair game is part of the set Fair Playstyles. If you define fairness in an example outside your game using the standard of your game rather the the standard of the set to which your game belongs, you are in the same position as the person who determines that eels are not fish because eels are in some ways dissimilar to salmon.

You seem to be claiming some kind of objectivity that is above other people's. Where do these credentials come from? What makes you the final arbiter in what is fair and what is not fair more than I? You are making the claim that you are a better judge of what is and is not fair than the majority of ENWorld itself!

Please. If logic, study of ethics, and objectivity were more widespread, every advertising agency in the world would go bankrupt. There is a reason why corrupt governments discourage and/or cut funding to education, you know.

I am hardly the final arbiter as to what is fair or not. Anyone who bothers to examine the situation logically, and uses that examination to create a logical argument, is presumably capable of being objective. OTOH, am I hardly likely to agree that you are right simply because you are strident.

You claim, in effect, that the only determinant of fairness is "Because it will kill a PC in my game." This is the very definition of subjectivity, and the antithesis of objectivity. In other words, within this debate I am more objective than you simply because you choose to argue from a basis which is as strongly subjective as possible.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fine, it doesn't matter. They should be able to roll a 1 and find any trap. Prove that is "wrong."

That is an example of the ever-shifting burden of proof. At one point, we actually agreed on a burden of proof. What made you change your mind? I submit that it was that, as the consequences of that burden of proof became apparent, they did not support your position.

BTW, what you are doing above is also a combination of several logical fallacies, including the ubiquitous strawman and red herring techniques.

The RAW doesn't state that, but it does state that all traps can be found with a Search check. The playstyle indicates that all traps should be able to be found by a party if it is to be used against that party.

Quote, please.

Actually, you would have to if you were going to establish some kind of objective standard for what is and what is not fair. You would have to establish the lowest common denominator. If most D&D players are not of above average intelligence, then an objective trap cannot require an above average intelligence to bypass. That wouldn't be fair.

No. You must establish the lowest common denominator if, and only if, the basis for "fairness" is in relationship to each individual. Which might be why you find the "difficult" trap of the OP unfair, while I find it fair. I am saying that the trap is fair if it falls within the set of "Fair Playstyles" while you are saying that it is fair only if it falls within the lowest common denominator of that set.

That also explains "They should be able to roll a 1 and find any trap."


RC