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: 3047076" data-attributes="member: 18280">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</blockquote>

Verification