Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8193423" data-attributes="member: 177">With respect, lots of people quote logical fallacies, and don't understand them fully.  The number of times folks claim in reports that a statemetn is an ad hominem argument, when it is not, might stun you.Again, with respect, if the statement is of the form, "I have already spent time..." then you are implicitly engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, as you are appealing to the value of that past time as support.  If you only ever reference the future time you might spend on a new system, then maybe you can avoid the fallacy.  Doing so lazily probably still is.  For example, let us consider financial costs, and say you already play D&D.  Are you never going to buy D&D content again?  Or, if you play, are you going to keep buying new books, pdfs, adventures, and so on?  If the latter, then you already accept you have some number of dollars per year you are investing in play.  Comparing "$$ cost of new game" to "zero $$ cost of old game" only holds if you aren't actually going to spend any money on the old game.As for time, this gets to a thing I've said repeatedly in this thread, but let us attach it to this context.There was some time in the past in which you didn't know, say, D&D.  When presented with D&D, you engaged in the time to learn it, and probably didn't consider the time you took to learn it compared to the time it takes to engage in other amusements you had.  Why not? How is it that time spent was okay, but new time spent isn't?How is it that learning the game is considered a cost, rather than an amusement itself?  Can you approach learning in a way that keeps it from being a cost?</blockquote>

Verification