Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8193889" data-attributes="member: 6779310">The cost of system 1 is already paid; the sunk cost fallacy only exists as a fallacy when the prior paid-off item is of little or no benefit to the ongoing effort, or cannot pay off, or incurs additional costs. Perhaps that portion of it escapes you? (I'll note that that subtlety is often left out in summaries. It wasn't left out in my Psych 111 class in 1990, nor my Philosophy class in 1989, nor my various education methods classes in 2007. ) The sunk refers to unrecoverability of the expense. Sunk cost benefit is in fact the whole point of universal systems - a large number of genres are supported by each one I've read and used. None of them is truly universal. Once the cost for the core is paid (in time and money, or time and risk of being caught pirating), new settings within the well supported range have reduced cost to learn vs a custom system. Note that it's not uncommon for there to be little to no reduction in monetary/fiscal cost, only in (presumably uncompensated) time.Recent case in point: The new Stargate RPG... the sunk m(unrecoverable) costs of the potential purchasers&nbsp; are not a fallacy to the publisher, which is why it's using a D&amp;D 5E derivative. It saves a large portion of mental effort learning the game. Whether or not it works for any given purchaser is a different matter, and from their point of view, the sunk cost of 5E might not have been paid. Fortunately, it's a standalone, so the fiscal costs aren't increased by not knowing/having D&amp;D 5e, only the time and mental effort costs. Further, for some, it's not going to work. for others, it will. If GM X buys the core and it doesn't work for GM X and/or X's players, buying the supplements becomes a sunk cost fallacy if they're buying them for other than reading or collecting value. (And there are a shocking number of people who buy games just to read the fluff.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aramis erak, post: 8193889, member: 6779310"] The cost of system 1 is already paid; the sunk cost fallacy only exists as a fallacy when the prior paid-off item is of little or no benefit to the ongoing effort, or cannot pay off, or incurs additional costs. Perhaps that portion of it escapes you? (I'll note that that subtlety is often left out in summaries. It wasn't left out in my Psych 111 class in 1990, nor my Philosophy class in 1989, nor my various education methods classes in 2007. ) The sunk refers to unrecoverability of the expense. Sunk cost benefit is in fact the whole point of universal systems - a large number of genres are supported by each one I've read and used. None of them is truly universal. Once the cost for the core is paid (in time and money, or time and risk of being caught pirating), new settings within the well supported range have reduced cost to learn vs a custom system. Note that it's not uncommon for there to be little to no reduction in monetary/fiscal cost, only in (presumably uncompensated) time. Recent case in point: The new Stargate RPG... the sunk m(unrecoverable) costs of the potential purchasers are not a fallacy to the publisher, which is why it's using a D&D 5E derivative. It saves a large portion of mental effort learning the game. Whether or not it works for any given purchaser is a different matter, and from their point of view, the sunk cost of 5E might not have been paid. Fortunately, it's a standalone, so the fiscal costs aren't increased by not knowing/having D&D 5e, only the time and mental effort costs. Further, for some, it's not going to work. for others, it will. If GM X buys the core and it doesn't work for GM X and/or X's players, buying the supplements becomes a sunk cost fallacy if they're buying them for other than reading or collecting value. (And there are a shocking number of people who buy games just to read the fluff.) [/QUOTE]

Verification