Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4917726" data-attributes="member: 710">I am not convinced that formal logic is helpful when discussing the act of roleplaying. It is probably most helpful for describing the mechanical aspects of RPGs, but the &quot;interactive&quot;/&quot;storytelling&quot;/roleplaying&quot; aspect?Formal Logic consists of rules to generate new conclusions. But you can only reach new conclusions if you start with some premises or axioms.For applying formal logic to any system, we need to establish these premises (and we must ensure that these premises are true at every point).It is a lot simpler to prove the Stormwind Fallacy by showing a optimzied character and the player optimzing and roleplaying that character than using formal logic. Why do I have to think of these &quot;logic&quot; questions my father had to solve at the police academy?[sblock]Axioms: All pencils can write, and all books can read. Glasses can read and write. Conclusion: Therefore glasses are smarter than pencils and books.The conclusion is wrong, because the axioms do not state anything about intelligence. Axioms: All pencils can write, and all books can be written and read. Glasses can read and write. Conclusion: Pencils can write books. Glasses can read books. This conclusion is correct. [/sblock]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4917726, member: 710"] I am not convinced that formal logic is helpful when discussing the act of roleplaying. It is probably most helpful for describing the mechanical aspects of RPGs, but the "interactive"/"storytelling"/roleplaying" aspect? Formal Logic consists of rules to generate new conclusions. But you can only reach new conclusions if you start with some premises or axioms. For applying formal logic to any system, we need to establish these premises (and we must ensure that these premises are true at every point). It is a lot simpler to prove the Stormwind Fallacy by showing a optimzied character and the player optimzing and roleplaying that character than using formal logic. Why do I have to think of these "logic" questions my father had to solve at the police academy? [sblock] Axioms: All pencils can write, and all books can read. Glasses can read and write. Conclusion: Therefore glasses are smarter than pencils and books. The conclusion is wrong, because the axioms do not state anything about intelligence. Axioms: All pencils can write, and all books can be written and read. Glasses can read and write. Conclusion: Pencils can write books. Glasses can read books. This conclusion is correct. [/sblock] [/QUOTE]

Verification