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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 4920087" data-attributes="member: 5890">From his non-logically-sounding bits, VK seems to be saying that you can't use the argument that:roll-playing and role-playing are not mutually exclusive to say that roll-playing AND role-playing at the same time is better than only role-playing without paying attention to the mechanicsWhich may or may not be true.But then his statistics seem to go on to say that role-players get to play more characters than roll-players, so therefore they are superior.And if you want to tear up the logical argument and throw it away, you just have to construct a legal character in a system that cannot communicate or otherwise express itself (ie - not roleplayable), but is very very good at doing something (that it cannot make a decision to do/not do).I'm sure that it would be trivial to find a system where it's possible to make an indestructable rock as a legitimate character. Said character is supremely optimized and impossible to roleplay. Does that make optimization better than roleplaying? No, don't be ridiculous! But it does disprove the "roleplayers are better because they can play more theoretical characters in the infinite matrix of characters" logical nonsense.Now, on to the amusing spin-off arguments!I propose that any fallacy produced on an internet forum is not actually a fallacy. I call it the fallacy fallacy.I'm hoping someone manages to extend this fallacy somehow so that we get a horde of vikings descending from the ceiling chanting fallacy over and over again any time someone tries to continue the discussion.</blockquote>

Verification