Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6553568" data-attributes="member: 996">A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.&nbsp; It's a well-known fallacy, but I was only alluding to it.If you want to go back up the thread, you'll see that I was dealing with someone arguing against an inaccurate re-phrasing of something I said.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; &nbsp;On the contrary, there's some quite useful logic and theory around games - and not GNS, either - and things like myth and literary genres are entirely susceptible to reasoned analysis.&nbsp; &nbsp;Nothing much to do with how poorly D&amp;D has emulated the broader fantasy genre, nor how poorly it has balanced casters vs non-casters through most of its history.&nbsp;There's nothing 'midrange' about D&amp;D magic.&nbsp; It tends to encompass the full scope of magical abilities and magic items from myth and literature - and make a bizarre swath of it easily accessible to PC casters.&nbsp; It's understandable putting so much in the game, especially if the DM were meant to pick and choose only some of it (like magic items in 5e, for instance).&nbsp; It's problematic to put so much of the vast range of magical abilities every displayed by anyone in myth or literature under the heading of one character class, or at the fingertips of one member of that class.&nbsp; &nbsp;And, if this were a logical debate, that would be an /ad populum/.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Both of those options are facilitated by discussing and understanding the issues the game has had, or grappled with - or still has.&nbsp;If it were, D&amp;D magic might not be so far out of line.&nbsp; But, no, it's just the one D&amp;D came closest to emulating.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6553568, member: 996"] A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. It's a well-known fallacy, but I was only alluding to it. If you want to go back up the thread, you'll see that I was dealing with someone arguing against an inaccurate re-phrasing of something I said. That's it. On the contrary, there's some quite useful logic and theory around games - and not GNS, either - and things like myth and literary genres are entirely susceptible to reasoned analysis. Nothing much to do with how poorly D&D has emulated the broader fantasy genre, nor how poorly it has balanced casters vs non-casters through most of its history. There's nothing 'midrange' about D&D magic. It tends to encompass the full scope of magical abilities and magic items from myth and literature - and make a bizarre swath of it easily accessible to PC casters. It's understandable putting so much in the game, especially if the DM were meant to pick and choose only some of it (like magic items in 5e, for instance). It's problematic to put so much of the vast range of magical abilities every displayed by anyone in myth or literature under the heading of one character class, or at the fingertips of one member of that class. And, if this were a logical debate, that would be an /ad populum/. Both of those options are facilitated by discussing and understanding the issues the game has had, or grappled with - or still has. If it were, D&D magic might not be so far out of line. But, no, it's just the one D&D came closest to emulating. [/QUOTE]

Verification