PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Obryn]

I see. That's completely different.

You really don't see a difference? I'm not claiming I have access to any kind of universal truth on the subject. I don't think there is a fact of the matter as to who is or is not reasonable. I'm saying that I think he is being unreasonable, and that I don't want to play games with people I find unreasonable. Gaming is a lot about the personalities of the people you're gaming with. I don't think my personality would mesh with someone who refused to play in a game if another person were playing a dragonborn.

So you keep asking, but I fail to see anyone arguing that.

Then what are you arguing? Really - I could not be more confused. I'm saying I wouldn't want to game with a person who got too heated about a fantasy race in D&D, on either side of the screen. Are you arguing that I don't have the capacity to decide this? Are you arguing that, regardless of whether I find them unreasonable, I should game with them?

I'm arguing my opinion, and you seem to be worried that my opinion doesn't match up with some kind of reality. Or that I'm being unfairly critical. Which is fine - after all, I think you and he are being unfairly critical about something else entirely.

The issue is your calling (sorry, finding) people unreasonable, wrong, raging nerds and prime donne because they won't play or even run games with elements they don't like. That's what I find unreasonable.

OK, good! You can find that unreasonable! You can say, "I don't want to play with Obryn because I believe he has said this."

And, to explain yet again, a DM banning a race in a game does not make them a prima donna. A DM freaking out about a race could be. A player being mildly unhappy because another player is running a Dragonborn is not wrong or a raging nerd. A player who would refuse to sit down at a table with one is one I'd probably rather not have at the table anyway.

That you haven't seen this character?

Nope, I did.

And I'd say that it's his group's decision.

If he came to my group, it would be more about how he presented everything and how well he got along with the existing group than it would anything else.

-O

 

[Fenes]

You really don't see a difference? I'm not claiming I have access to any kind of universal truth on the subject. I don't think there is a fact of the matter as to who is or is not reasonable. I'm saying that I think he is being unreasonable, and that I don't want to play games with people I find unreasonable. Gaming is a lot about the personalities of the people you're gaming with. I don't think my personality would mesh with someone who refused to play in a game if another person were playing a dragonborn.

There is no difference between saying "I think X is a prima donna" and "X is a prima donna".

 

[Obryn]

There is no difference between saying "I think X is a prima donna" and "X is a prima donna".

Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?

One is an opinion asserted as fact, and the other is a fact about an opinion. If you don't see a distinction, I see why you're confused. In either case, there's no actual fact of the matter, and people can reasonably disagree about it. The first statement asserts something about the world, while the second asserts something about an opinion.

-O

 

[Fenes]

Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?

Would you say there is a difference between calling an opinion or PC race names, and calling a player names?

It doesn't matter if you say "I think X is a prima donna" or "X is a prima donna" - you're insulting X in both cases.

 

[Obryn]

Would you say there is a difference between calling an opinion or PC race names, and calling a player names?

It doesn't matter if you say "I think X is a prima donna" or "X is a prima donna" - you're insulting X in both cases.

I don't see that I ever called anyone a prima donna in this thread. I think you're making a connection that's not there, leaping from "This characteristic could indicate a gaming prima donna" to "everyone with this characteristic is a gaming prima donna" or maybe to "Obryn just called me a prima donna." That's not the connection I'm making. Like I've said, it's about attitudes, not actions.

Now, I have said there was a chance I wouldn't want to play D&D with you, because as far as I can tell from this thread, our approaches to gaming don't match. But "gaming prima donnas" are just one subset of a larger group of "people Obryn doesn't know he'd want to game with," and someone in the latter set is not necessarily a member of the former. Gaming is a social activity, and I take personalities and attitudes into account more than I do abstract design philosophies.

Everyone gets to pick out what characteristics they look for in a game or in a group of gamers. This just happens to be mine. I enjoy laid-back games with laid-back players, and presumably laid-back players and DMs won't refuse to play a game where one PC has a character race they find aesthetically unappealing. From your statements in this thread, I am assuming that you are not laid back in the ways I find important for people I game with. That's all. I'm not impugning you or anyone else as a human being or as a D&D player - I'm talking about my preferences for the people I play with.

(And, on the other side of the coin, I would also assume that I, as a laid-back gamer, am too laid-back for many other gaming groups who prize a more serious tone, and I presumably would not find myself a good fit for their tables.)

-O

 

[Celebrim]

Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?

I would say there is no difference between the two. The only way that they would be different is if you thought your opinion was wrong, which would call into question why you held it as an opinion in the first place.

Let's put it this way, if I said, "I think Morrus is stupid.", there wouldn't be any significant difference between that and saying, "Morrus is stupid." If I think Morrus is stupid, then I think that my subjective assessment reflects the objective facts and that even if I cannot yet establish Morrus's lack of intelligence objectively, I'm asserting that if we could that my opinion would remain sound.

One is an opinion asserted as fact, and the other is a fact about an opinion. If you don't see a distinction, I see why you're confused. In either case, there's no actual fact of the matter, and people can reasonably disagree about it. The first statement asserts something about the world, while the second asserts something about an opinion.

If you assert an opinion about an objective quality or about something that implies objective value, then its not just an opinion. Saying, "I find his position unreasonable.", is the same as saying, "His position is unreasonable." "I Find" in particular, because of its connection with the langauge of mathematics and logic proofs, carries the conotation of stronger assertion than "I think", because it implies you discovered some tangible evidence. The only thing that keep you from being full in 'ad hominem land' is you are criticizing the position, not the person: "I find his position unreasonable." rather than "I find him to be unreasonable." However, "I find his position unreasonable." isn't that far off from "I find him to be the sort of person who holds unreasonable opinions."

When you say, "I find his position to be unreasonable.", you are saying, "He objectively does not have a right to hold his position." That may not be what you mean to say, but that's what you said. Unreasonable things are things that sane people should be able to agree are not valid. If you are really wanting to emphasis the fact that you are holding an opinion, you probably should concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion. If you don't concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion, then you aren't holding an opinion at all.

 

[Obryn]

I would say there is no difference between the two. The only way that they would be different is if you thought your opinion was wrong, which would call into question why you held it as an opinion in the first place.

Let's put it this way, if I said, "I think Morrus is stupid.", there wouldn't be any significant difference between that and saying, "Morrus is stupid." If I think Morrus is stupid, then I think that my subjective assessment reflects the objective facts and that even if I cannot yet establish Morrus's lack of intelligence objectively, I'm asserting that if we could that my opinion would remain sound.

No, in this case, I can't be asserting a position about the fact of the matter, because I don't believe there to be a fact of the matter about which I could hold a position. I'm holding a position based on my subjective experience, not based on access to any objective metaphysical truths.

An attitude that I find reasonable, someone else might find unreasonable. Something I believe minor, someone else may believe crucial based on their other attitudes and beliefs. There's no objective fact of the matter in either case, because it's based on subjective experience.

I mean, we can wander down the epistemological trail here, but I think we're getting pretty far astray from what I think is my main point - I prefer to game with people who have certain attitudes. If you have wildly different attitudes, I may not prefer to game with you, and presumably vice-versa.

I don't believe there's an objectively right or a wrong way to pretend to be an elf.

When you say, "I find his position to be unreasonable.", you are saying, "He objectively does not have a right to hold his position." That may not be what you mean to say, but that's what you said. Unreasonable things are things that sane people should be able to agree are not valid. If you are really wanting to emphasis the fact that you are holding an opinion, you probably should concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion. If you don't concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion, then you aren't holding an opinion at all.

I've been conceding the reasonableness of the contrary opinion all along. I'm speaking subjectively about me, my game group, and the people I want to game with.

-O

 

[Fenes]

And I prefer to talk with people who are a bit more polite than you.

 

[Hussar]

Celebrim, would your answers to Firelance change if you were not running your particular homebrew?

If, for instance, you were running Forgotten Realms, and someone wanted to play a tiefling character, would you allow it?

 

[Piratecat]

Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?

One is an opinion asserted as fact, and the other is a fact about an opinion. If you don't see a distinction, I see why you're confused. In either case, there's no actual fact of the matter, and people can reasonably disagree about it. The first statement asserts something about the world, while the second asserts something about an opinion.

-O

For reference, folks, moderation on this board asserts that there is a difference. We are far more likely to get cranky about "Dwarves are stupid" than we are "I think dwarves are stupid," because the former involves you stating your possibly incorrect opinion as a truism. While everyone is welcome to hold their own opinion, I have very little patience for other people telling me what I'm required to think.

Either way, I think this thread is about done, so I'll swing it closed.