D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

That is very much untrue. The reason you show your work on a math exam is because the answer is largely irrelevant. The point of the exam is to prove that you know the process for achieving that answer. The fact that your answer happened to be right could easily be a lucky guess. This is a problem teachers run into all the time when dealing with students and parents who completely misunderstand the point of testing. It's really frustrating.

Except they're testing to see if I know the specific process they want to teach me. If' I've got another process where I just think it all through in my head rather than writing it down (I can think far faster than I can write) and still get the right answer, I shouldn't be docked marks for using a different - but still just as accurate - process.

And sure, lucky guess will occasionally get me the right answer. When I get 42 or so right answers out of 50, though, that's way beyond what guessing can get me; I've clearly got a process for getting to the answer, it's just internal and has little if anything to do with what they're trying to teach me.

 

[Lanefan]

You aren’t trad gaming.

If he's not trad gaming, and he's not narrativist gaming, then what is he doing?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except they're testing to see if I know the specific process they want to teach me. If' I've got another process where I just think it all through in my head rather than writing it down (I can think far faster than I can write) and still get the right answer, I shouldn't be docked marks for using a different - but still just as accurate - process.

It doesn't have to be the single specific process they want. It just needs to be a process that you have shown to them.

Believe me, I hear you. I do almost all of my math in my head. Even calculus stuff, I usually do in my head. But showing your reasoning--whatever that reasoning might be--is very important.

And sure, lucky guess will occasionally get me the right answer. When I get 42 or so right answers out of 50, though, that's way beyond what guessing can get me; I've clearly got a process for getting to the answer, it's just internal and has little if anything to do with what they're trying to teach me.

Then you should show them that process. Spell it out, tease it out, display it. That really, truly is the point. It's sort of like asking high school students to write analytical essays of extremely well-known, well-studied works like Shakespeare. We don't care about whether students know how to structure a five-paragraph essay, that's pointless. Practicing the skills of developing a meaningful claim, finding the evidence to support that claim, and (most importantly of all) communicating that evidence to someone else so they can understand what you're saying, are incredibly important skills for anyone.

No one cares if you can prove the Riemann Hypothesis only in your head. No one cares if you have an unspoken mental model of quantum gravity. They care about you being able to communicate that to other people so they can also understand it.

That's why we learn mathematical skills beyond basic arithmetic. Not to have the ability to solve a quadratic equation mentally. It's to have the ability to explain to other people why that, and only that, could be the solution to some problem.

Being factually correct isn't enough. You have to explain why you're factually correct. That's literally what human knowledge is, the ability to show why something is factually correct.

 

[Lanefan]

Unfortunately, sometimes, all we have is pure carbon--secondary sources. When that happens, we do our best to not build anything particularly load-bearing out of it.

Somehow I don't think "Sorry, dear, I'm a carbon-based lifeform and thus not suited for load-bearing" is gonna cut it as an excuse next time I'm asked to carry in the groceries.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've not seen this in the thread. I'll say it here and now: your tastes are reasonable and fun! It's nice that your style of gaming exists! Does that help?

I most certainly have, though I appreciate your olive branch, it would be nice to have that come up, say, when we have things like a poster portraying all PbtA games as inherently wacko loco ridiculousness without even the tiniest semblance of reason or rationality.

 

[Don Durito]

You ever tried playing Football without a referee? It pretty quickly descends into everyone arguing about the offside rule.

This reminds me of how I explain the role of IGOs in Global Governance to students.

It's like a group of people of equal status (nominally) getting together to play a game of football and choosing one of their number to act as referee.

The referee in such a situation has no genuine authority and so their ability to function as referee depends on the continuing willingness of everyone to accept their legitimacy. (As opposed to a professional football association - or in the metaphor - what a hypothetical world government would be able to do if it actually existed).

It occurs to me that this is not a bad metaphor for a GM's role. I've never liked the use of the word "authority" because any authority the GM has is very provisional.

 

[Lanefan]

But you have insisted: absolute power. Absolute power does not discuss. It declares. That's, again, what MAKES it absolute.

That "declares" step can come after discussion, however; and in fact must if the discussion otherwise ends in a stalemate.

It's when the "declares" step happens before or without discussion that problems can arise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Somehow I don't think "Sorry, dear, I'm a carbon-based lifeform and thus not suited for load-bearing" is gonna cut it as an excuse next time I'm asked to carry in the groceries.

When you cut out the context of a sentence, you can make it sound as stupid as you like.

I was very clearly talking about constructing buildings out of pure carbon, as in bituminous coal. Hence why I spoke of the contrast between pure iron, pure carbon, and an alloy between the two. I don't think you're going to have anyone giving the excuse that they're a bloody STEEL-based lifeform anytime soon.

I'll also note that this is the second time you have dismissed an argument by exploiting (or, in this case, attempting to exploit) a loophole, instead of doing even the slightest bit of effort to actually engage with anything I said. It's very tedious to discuss things with someone who goes for quick gotchas rather than even attempting to understand what was said.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That "declares" step can come after discussion, however; and in fact must if the discussion otherwise ends in a stalemate.

It's when the "declares" step happens before or without discussion that problems can arise.

Absolute power does not discuss. It declares.

Absolute power that requires discussion before anything can be done simply, flatly, is not absolute.

Absolute power MEANS no discussion. That's what it means!

A dictator is LITERALLY "one who speaks". That's what the word literally means.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't have to be the single specific process they want. It just needs to be a process that you have shown to them.

Believe me, I hear you. I do almost all of my math in my head. Even calculus stuff, I usually do in my head. But showing your reasoning--whatever that reasoning might be--is very important.

Then you should show them that process. Spell it out, tease it out, display it.

Except most of the time I didn't know and-or couldn't explain how I did it, I just did it. Trying to explain it or write it down would be a hopeless endeavour as doing so would throw off my train of thought.

That really, truly is the point. It's sort of like asking high school students to write analytical essays of extremely well-known, well-studied works like Shakespeare. We don't care about whether students know how to structure a five-paragraph essay, that's pointless. Practicing the skills of developing a meaningful claim, finding the evidence to support that claim, and (most importantly of all) communicating that evidence to someone else so they can understand what you're saying, are incredibly important skills for anyone.

Maybe that's why I always found essay writing to be a complete and utter waste of time.

No one cares if you can prove the Riemann Hypothesis only in your head. No one cares if you have an unspoken mental model of quantum gravity. They care about you being able to communicate that to other people so they can also understand it.

Meh - if I understand it, that's good enough for me.

Being factually correct isn't enough. You have to explain why you're factually correct. That's literally what human knowledge is, the ability to show why something is factually correct.

Being factually correct is enough. If someone doesn't accept it, I'm under no obligation to explain. The same evidence is available to everyone.