So what's gold gonna be for?

[gizmo33]

Godzilla is not a mammal. Big Bird is not a mammal. They have "not being a mammal" in common, and so for the purposes of argument from analogy, Big Bird is identical to Godzilla.

An analogy doesn't presume that two things are identical, so I don't know what you're reasoning is trying to show here.

Or perhaps analogy is more than just linking together two unrelated concepts by virtue of trivial similarities.

Trivial is in the eye of the beholder. It's uninformative to just throw in adjectives in places where the issue is actually in dispute. I would guess that whatever similarities a person is trying to show with an analogy, that person finds those similarities to be significant.

Now you have an opinion about how important you feel that information is, that's cool. But acting like there some logical grounds for making a distinction between trivial and non-trivial IMO is unwarranted.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Claiming that something is a false analogy is not usually a claim as to the logical validity of the argument, but rather the applicability of the invoked metaphor to the situation under discussion. The heroin argument is therefore a false analogy by virtue of its inapplicability to most situations, specifically those in which crunch-based game books are not harmful to the people who buy them.

Doh! Beat me to it.

Gizmo, to answer when you say "You object to the premise of the analogy (I personally am not clear on what it is) but that's not grounds for assuming a logical error," a False Analogy is a type of material logical fallacy. By definition it is the grounds for assuming a logical error.

I'm willing to tentatively agree with you that Clavis has a valid claim that (in your wording) what might be good for business in the short term might not be good for the hobby in the long run. It's just that I'm not seeing a convincing enough argument to fully agree.

I think I might be waffling here. Does this make any sense?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Of course, heroin sells pretty well too, but I don't think anyone thinks its a good idea to promote that.

Just because something sells doesn't mean it's actually good for the players, or the hobby. In my experience the overdone PCs who are dripping with powers and magic items get seriously boring very quickly. Players think they want to play those characters, but if they have any maturity at all they'll get bored at the lack of challenge. Extreme super-powers are addictive, but ultimately game-destroying.

I love it when people who are having fun are too dumb to realize they aren't actually having fun. Thanks for illuminating us.

Regardless, my point was LOTS of gamers are interested in new, cool toys. Be they feats, classes or magic items. The butt kicker player is a bigger part of D&D than I think is represented on this board. Ignoring that would be unwise.

I'm perfectly fine with toning down the amount of extra butt kicking points gold can buy (I've actually argued for less magic item dependence). I'm just saying some type of means for such players to spend their wealth is a necessity.

 

[gizmo33]

I think I might be waffling here. Does this make any sense?

The core of the issue AFAICT is that you're trying to suggest that there is a logical fallacy where it's really a case of you not agreeing with his premise, or the characteristics of the things that he's drawing an analogy from. His analogy, AFAICT established that as long as he believed a certain thing about the situation (that a certain style of gaming was bad) that telling him that it was profitable was not going to be a convincing argument. The reason I would not say there is a logical fallacy here is that basis that you use to show that the two elements of the analogy are not related is a matter of opinion.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

"Out-dated"?! This is Dungeons and Dragons. Go tell the next person you meet that you play Dungeons and Dragons. And then tell them "but I play a more modern style".

Compared to the squad based game D&D evolved from? Yeah, its a somewhat more modern style.

Anyway, if someone enjoys a certain kind of game, who cares?

I dont. I've in fact been arguing for all types of play to be supported.

As for the rest of this, it's imaginative but weird. I wouldn't give flour bonuses for sacrificing game books - you must be talking about the Storyteller system.

Hey, its his weird logic that comes to the conclusion that gaming styles that dont sell tons of books are played more often than those that do. I was left scratching my head about how that could be... my book sacrafice theory is the best I could do at the time.

 

[Clavis]

Claiming that something is a false analogy is not usually a claim as to the logical validity of the argument, but rather the applicability of the invoked metaphor to the situation under discussion. The heroin argument is therefore a false analogy by virtue of its inapplicability to most situations, specifically those in which crunch-based game books are not harmful to the people who buy them.

The purpose of the analogy was to provide an example of a situation where giving people what they want is not the morally correct thing to do, because it is not in the consumer's best long-term interests. It was an extreme example, meant to startle and provoke conversation. Obviously, the analogy shouldn't be taken too literally. Game books can only directly harm players when they fall on someone's head from a high shelf, for example.

I am well aware that argument from analogy and metaphor is bad logic. The analogy I used was meant as an illustration only.

 

[gizmo33]

Compared to the squad based game D&D evolved from? Yeah, its a somewhat more modern style.

Your still playing Dungeons and Dragons though. That's a game from the '80s, at best. Then again, that was my point - who really cares? In fact, the game is about stealing tropes from ancient and medieval history - so something being old fashioned, you would think would be a virtue. In any case, from a 50,000 foot view of the situation, I was having a hard time seeing how one form of DnD was cool and another wasn't since most people in the world would laugh at the idea.

I dont. I've in fact been arguing for all types of play to be supported.

You seem to come down very hard on games with flour mills. I remember a magical mill as one of my more interesting encounter areas, so it hurt my feelings.

Hey, its his weird logic that comes to the conclusion that gaming styles that dont sell tons of books are played more often than those that do. I was left scratching my head about how that could be... my book sacrafice theory is the best I could do at the time.

I'm the DM about 95% of the time in the games I play, and the people I play with own lots of books but they probably play 95% of the time. Now they've got tons of books for all sorts of things and they read them for fun, or maybe try to talk me into incorporating an element from a book into my game. But I don't buy many new books at all. So what we actually *use* during the game is different than what people own. Is it different enough to say that there's no correlation between what people buy and gaming style? I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me that what people buy and what they do might not match up 100%. (Also, some of the things I have bought I wish I didn't.)

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I love it when people who are having fun are too dumb to realize they aren't actually having fun. Thanks for illuminating us.

Excellent use of the badwrongfun argument.

 

[Mallus]

Hey, its his weird logic that comes to the conclusion that gaming styles that dont sell tons of books are played more often than those that do.

What I actually said was that sales data isn't always a reliable metric. Which isn't the same thing as saying that it proves one playstyle is more popular than another. At all. In fact, it's kinda the opposite of that.

But hey, you're free to read my words any way you like. I'm not possessive.

 

[Mallus]

You seem to come down very hard on games with flour mills.

He does seem to have it in for milling, doesn't he?

So what we actually *use* during the game is different than what people own.

Exactly. And a specific play style might be popular among players even if the published supplements in a similar vein don't sell well.

Is it different enough to say that there's no correlation between what people buy and gaming style? I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me that what people buy and what they do might not match up 100%. (Also, some of the things I have bought I wish I didn't.)

What I was saying is that you can't assume too much out of a correlation between sales and gaming styles. Specifically, because of the DIY nature of gaming.