Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212

Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.

That a vocal minority has another experience is not evidence that Aus_Snow's experiences IRL are not reflective of the experiences of the majority.

I honestly don't know any way that one could demonstrate on EN World what the experiences of the majority are.

However, if you say "A causes B" and someone says "A does not always cause B, because IME I have A without B" then that reasoning doesn't require that said someone's experiences are relfective of the majority.

 

[gizmo33]

No. Use of symbols != polysyllabication.

I guess I still don't get it.

Extrapolation to extremes -> strawman

I didn't extrapolate anything. I'm using an example that avoids a debate on whether or not something is challenging. Were I to use an example like "20th level character vs. 10 ogres", then we could be debating whether or not such a thing were a challenge, which would miss the point in an otherwise irrelevant point.

If I were trying to talk about issues relating to not being able to lift a weight off of the ground, I would say something like "let's say you were trying to lift a 10,000 pound block". You'd probably respond with "whoa! That's an exaggeration, I can't lift a 1,000 pound block. You're reasoning is based on a strawman!" My reasoning isn't based on the particular example I used, only the charateristics that the example has.

If you think I'm missing some characteristics then you could always just say what they are. For example, if you think that an opponent possessing magic powers *always* makes the combat interesting, then the kobold example isn't really appropriate, and holding on to that *would* be a strawman. As it stands now I think you're over-applying the concept.

Insertion of previously unseen clause.

Are you playing games or are you trying to say something important here?

Equivocation.

I'm not trying to mislead you (if that's even what you mean - I find the use of the word without any context to be somewhat ironic given it's definition). I really believe in the concept of what I'm saying and if there's any slipperiness to the definitions than the mistake is in good faith. If there's some prize for being right that you're trying to win I'll just concede so you can go collect it. Otherwise it seems like you're verging on making a point but I can't tell what it is.

No. You -> wrong.

You're welcome to all the attention you can get. I'm trying to do what I can.

 

[Aus_Snow]

You mean like this?

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212

Nope.

But hey, if it does it for you, that's great!

Asking for a statistically rigorous, scientifically valid demonstration of the zeitgeist in the context of a messageboard discussion is unrealistic at best, disingenuous at worst. Hence: you first.

*yawn*

Uh, what? Oh, the "you first" thing. Sure, whatever floats your boat, d00d. And, well, repeating illogical demands certainly seems to. So have fun! That's what the game's all about. Uh. . .

 

[hong]

That a vocal minority has another experience is not evidence that Aus_Snow's experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.

They are, however, indicative of a problem with the existing ruleset. Now whether that problem is severe enough that it actually needs fixing is another matter, but that doesn't change the fact of the existence of the problem.

I honestly don't know any way that one could demonstrate on EN World what the experiences of the majority are.

One can, however, point to the overall mood and consensus within the community, to identify problems that need fixing. Thus 4E is not changing the 6 stats for D&D characters, for example, because there is no vocal body of opinion calling for their change.

However, if you say "A causes B" and someone says "A does not always cause B, because IME I have A without B" then that reasoning doesn't require that said someone's experiences are relfective of the majority.

Without context, said someone's experience is relevant to noone except said someone.

 

[hong]

Nope.

I guessed you would say that.

*yawn*

Malachias Invictus does this better than you.

Uh, what? Oh, the "you first" thing. Sure, whatever floats your boat, d00d. And, well, repeating illogical demands certainly seems to. So have fun! That's what the game's all about. Uh. . .

Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.

 

[Raven Crowking]

They are, however, indicative of a problem with the existing ruleset.

Well, I'm glad you're convinced. I, for one, am not.

RC

 

[Aus_Snow]

I guessed you would say that.

You are *truly* impressive!

Malachias Invictus does this better than you.

Yes, yes. Get to the fun button already. You know you want to.

Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.

Ah, there we are. Got your fix now? Good, good.

But hey, how many's that? 5 per encounter? 6? Impressive, indeed!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Again, it worked for me, and it worked for those I played with. Of course, that might just be a difference in game focus happening there.

In my own house rules, I did include the means for magicians to store unused spell slots

Ah, yes. The Oberoni Fallacy.

"The rules work perfectly fine because you can ignore them."

 

[hong]

I guess I still don't get it.

Yeah.

I didn't extrapolate anything. I'm using an example that avoids a debate on whether or not something is challenging. Were I to use an example like "20th level character vs. 10 ogres", then we could be debating whether or not such a thing were a challenge, which would miss the point in an otherwise irrelevant point.

Fighting a rock is also not challenging in any edition of D&D. It is, of course, not particularly relevant to any discussion of actual games.

Are you playing games or are you trying to say something important here?

Yes.

I'm not trying to mislead you (if that's even what you mean - I find the use of the word without any context to be somewhat ironic given it's definition). I really believe in the concept of what I'm saying and if there's any slipperiness to the definitions than the mistake is in good faith. If there's some prize for being right that you're trying to win I'll just concede so you can go collect it. Otherwise it seems like you're verging on making a point but I can't tell what it is.

It's very simple. Medium-term resource attrition (in the time window of one day) is not a necessary condition for a risky encounter in an RPG. It is also not a necessary condition for an interesting/challenging/fun/whatever-you-call-it encounter in an RPG. It may happen to be a necessary condition for YOUR game using the THIRD EDITION D&D RULESET, but nobody except you is interested in your 3E D&D game. In particular, extending the same preconditions to a game built on a completely different set of assumptions vis-a-vis resource management, is rather unwise.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You can't win, Aus_Snow. Hong's guns never run out of bullets.