D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

[GMforPowergamers]

I have a friend who makes this claim about Thac0, and to this day, calls 3e "that horrible WotC edition". I don't even think he's cognizant that 4e or 5e are things. Worse, half the rules he uses are completely made up, so for the life of me, I don't even understand what his gripe is, since our discussions never progress past Thac0.

Which to this day I sometimes have issues calculating when I go over to play D&D with him. I did once try to get his opinion on the Player's Option line, but he just says "I never owned those books".

if his name is larry I know him too

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, no. Because you are assuming ("eye of the beholder") that they are indistinguishable.

Sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, which means that it is, by definition, irrational (or, if you prefer, it is a part of the cognitive biases we all have). All it means is that people suck at understanding future benefits, and overvalue past costs.

On the other hand, path dependency matters even assuming a world with perfect information and rational actors.

It can also be a fallacy in assuming that staying with what you've got is more desirable because you've already invested resource (in time, energy, learning or other coin) will be more worthwhile to you than the benefits of changing lanes. In other words, whether staying with what you have is rational or not is still a matter of perspective.

 

[Thomas Shey]

These are opinions held by individual gamers about the system and are entirely subjective. The sunk cost fallacy is the unwillingness to change a behavior based on previously invested time. If the player agreed with the argument that the stats were a dubious system but refused to change "because that's the way I have always done it and changing is too much work" then you might have a sunk cost fallacy but if they genuinely like the system as is or don't agree with the arguments presented you don't.

The problem is, this still assumes the reasoning expressed is the actual reason for the response. While this sometimes may well be, people are really good at coming up with reasons for doing things that are not their actual reasons.

And of course, when looking at system change, even if some part of your market doesn't want it, the question of "how much" and/or "will they get over it" is not a irrelevant question, assuming you think the change is actually benign.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It can also be a fallacy in assuming that staying with what you've got is more desirable because you've already invested resource (in time, energy, learning or other coin) will be more worthwhile to you than the benefits of changing lanes. In other words, whether staying with what you have is rational or not is still a matter of perspective.

In short, no.

Look, maybe we are talking about different things. But you clearly are using a definition of "rational" that is not used when people that I am familiar with are discussing these concepts. Whether something is "rational" or not in this context cannot, by definition, be a matter of perspective. See also homo economicus.

In addition, something either is or isn't a fallacy; the issues raised by path dependencies are not .... dependent on fallacies and cognitive biases.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In short, no.

Look, maybe we are talking about different things. But you clearly are using a definition of "rational" that is not used when people that I am familiar with are discussing these concepts. Whether something is "rational" or not in this context cannot, by definition, be a matter of perspective. See also homo economicus.

In addition, something either is or isn't a fallacy; the issues raised by path dependencies are not .... dependent on fallacies and cognitive biases.

is there some rule we can quote when people on the internet keep trying to claim that something is or is not a fallacy?

 

[Hex08]

The problem is, this still assumes the reasoning expressed is the actual reason for the response. While this sometimes may well be, people are really good at coming up with reasons for doing things that are not their actual reasons.

That is most certainly true, and works both ways, but unless we can mind-read or perform psychological evaluations we really have no choice, in my view (especially when speaking in general terms such as in this thread), but to take others at their word. Ascribing motivations without evidence is dangerous.

 

[overgeeked]

is there some rule we can quote when people on the internet keep trying to claim that something is or is not a fallacy?

Lists of logical fallacies.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people. Don't be fooled! This website has been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy logic wherever it may...

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

is there some rule we can quote when people on the internet keep trying to claim that something is or is not a fallacy?

Eh, the appeals to informal logic (and fallacies) such as ad hominem and strawman on the internet are so common (and so commonly misused and misunderstood) that it's like a generation of people have taken Philosophy 101 and understood nothing.*

In the end, if people want to argue about arguing, let 'em!

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by fallacies, posting bloviating tweeting,
dragging themselves through the blasted forums at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo of arguing with anonymous strangers



*In truth, I doubt most have even take that- I think it's just part of the vocabulary of the internet at this point.

 

[overgeeked]

Eh, the appeals to informal logic (and fallacies) such as ad hominem and strawman on the internet are so common (and so commonly misused and misunderstood) that it's like a generation of people have taken Philosophy 101 and understood nothing.*

*In truth, I doubt most have even take that- I think it's just part of the vocabulary of the internet at this point.

They parrot the jargon but fail to understand the meaning behind the words.

Feynman's Technique I think works wonders. "Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language. Without using the [new] word tell me what you know now about the [topic]."

I think we could cut through a lot of BS if we even half attempted to use that. Skip the jargon and explain what you think it means. But people would rather sound informed (i.e. use jargon they don't understand) than be informed (i.e actually know what they're talking about).

How to Use the Feynman Technique to Identify Pseudoscience

Richard Feynman's method for understanding science can also be used for detecting pseudoscience.

bigthink.com

In the end, if people want to argue about arguing, let 'em!

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by fallacies, posting bloviating tweeting,
dragging themselves through the blasted forums at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo of arguing with anonymous strangers

I used to think the 24-hour news cycle was Orwell's Two Minutes of Hate expanded and made available on demand. Then I found the internet.

 

[Hex08]

is there some rule we can quote when people on the internet keep trying to claim that something is or is not a fallacy?

I almost wish that were the case. Mentioning the fallacy you think someone has violated is poor argumentation. Trying to understand why someone said/believes what they said and then countering the point if needed is the better way to go. Fallacies should guide your reasoning, not be used as a bludgeon to point out the possible way someone has a screwed up point of view. Also, while a violation of a formal logical fallacy is always a fallacy, on the internet those are rarely discussed. Instead we tend to toss around informal logical fallacies and violating them is not always a fallacy, they can be situation dependent. For instance, the appeal to authority can be a fallacy or not. "My neighbor is a doctor and he said something medical so it must be true" is a fallacy and an appeal to authority, the neighbor may be talking outside his field of expertise for example. "The consensus of the medical community specializing is the relevant field of study said something medical so it must be true" is not a fallacy because, although it is still an appeal to authority that authority is giving us the best current information available.