| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to come up with a fallacy that is named after me, like the Stormwind Fallacy, but I'm lazy; so I'm going to have you do it for me.
What kind of fallacy do you think would befit someone of my reputation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how about the
Ravingdork Fallacy
When a person cites someone as an authority on a subject because that person has a lot of experience, but it then rejected out of hand due to the idea that said person is crazy. It is similar to, but different from the argument from authority, because the person is an actual authority, they're just also considered too crazy to consider anyway.
Not the best, but it's a start until more creative people pop up.
edit: and already ninja'd by a better one.... dang it!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just spam that "fighters can't have nice things and wizards are teh ebil!". Those are a fallacies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork Fallacy-The belief that if you ask the message boards for advice you will receive the best advice possible. Example) "Make me the most broken xxxx possible."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hrm...how about a Law instead?
"No matter how insane the character, there is always a game being played somewhere where the character makes perfect sense."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Ravingdork Fallacy: Because the rules say you *can* do it doesn't mean you *should* do it.
There are plenty of extreme character builds or uses of the rules that are ridiculously overpowered and/or fun breaking.
Like when I recently read your build for a half-orc barbarian-druid who can wildshape into a huge behemoth hippo and do 32d8+X of damage in a single attack.
Or in my game last weekend where a fire yai oni with a tetsubo (maul) of the Titans sundered and destroyed the tank's +5 armor (and that of her cohort), then pummeled the unarmored character into a pulp.
Most games already ignore the wanton destruction of magical items after a fireball, even though they "normally" should roll saving throws.
Everything here is 100% game legal, but very few would be recommended to do outside of the occasional story element.
I always read Ravingdork posts when I come across them, and identify with them quite a bit, because they always seem to revolve around the same theme:
"It's okay for your players to be powerful."
I always read Ravingdork posts when I come across them, and identify with them quite a bit, because they always seem to revolve around the same theme:
"It's okay for your players to be powerful."
Which isn't actually a fallacy. Hm.
The Ravingdork Fallacy: Because the rules say you *can* do it doesn't mean you *should* do it.
That is perfect IMO :)
Not to mention, it's something I believe in very strongly. The rules allow me to make an ineffective character to represent someone not suited to adventuring. That doesn't mean I should take one on a dungeon crawl with a random group of gamers I've never met before. The rules say I can make AM BARBARIAN, but that doesn't mean that character will be welcome in a heavy RP group dealing with sociopolitical issues between kingdoms (although, admittedly, the latter idea amuses me enough to want to actually see it tried :D)
So just flip it around to make it a fallacy. "Your players must be invalidated at all times or you will have failed as a GM."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've got it. It might apply better to someone else, but RD works well enough:
Just because someone has found an exploit doesn't mean they're trying to exploit the system.
This isn't a two-way fallacy like the Stormwind Fallacy, but I think it applies fairly well. And it could actually be used in discussions.
"Hey guys, you can stop a shadowdancer from shadow jumping by casting Darkness so there's no shadows!"
"You're trying to exploit the system!"
"No, it's just an interesting observation of the RAW. Ravingdork Fallacy!"
Or something like that?
I don't actually know but, uh, you misspelled fallacy.
Yeah, totally missed that typo. Darn. Hopefully a board moderator will be kind enough to fix it for me. ;)
So far I'm really liking the following:
"Because the rules say you can do it doesn't mean you should do it."
"No matter how insane the character, there is always a game being played somewhere where the character makes perfect sense."
"Your players must be invalidated at all times or you will have failed as a GM."
It doesn't necessarily have to be a fallacy. Just something really memorable and fun. :D
EDIT:
I think I've got it. It might apply better to someone else, but RD works well enough:
Just because someone has found an exploit doesn't mean they're trying to exploit the system.
This isn't a two-way fallacy like the Stormwind Fallacy, but I think it applies fairly well. And it could actually be used in discussions.
"Hey guys, you can stop a shadowdancer from shadow jumping by casting Darkness so there's no shadows!"
"You're trying to exploit the system!"
"No, it's just an interesting observation of the RAW. Ravingdork Fallacy!"Or something like that?
Love it!
"A good roll does not mean a strategy was good. A bad roll does not mean a strategy was bad."
Corollary:
"Success and/or failure has no impact on future success and/or failure."
This reminds me of some VERY effective characters I once played that, due to a long series of unfortunate rolls, everyone in the party thought were completely useless...
Did you base this off of my having shared some of those experiences on these boards, or is it just a coincidence?
|
"A good roll does not mean a strategy was good. A bad roll does not mean a strategy was bad."
Corollary:
"Success and/or failure has no impact on future success and/or failure."
This reminds me of some VERY effective characters I once played that, due to a long series of unfortunate rolls, everyone in the party thought were completely useless...
Did you base this off of my having shared some of those experiences on these boards, or is it just a coincidence?
Coincidence. Though it's an experience shared. A little "cold" dice and the table begins to think "who brought THIS guy?"
Honestly, just trying to adapt Gambler's Fallacy to Pathfinder.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Ravingdork Fallacy: "Fallacy" has an "i" in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if someone else comes up w it then it is really their fallacy.
I call shenanigans on this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Less a belief and more for jest.
Clearly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less a belief and more for jest.
Clearly.
On the internet, water is as clear as gravy. On the internet, nobody knows you are nude, covered in whipped cream. On the internet, nobody knows you are one of several billions apes randomly tapping on keyboards...
Edit: wait, no, no, everybody knows that last one...
I only ever go online when I'm nude and covered in whipped cream. Am I the only one?Less a belief and more for jest.
Clearly.
On the internet, water is as clear as gravy. On the internet, nobody knows you are nude, covered in whipped cream. On the internet, nobody knows you are one of several billions apes randomly tapping on keyboards...
Edit: wait, no, no, everybody knows that last one...
I will admit to ADDING stuff to the whipped cream, but no, youre not the only one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Kobold Cleaver Fallacy: The belief that Kobold Cleaver is not better than you in every possible way.
Guys! Guyyys! I finished! Guys, I...wait, I think I got off-task again. Yup. I forgot what we were supposed to be doing.
I will admit to ADDING stuff to the whipped cream, but no, youre not the only one.I only ever go online when I'm nude and covered in whipped cream. Am I the only one?Less a belief and more for jest.
Clearly.
On the internet, water is as clear as gravy. On the internet, nobody knows you are nude, covered in whipped cream. On the internet, nobody knows you are one of several billions apes randomly tapping on keyboards...
Edit: wait, no, no, everybody knows that last one...
whipped cream? psssh, prudes.
The Ravingdork Fallacy:
Just because an idea is good doesn't mean people will want to use it.
The ravingdork Fallacy:
Fluff is immutable, you can't call your barbarian a swashbuckler.
The Ravingdork Fallacy:
Rollplay is roleplay. Roleplay is rollplay.
The Ravingdork Fallacy:
Rollplay is roleplay. Roleplay is rollplay.
I could've sworn I had that one patented.
The Ravingdork Fallacy :
It takes a dork to be raving..but not all ravers are dorks. :)
I think I've got it. It might apply better to someone else, but RD works well enough:
Just because someone has found an exploit doesn't mean they're trying to exploit the system.
This isn't a two-way fallacy like the Stormwind Fallacy, but I think it applies fairly well. And it could actually be used in discussions.
"Hey guys, you can stop a shadowdancer from shadow jumping by casting Darkness so there's no shadows!"
"You're trying to exploit the system!"
"No, it's just an interesting observation of the RAW. Ravingdork Fallacy!"Or something like that?
Relating to this, here's something someone whom has made as many off the wall characters as Ravingdork should know quite well:
"Just because it exploits the system doesn't mean it's a powerful option."
Fallicy Fallacy
The Ravingdork Fallacy:
Just because I CAN post something online doesn't mean I should
I know you've said before RD that when you're being capricious with a thread you'll throw it into the first post, but I feel like I've been caught in a couple of your forum beartraps without warning. You're far more clever than anyone gives you credit for oh master of the NPC.
It doesn't specifically say I can't therefore I can.
It said I couldn't, but didn't say i couldn't do it on a full moon on a tuesday, therefor i can do it on a full moon on a tuesday.
Which isn't actually a fallacy. Hm.I always read Ravingdork posts when I come across them, and identify with them quite a bit, because they always seem to revolve around the same theme:
"It's okay for your players to be powerful."
Yeah, needs to be rewritten into "Stormwind format."
Fallacy:
"My PCs breeze through all my encounters therefore they must be too powerful, and I must find a way to nerf them."
Truth:
"Your job as the GM is not to win, it is to provide fun for your PCs. If they enjoy being powerful, consider giving them harder challenges instead of taking things away from them."
It doesn't specifically say I can't therefore I can.
It said I couldn't, but didn't say i couldn't do it on a full moon on a tuesday, therefor i can do it on a full moon on a tuesday.
This reminds me of some of the strained logic I've been forced to use from time to time while playing devil's advocate.