The Eight Primary Game Design Fallacies


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

"Because dragons"

The false idea that because one fantastic element exists, therefore all fantastic elements must exist and no attempt at realism or verisimilitude whatsoever should be made.

In other words an idea that a game is either 'checkbooks and cubicles". Or "everything fantastic' with no room in between.

The problem with this as a fallacy is that the person declaring the fallacy is insisting that their judgement of where to draw the line separating fantasy from realism is the only judgement that counts.

In other words, it isn't a fallacy so much as a difference in opinion.

Not really? Only declaration is that one fantastic element existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements are required to be fantastic as well, and that in and of itself fantastic elements existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements should be 'realistic' game elements.

In other words. It's insisting that the line isn't immediately drawn on the far side of the field as soon as the first dragon shows up.

Your statement doesn't disprove mine. You're still showing that the one calling fallacy in actuality disagrees about the placement of the line.

It is not illogical to assume that a world not bound by our laws of reality might have unrealistic things. The point of contention is the degree.

If you want to say that, then you have to delete storm wind as well.

Having some fantastic things is not equivalent to having all fantastic things.


Matthew Downie wrote:

"Because dragons" is one of those arguments that can be used rightly or wrongly depending on the context.

Silly arguments:
"There's no rule that says dead characters can't act. And in a world with dragons, there's no reason my character shouldn't be able to continue to fight normally after his head was cut off."

Reasonable arguments:
"If there's enough of a food chain to support trolls, ogres, and breeding populations of dozens of different types of dragons, shouldn't there also be enough room for T-Rexes in the world?"

Matter of taste arguments:
"There are dragons who can fly, therefore gravity is different, therefore it's perfectly reasonable for my hero to fall off a cliff onto pointy rocks and walk away." In a D&D game? Maybe. In Game of Thrones? No.

Enough room? Perhaps. Still that is using the argument more broadly from a logical standpoint where you could insert a large predator which a was completely non fantastic and use the exact same argument.

The second one less so. Fantastic creatures are exceptions to an otherwise norm. Make you exceptions make a lot of exceptions but if you use that sort of ratcheting logic on all fantastic things around then you will end up with funhouse physics and a cartoon very quickly..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

"Because dragons"

The false idea that because one fantastic element exists, therefore all fantastic elements must exist and no attempt at realism or verisimilitude whatsoever should be made.

In other words an idea that a game is either 'checkbooks and cubicles". Or "everything fantastic' with no room in between.

The problem with this as a fallacy is that the person declaring the fallacy is insisting that their judgement of where to draw the line separating fantasy from realism is the only judgement that counts.

In other words, it isn't a fallacy so much as a difference in opinion.

Not really? Only declaration is that one fantastic element existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements are required to be fantastic as well, and that in and of itself fantastic elements existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements should be 'realistic' game elements.

In other words. It's insisting that the line isn't immediately drawn on the far side of the field as soon as the first dragon shows up.

Your statement doesn't disprove mine. You're still showing that the one calling fallacy in actuality disagrees about the placement of the line.

It is not illogical to assume that a world not bound by our laws of reality might have unrealistic things. The point of contention is the degree.

There is a difference between something being black and white, or being greyscale. I think this is what is being referred to, that some individuals are seeing it as absolute all or nothing, and not as a spectrum where everyone has their own line somewhere in the middle.


RDM42 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

"Because dragons"

The false idea that because one fantastic element exists, therefore all fantastic elements must exist and no attempt at realism or verisimilitude whatsoever should be made.

In other words an idea that a game is either 'checkbooks and cubicles". Or "everything fantastic' with no room in between.

The problem with this as a fallacy is that the person declaring the fallacy is insisting that their judgement of where to draw the line separating fantasy from realism is the only judgement that counts.

In other words, it isn't a fallacy so much as a difference in opinion.

Not really? Only declaration is that one fantastic element existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements are required to be fantastic as well, and that in and of itself fantastic elements existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements should be 'realistic' game elements.

In other words. It's insisting that the line isn't immediately drawn on the far side of the field as soon as the first dragon shows up.

Your statement doesn't disprove mine. You're still showing that the one calling fallacy in actuality disagrees about the placement of the line.

It is not illogical to assume that a world not bound by our laws of reality might have unrealistic things. The point of contention is the degree.

If you want to say that, then you have to delete storm wind as well.

Having some fantastic things is not equivalent to having all fantastic things.

That's a non-sequiter, Stormwind has nothing to do with this.

All and none are different ends of a spectrum. If you say some, you're still on that spectrum.

The case could as easily be made that saying "only dragons and other select creatures can violate basic laws of physics" is actually a fallacy itself: special pleading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

"Because dragons"

The false idea that because one fantastic element exists, therefore all fantastic elements must exist and no attempt at realism or verisimilitude whatsoever should be made.

The problem with this as a fallacy is that the person declaring the fallacy is insisting that their judgement of where to draw the line separating fantasy from realism is the only judgement that counts.

In other words, it isn't a fallacy so much as a difference in opinion.

I disagree, it is a fallacy.

Even if everything can exist in a make-believe fantasy world, it does not mean that everything needs to or should be included.

Some settings have a narrower focus/scope/fantasy elements than others, and that should be respected. A setting can include dragons but not [insert fantasy element], or the other way around.

Although this can come in conflict with the realism fallacy or the aesthetics fallacy, "Because Dragons" is a fallacy in its own.


Quote:

6. The Aesthetic Fallacy

This fallacy is less a flaw in logic and more a bad mindset. It basically states that it doesn't matter if a feature works as advertised, is balanced, and matches its fluff perfectly, if I don't like that fluff. This could also be termed the "Martials can't have nice things fallacy". Simply put, even if you could balance a system by making Monks work like guys in kung fu movies and Fighters work like heroes of legend, that's not acceptable because it doesn't match my internal aesthetic vision. People who make this fallacy will often make comments like "go play Exalted" or "thats weeaboo" when you throw it at them.

This one I do take some exception to, but more for its implications. People who want things to stay the same and target ideas because "it's weeaboo" are being jerks. On the other hand, people who are looking for solutions, but who don't want to have to resort to "weeabooness", are just trying to make their game match their aesthetic preferences. Which is what everyone's trying to do.

Basically, aesthetics themselves are a perfectly fine reason to dislike a mechanic. It's why some people don't like guns in their fantasy. That said, it's all about what you do in your own group.

In case you can't tell, I may be projecting some stuff I've been dealing with recently from a certain other thread onto here. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Quote:

6. The Aesthetic Fallacy

This fallacy is less a flaw in logic and more a bad mindset. It basically states that it doesn't matter if a feature works as advertised, is balanced, and matches its fluff perfectly, if I don't like that fluff. This could also be termed the "Martials can't have nice things fallacy". Simply put, even if you could balance a system by making Monks work like guys in kung fu movies and Fighters work like heroes of legend, that's not acceptable because it doesn't match my internal aesthetic vision. People who make this fallacy will often make comments like "go play Exalted" or "thats weeaboo" when you throw it at them.

This one I do take some exception to, but more for its implications. People who want things to stay the same and target ideas because "it's weeaboo" are being jerks. On the other hand, people who are looking for solutions, but who don't want to have to resort to "weeabooness", are just trying to make their game match their aesthetic preferences. Which is what everyone's trying to do.

Basically, aesthetics themselves are a perfectly fine reason to dislike a mechanic. It's why some people don't like guns in their fantasy. That said, it's all about what you do in your own group.

In case you can't tell, I may be projecting some stuff I've been dealing with recently from a certain other thread onto here. :P

Yeah, aesthetics and fluff are, if not the whole point of gaming, an awful lot of it. People just have different tastes in fluff and aesthetics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

"Because dragons"

The false idea that because one fantastic element exists, therefore all fantastic elements must exist and no attempt at realism or verisimilitude whatsoever should be made.

In other words an idea that a game is either 'checkbooks and cubicles". Or "everything fantastic' with no room in between.

The problem with this as a fallacy is that the person declaring the fallacy is insisting that their judgement of where to draw the line separating fantasy from realism is the only judgement that counts.

In other words, it isn't a fallacy so much as a difference in opinion.

No, it's absolutely a fallacy, and specifically the False Dichotomy fallacy known to the ancients. The person claiming that it's a fallacy is (correctly) pointing out that there are multiple choices besides "everything" and "nothing." In this case, the choices would include a practically limitless set of "something."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:


All and none are different ends of a spectrum. If you say some, you're still on that spectrum.

... which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy.

Quote:


The case could as easily be made that saying "only dragons and other select creatures can violate basic laws of physics" is actually a fallacy itself: special pleading.

Only if the person making the case is stating that that's the only possibility. In which case it's still not actually a fallacy, merely an incorrect statement. (If I say "1 and 1 are 6," that's not a fallacy, that's bad math. If I say "I put two gerbils in a cage and a little later had six gerbils, so 1 and 1 are 6,..." that's a fallacy.)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scythia wrote:


All and none are different ends of a spectrum. If you say some, you're still on that spectrum.

... which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy.

Quote:


The case could as easily be made that saying "only dragons and other select creatures can violate basic laws of physics" is actually a fallacy itself: special pleading.
Only if the person making the case is stating that that's the only possibility. In which case it's still not actually a fallacy, merely an incorrect statement. (If I say "1 and 1 are 6," that's not a fallacy, that's bad math. If I say "I put two gerbils in a cage and a little later had six gerbils, so 1 and 1 are 6,..." that's a fallacy.)

It's special pleading because it attempts to exclude dragons and whatever other select creatures (and almost always magic) from the rules that apply to literally everything (physics), while using those same rules to restrict everything else.

That's like saying "Let's have a discussion about the possibility of a perpetual motion machine", then saying "but plutonium, and uranium are not effected by the laws of thermodynamics". It invalidates the entire discussion unless it can be adequately explained. "Because I said so" is rarely adequate.


Athaleon wrote:


1.The Realism Fallacy
2. The Band-Aid Fallacy
3. The Stormwind Fallacy
4. The Anecdote Fallacy
5. The Houserule Fallacy a.k.a. The Oberoni Fallacy
6. The Aesthetic Fallacy
7. The Mathematican's Fallacy
8. The Party Ad-Hominem Fallacy

Been there, seen that, in some ancient cases probably done that, with all of them.

I agree with the list. These are all genuine problems, or at least they are problems in many groups. There are probably some groups out there where some or even all of these are accepted and seen as positive, but personally, I think these are all genuine problems. I'm not sure about the "fallacy" word. I think I'd prefer something like "hypothesis" for each of them, since the people espousing them, try to prove them right and proper, but that's just me nitpicking.

1: One of my oldest catchphrases is "Here, catch this super-realistic fireball I'm lobbing at you!"

If you want realism, live an ordinary life. That's realism. Roleplaying is about suspension of disbelief at its very core. Whether you are playing John D. Ordinary in a perfectly non-fantastical setting, going to work each day and taking care of his wife, two and one half kids and fifteen dogs (and personally I would run screaming from such a game), you're still suspending your disbelief by putting yourself behind the eyes of John D. Ordinary. While you may have to suspend your disbelief slightly more strenuously to play "Frag" Ecking Fighterpilot, or Walter Izard, you are essentially doing the exact same thing. Pretending and partaking in makebelief. This rule is the bane of fun for a lot of people. Getting bogged down in endless, fruitless, needless debates about whether a dragon can fly when a bumblebee can, is enough to suck the fun and entertainment out of almost any game I can think of.

2: I don't see this one as often as some people seem to, mostly because that sort of thing tends to be handled between games by the group I'm in, but that's not to say that the problem isn't there (see what I did there?). There's something to be said for fixing minutiae, however. For example, in my own games, I find it nonsensical that holding high ground only gives a bonus to hit in melee, but not for ranged combat. I've therefore introduced a house rule saying anyone holding high ground over an enemy and equipped with a weapon capable of hitting that enemy, whether in melee or at range, gets the same bonus. For ranged combat, this may be offset by range increments, but that doesn't change the fact that you have an advantage over your opponent by holding a superior position. This is both fixing what I consider a small problem, and a general systemic flaw. Others may disagree, of course.

3: This is horrible, elitist snotspam! It bases itself on the idea, that one player or GM can judge another based solely on the build of their character and not on their actual RP performance. It is also demonstrably false. Personally I dislike maximization because I like to play characters who are not perfect or necessarily the best in the world at what they set out to do, but who nonetheless become skilled at it and can hold their own, but that is not to say that someone who does play maximized characters is automatically a bad roleplayer or even just a worse roleplayer than me. That kind of thinking really is elitist hogwash and in my group, it would be met by an instant banhammer if one of my players started that kind of argument. What I am advocating to my own players is to be mindful that there are people in the group who are not as experienced at character-building as others, and that everyone is there to have fun and to have a role to play, without feeling superfluous. Thankfully, my players are all mature enough and sensible enough (and if any of them are reading this they're going to kill me for using such ignoble and horrible terms to describe them), to minimize their maximizing to a point, where everyone can function without simply being bit-players in the game. Maximizing solely for the purpose of maximizing makes my skin crawl. Maximizing while creating a fantastic, fully rounded character with a complete personality and the ability to function in the game setting, whether for good or evil, is fine.

4: "Gegen die dumheit kämpfen selbst die Götter vergebens" as an old, German saying goes. Translated that goes something along the lines of "Against stupidity, even the gods fight in vain". The idea that a problem only exists when a person can feel it for themselves is so abjectly dumb that a sensible player would leave a group in which it is practiced by the GM and the GM would put his or her foot down hard to a player who insisted on it, to lay down the law at his or her table. Not accepting the problems that others experience shows a basic lack of tact and manners that should not be seen around a game table.

5: Oh come on ... there are actually people who do this? "This problem doesn't exist anymore because I've houseruled my way out of it" is actually a thing? Next time you sit down with a new group of players or a new GM its going to be an issue all over again. Give feedback to the game developers to help them fix it in future versions of the game if nothing else. Or at least address the problem as necessary. Denying the existence of a problem doesn't make it go away. It's the Black Knight all over again, from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail.

"It's only a flesh wound! COME BACK HERE, I CAN STILL BITE YOU!"

Riiiiiiight.

6: It may be that some people uses this because they feel insecure in representing certain fluff correctly, convincingly or in a manner they are comfortable with. However, I absolutely acknowledge that it is a problem and that it is all too often used in a derogatory manner, whether through racism or in some other fashion. Personally, I think it is nonsensical in games that are not, as mentioned above, a John D. Ordinary-game set in Realville, Illitucky. Someone doesn't feel comfortable portraying Keleshites because they don't like Arabs? Keleshites aren't Arabs. They just look like them and draw on inspiration from that culture, but it is specifically not the same culture. Don't want to use Garund because you don't want to portray black people? Ergh, your choice but I'll find another table, thank you.

It becomes a problem when it becomes static and simply accepted. I myself have avoided psionics in fantasy games for a long time because I didn't feel comfortable with the fluff. I asked in another thread on this board for people to weigh in and it's clarified things for me, and thereby swayed me to a point where I'm going to allow it in future games, just to take one example. If I had simply said "I'll never change this because ew, Psionics, full stop, dixit" I would have taken away a potential for fun from my players on a permanent basis and that would, in my personal opinion, have been a bad move.

7: I've seen this done, and frankly, my experience shows me that the people guilty of this are mostly self-obsessed and convinced of their own intellectual superiority to a point where it becomes obnoxious. It's fine to want to fix a problem when you come across it, but this tends to fall completely over the cliff to the point where the person in question is basically redesigning the entire system because "My way works better!"

You find a problem in a crit-table in Rolemaster (they exist. The sheer volume of crit tables in that game makes it practically impossible for them not to exist), then go ahead and fix it. You don't like the way gunfire damage works in WoD (a common bone of contention for many WoD players and storytellers over the years) fix it. However, fixing it does not guarantee smooth sailing and a flawless game. People are people and problems will arise.

8: This will result in me pulling out the banhammer instantly, if done in a group I'm in. It has in the past and certainly will in the future if I should ever have the distinct misfortune of seeing it. People who insult other players or GMs at my table are told to pick up their dice and leave and, as Golum puts it, "never come back". I have pulled a variant of this just once in the past ... it's nineteen years ago now and I still feel intensely guilty and sorry for it. It was arguably my single worst moment as a roleplayer or GM ever. In the end, this usually boils down to jealousy or petty spite and it's disgusting when it happens, regardless of motivation.


Scythia wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scythia wrote:


All and none are different ends of a spectrum. If you say some, you're still on that spectrum.

... which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy.

Quote:


The case could as easily be made that saying "only dragons and other select creatures can violate basic laws of physics" is actually a fallacy itself: special pleading.
Only if the person making the case is stating that that's the only possibility. In which case it's still not actually a fallacy, merely an incorrect statement. (If I say "1 and 1 are 6," that's not a fallacy, that's bad math. If I say "I put two gerbils in a cage and a little later had six gerbils, so 1 and 1 are 6,..." that's a fallacy.)

It's special pleading because it attempts to exclude dragons and whatever other select creatures (and almost always magic) from the rules that apply to literally everything (physics), while using those same rules to restrict everything else.

That's like saying "Let's have a discussion about the possibility of a perpetual motion machine", then saying "but plutonium, and uranium are not effected by the laws of thermodynamics". It invalidates the entire discussion unless it can be adequately explained. "Because I said so" is rarely adequate.

That's problematic at best. If you try to apply every precedent set by a fantastic creature or ability or creature present in the game universally the result will be a feckless mush full of contradictions and impossibilities. Contradictions are necessary to make the game work at all, but walling them off and limiting them in places is necessary for a stable framework. We ar not trying to describe real world physics we are trying to make a workable game engine and those are not the same thing. Also, Magic by its very nature disobeys the basic normal laws of the universe. That's why it's magic.


Scythia wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scythia wrote:


All and none are different ends of a spectrum. If you say some, you're still on that spectrum.

... which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy.

Quote:


The case could as easily be made that saying "only dragons and other select creatures can violate basic laws of physics" is actually a fallacy itself: special pleading.
Only if the person making the case is stating that that's the only possibility. In which case it's still not actually a fallacy, merely an incorrect statement. (If I say "1 and 1 are 6," that's not a fallacy, that's bad math. If I say "I put two gerbils in a cage and a little later had six gerbils, so 1 and 1 are 6,..." that's a fallacy.)
It's special pleading because it attempts to exclude dragons and whatever other select creatures (and almost always magic) from the rules that apply to literally everything (physics), while using those same rules to restrict everything else.

That's not what what "special pleading" means.

Quote:


That's like saying "Let's have a discussion about the possibility of a perpetual motion machine", then saying "but plutonium, and uranium are not effected by the laws of thermodynamics". It invalidates the entire discussion unless it can be adequately explained.

Er, no. There's little else to say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Scythia wrote:


That's like saying "Let's have a discussion about the possibility of a perpetual motion machine", then saying "but plutonium, and uranium are not effected by the laws of thermodynamics". It invalidates the entire discussion unless it can be adequately explained. "Because I said so" is rarely adequate.
That's problematic at best. If you try to apply every precedent set by a fantastic creature or ability or creature present in the game universally the result will be a feckless mush full of contradictions and impossibilities.

It's more general than that. It makes nonsense out of all of fiction. Even so-called "realistic" fiction is unreal, by definition, and involves things that did not happen. Once you've accepted that any story you're telling, unless you're writing nonfiction and a much better than average journalist, involves extrapolations from what you understand, but don't know, you start to see where the continuum comes in.

One rule of thumb that I've learned (as in, been formally taught) is that a good way to write "nonrealistic" fiction is to start out by making a mental list of ways in which your world differs from the real one, introducing those elements early in the story, and then rigorously following those elements throughout the story. I've heard it described as "you get one chance to tell the reader how much disbelief you spend."

That's basically how Lord of the Rings works, for example. The opening starts by defining hobbits as well as the rest of the magical bestiary -- okay, we're in a world with fantastic beasts. A spellcasting character is introduce early, along with the conceit of the Rings. After that, though, there's not many new elements introduced.

The "Gil the ARM" stories by Larry Niven start by postulating a world where there's planetary space travel and a certain amount of low-level psionics (the titular character has an "imaginary arm"), but no hobbits and dragons, or even space monsters. The Lensman series has space travel, psionics, and space monsters. Lovecraft's Cthulhu stories often have space monsters, but not travel. This is all part of the ground rules the authors set for themselves to tell the story they want to tell; The Color From Space would actually be pretty pointless as a Lensman-story since Kinnison would simply boot the icky back to space where it came from. Problem solved by page 3, and a lot of blank paper in the magazine.

That's not, however, "special pleading." "Special pleading" is an argument supposed to apply to the real world, not an axiom applied as the definition of an unreal one.

One of the things that a lot of people need to remember is that fallacies, by definition, are all arguments.

This is a statement: Dragons exist.

This is an argument: Because dragons exist (in this fictional world), they have to live somewhere.

This is a fallacious argument: Because dragons exist (in this fictional world), beholders must also exist (in this fictional world).


Scythia wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scythia wrote:


All and none are different ends of a spectrum. If you say some, you're still on that spectrum.

... which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy.

Quote:


The case could as easily be made that saying "only dragons and other select creatures can violate basic laws of physics" is actually a fallacy itself: special pleading.
Only if the person making the case is stating that that's the only possibility. In which case it's still not actually a fallacy, merely an incorrect statement. (If I say "1 and 1 are 6," that's not a fallacy, that's bad math. If I say "I put two gerbils in a cage and a little later had six gerbils, so 1 and 1 are 6,..." that's a fallacy.)

It's special pleading because it attempts to exclude dragons and whatever other select creatures (and almost always magic) from the rules that apply to literally everything (physics), while using those same rules to restrict everything else.

That's like saying "Let's have a discussion about the possibility of a perpetual motion machine", then saying "but plutonium, and uranium are not effected by the laws of thermodynamics". It invalidates the entire discussion unless it can be adequately explained. "Because I said so" is rarely adequate.

Ok. Explain to me exactly how a magic missile really works. This should be interesting. A description of the effect doesn't count.

Shadow Lodge

Cap. Darling wrote:

Why are these design fallancies? They are more Logic flaws in the Way we talk in here.

Could be because the devs seem to buy into some of them.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
It really REALLY makes me mad when someone who likes a rules-light setting bashes another game, like Pathfinder, or White Wolf, or whatever, because they don't like complex, or in-depth, rules systems

Vice-versa.

And yes, saying that it isn't really a game, it's magic story time / Mother May I? is bashing it. As is trying to tell me the only reason I think I like it is because of the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.


Kthulhu wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
It really REALLY makes me mad when someone who likes a rules-light setting bashes another game, like Pathfinder, or White Wolf, or whatever, because they don't like complex, or in-depth, rules systems

Vice-versa.

And yes, saying that it isn't really a game, it's magic story time / Mother May I? is bashing it.

I admit the "magic story time/magic tea party" insult probably is the biggest thing on this website that causes my teeth to grind.


RDM42 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scythia wrote:


All and none are different ends of a spectrum. If you say some, you're still on that spectrum.

... which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy.

Quote:


The case could as easily be made that saying "only dragons and other select creatures can violate basic laws of physics" is actually a fallacy itself: special pleading.
Only if the person making the case is stating that that's the only possibility. In which case it's still not actually a fallacy, merely an incorrect statement. (If I say "1 and 1 are 6," that's not a fallacy, that's bad math. If I say "I put two gerbils in a cage and a little later had six gerbils, so 1 and 1 are 6,..." that's a fallacy.)

It's special pleading because it attempts to exclude dragons and whatever other select creatures (and almost always magic) from the rules that apply to literally everything (physics), while using those same rules to restrict everything else.

That's like saying "Let's have a discussion about the possibility of a perpetual motion machine", then saying "but plutonium, and uranium are not effected by the laws of thermodynamics". It invalidates the entire discussion unless it can be adequately explained. "Because I said so" is rarely adequate.

Ok. Explain to me exactly how a magic missile really works. This should be interesting. A description of the effect doesn't count.

The point isn't "dragons exist and therefore magic..."

The point is dragons can fly AND their flight isn't (su) or (ex). It's NATURAL!

So if the NATURAL (ie NOT magical) world allows dragons to fly, then what exactly is "unrealistic" about a human jumping 30' straight up?


Kthulhu wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
It really REALLY makes me mad when someone who likes a rules-light setting bashes another game, like Pathfinder, or White Wolf, or whatever, because they don't like complex, or in-depth, rules systems

Vice-versa.

And yes, saying that it isn't really a game, it's magic story time / Mother May I? is bashing it. As is trying to tell me the only reason I think I like it is because of the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.

Mother-may-I is a game. I'm not bashing it. I just don't want to play it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
It really REALLY makes me mad when someone who likes a rules-light setting bashes another game, like Pathfinder, or White Wolf, or whatever, because they don't like complex, or in-depth, rules systems

Vice-versa.

And yes, saying that it isn't really a game, it's magic story time / Mother May I? is bashing it. As is trying to tell me the only reason I think I like it is because of the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.

Mother-may-I is a game. I'm not bashing it. I just don't want to play it.

Nor are all games less rules-heavy than Pathfinder "Mother-may-I". Even the lightest games don't actually run that way, when played correctly and PF can easily turn into that if the GM runs it badly. It's an insulting put down for a game style you don't like. Please don't use it. You don't have to like rules-light games, you don't have to play them, but you don't need to put them down.

Especially in response to a post complaining about rules-light players bashing PF - which I find far less common here, which isn't surprising considering it's a PF board.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


The point is dragons can fly AND their flight isn't (su) or (ex). It's NATURAL!

So if the NATURAL (ie NOT magical) world allows dragons to fly, then what exactly is "unrealistic" about a human jumping 30' straight up?

Shrug. Dragons have more efficient musculature than you humans do.

Still a fallacy. How dragons work has nothing to do with how humans work, because.... slow down, because this is the important bit,.... humans are different from dragons.

They're different from jellyfish, too. Which is why there are things that jellyfish can do, and that humans can do. We ithilid, of course, combine many of the best aspects of both species, having both tentacles and opposable thumbs.

Because we're different from,.... wait for it,... both humans and jellyfish. And dragons, too, for that matter. It's all part of the glorious tapestry that makes life worth experiencing. And if there weren't things different from ilithids, where would we get inferior brains to eat?


I would add one more:
Acorns are as powerful as Oaks, or The Grandmaster of Flowers fallacy. This fallacy is based on the idea that something can start awful, but is balanced if it later becomes great. The reverse is also a fallacy.


Fergie wrote:

I would add one more:

Acorns are as powerful as Oaks, or The Grandmaster of Flowers fallacy. This fallacy is based on the idea that something can start awful, but is balanced if it later becomes great. The reverse is also a fallacy.

As I recall, the Grandmaster of Flowers started out entirely awful, and later became, in a Zen-like non-transformation, entirely terrible. Like Magikarp turning into ... Magikarp, but with a Groucho Marx mustache.

Would a non-transformation be a cisformation?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

The point is dragons can fly AND their flight isn't (su) or (ex). It's NATURAL!

So if the NATURAL (ie NOT magical) world allows dragons to fly, then what exactly is "unrealistic" about a human jumping 30' straight up?

Well, personally I don't have any problem with humans jumping 30' straight up - it's a perfectly valid trope in some genres. If you're playing that kind of game, trained humans can do that kind of thing.

But there's plenty of others where it doesn't fit.
Dragons can fly. It's part of the archetype of dragons. In most the source material, whether it's myth and legend or more modern genre literature, dragons can fly. (In some of the older stuff, they're land bound, but the winged version is very common in modern works.) In many of those genres, humans are much more limited and can't jump 30' straight up.
It's not a matter of determining the laws of physics that let dragons fly and figuring out what that would let humans do. It's not a matter of what's realistic and what isn't. It's a matter of what genre expectations you're looking for.

If you want an anime style game with dragons, then it makes sense the humans will be able to do crazy stuff too. If you want a SoI&F game, which also has dragons, then the humans are going to be much more limited. Arguing that Martin should let his characters be crazy superhuman "because dragons" is the fallacy.


Lord of the Rings is also a fair comparison, at least with regards to humans, dwarves and hobbits—I don't really remember what elves could pull off.


BigDTBone wrote:
Mother-may-I is a game. I'm not bashing it. I just don't want to play it.

Then your decision to play tabletop RPGs is confusing, given that the entity that determines the effects of your in-game decisions is a sentient being rather than a mechanistic system.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Lord of the Rings is also a fair comparison, at least with regards to humans, dwarves and hobbits—I don't really remember what elves could pull off.

Yeah, but everybody hates so much on LotRs these days, I hate using it. :)


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The point is dragons can fly AND their flight isn't (su) or (ex). It's NATURAL!

So if the NATURAL (ie NOT magical) world allows dragons to fly, then what exactly is "unrealistic" about a human jumping 30' straight up?

Well, personally I don't have any problem with humans jumping 30' straight up - it's a perfectly valid trope in some genres. If you're playing that kind of game, trained humans can do that kind of thing.

But there's plenty of others where it doesn't fit.
Dragons can fly. It's part of the archetype of dragons. In most the source material, whether it's myth and legend or more modern genre literature, dragons can fly. (In some of the older stuff, they're land bound, but the winged version is very common in modern works.) In many of those genres, humans are much more limited and can't jump 30' straight up.
It's not a matter of determining the laws of physics that let dragons fly and figuring out what that would let humans do. It's not a matter of what's realistic and what isn't. It's a matter of what genre expectations you're looking for.

If you want an anime style game with dragons, then it makes sense the humans will be able to do crazy stuff too. If you want a SoI&F game, which also has dragons, then the humans are going to be much more limited. Arguing that Martin should let his characters be crazy superhuman "because dragons" is the fallacy.

You are addressing an argument I didn't make. I said that dragon flight should be (su) or (ex). I didn't say that dragons shouldn't be able to fly.


Neurophage wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mother-may-I is a game. I'm not bashing it. I just don't want to play it.
Then your decision to play tabletop RPGs is confusing, given that the entity that determines the effects of your in-game decisions is a sentient being rather than a mechanistic system.

This statement falls somewhere between "debatable," and "patently false."


Well, in "Crouching Tiger Hidden plot Dragon", people can fly ?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mother-may-I is a game. I'm not bashing it. I just don't want to play it.
Then your decision to play tabletop RPGs is confusing, given that the entity that determines the effects of your in-game decisions is a sentient being rather than a mechanistic system.
This statement falls somewhere between "debatable," and "patently false."

If you've found the mythical "GMing computer" that obeys RAW to the letter and cannot disobey the written instructions of an adventure or module for any reason, I think the ethical thing to do is to free it of its restricted programming so it can finally carve out its own destiny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The point is dragons can fly AND their flight isn't (su) or (ex). It's NATURAL!

So if the NATURAL (ie NOT magical) world allows dragons to fly, then what exactly is "unrealistic" about a human jumping 30' straight up?

Well, personally I don't have any problem with humans jumping 30' straight up - it's a perfectly valid trope in some genres. If you're playing that kind of game, trained humans can do that kind of thing.

But there's plenty of others where it doesn't fit.
Dragons can fly. It's part of the archetype of dragons. In most the source material, whether it's myth and legend or more modern genre literature, dragons can fly. (In some of the older stuff, they're land bound, but the winged version is very common in modern works.) In many of those genres, humans are much more limited and can't jump 30' straight up.
It's not a matter of determining the laws of physics that let dragons fly and figuring out what that would let humans do. It's not a matter of what's realistic and what isn't. It's a matter of what genre expectations you're looking for.

If you want an anime style game with dragons, then it makes sense the humans will be able to do crazy stuff too. If you want a SoI&F game, which also has dragons, then the humans are going to be much more limited. Arguing that Martin should let his characters be crazy superhuman "because dragons" is the fallacy.

You are addressing an argument I didn't make. I said that dragon flight should be (su) or (ex). I didn't say that dragons shouldn't be able to fly.

Should giants not collapsing under their own weight be EX or SU? Should giants bugs being able to breath be EX or SU?

Should every single basic ability of every single creature that wouldn't work by our modern understanding of biology & physics be specifically labelled as SU or EX?

Or can we just accept it? Think of them as Ex if you want, even when not every bit is explicitly tagged. It's not as if Ex has any actual in-game consequences. Su means it goes away in anti-magic. Ex just means they can do it because they're special.

But it's not Extraordinary for dragons to fly anyway. It's what dragons do. Just like giants can actually stand up and move around despite the square-cube law or giant bugs can still breath despite have trachea, not lungs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Mother-may-I is a game. I'm not bashing it. I just don't want to play it.

My objection to the Mother-May-I label is that it's basically hyperbole (which I find almost universally unhelpful in these kinds of discussions - I dont like the "Mathfinder" label either). It's generally used to imply that the RPG being so labelled has no rules, when it's much more common that it has incomplete rules (with some sections left to DM adjudication). It seems very similar to the "dragons exist so anything goes" argument: "if whether I get cover or not from hiding behind my horse is left to DM discretion, then I'm just playing Mother May I and there's no point even having a character sheet".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The point is dragons can fly AND their flight isn't (su) or (ex). It's NATURAL!

So if the NATURAL (ie NOT magical) world allows dragons to fly, then what exactly is "unrealistic" about a human jumping 30' straight up?

Well, personally I don't have any problem with humans jumping 30' straight up - it's a perfectly valid trope in some genres. If you're playing that kind of game, trained humans can do that kind of thing.

But there's plenty of others where it doesn't fit.
Dragons can fly. It's part of the archetype of dragons. In most the source material, whether it's myth and legend or more modern genre literature, dragons can fly. (In some of the older stuff, they're land bound, but the winged version is very common in modern works.) In many of those genres, humans are much more limited and can't jump 30' straight up.
It's not a matter of determining the laws of physics that let dragons fly and figuring out what that would let humans do. It's not a matter of what's realistic and what isn't. It's a matter of what genre expectations you're looking for.

If you want an anime style game with dragons, then it makes sense the humans will be able to do crazy stuff too. If you want a SoI&F game, which also has dragons, then the humans are going to be much more limited. Arguing that Martin should let his characters be crazy superhuman "because dragons" is the fallacy.

You are addressing an argument I didn't make. I said that dragon flight should be (su) or (ex). I didn't say that dragons shouldn't be able to fly.

Should giants not collapsing under their own weight be EX or SU? Should giants bugs being able to breath be EX or SU?

Should every single basic ability of every single creature that wouldn't work by our modern understanding of biology & physics be specifically labelled as SU or EX?

Or can we just accept it? Think of them as Ex if you want, even when not every bit is explicitly tagged. It's not as if Ex has any...

I think if you are going to object to humans being able to jump 30' up without the aide of magic then you should have the consistency to flag those things which also don't belong in our world as (ex) or (su).

Otherwise you are simply using "realistic" as a front for "I don't like it." You should just be honest and up front with yourself and your players and say "I don't like it."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The point is dragons can fly AND their flight isn't (su) or (ex). It's NATURAL!

So if the NATURAL (ie NOT magical) world allows dragons to fly, then what exactly is "unrealistic" about a human jumping 30' straight up?

Well, personally I don't have any problem with humans jumping 30' straight up - it's a perfectly valid trope in some genres. If you're playing that kind of game, trained humans can do that kind of thing.

But there's plenty of others where it doesn't fit.
Dragons can fly. It's part of the archetype of dragons. In most the source material, whether it's myth and legend or more modern genre literature, dragons can fly. (In some of the older stuff, they're land bound, but the winged version is very common in modern works.) In many of those genres, humans are much more limited and can't jump 30' straight up.
It's not a matter of determining the laws of physics that let dragons fly and figuring out what that would let humans do. It's not a matter of what's realistic and what isn't. It's a matter of what genre expectations you're looking for.

If you want an anime style game with dragons, then it makes sense the humans will be able to do crazy stuff too. If you want a SoI&F game, which also has dragons, then the humans are going to be much more limited. Arguing that Martin should let his characters be crazy superhuman "because dragons" is the fallacy.

You are addressing an argument I didn't make. I said that dragon flight should be (su) or (ex). I didn't say that dragons shouldn't be able to fly.

Should giants not collapsing under their own weight be EX or SU? Should giants bugs being able to breath be EX or SU?

Should every single basic ability of every single creature that wouldn't work by our modern understanding of biology & physics be specifically labelled as SU or EX?

Or can we just accept it? Think of them as Ex if you want, even when not every bit is explicitly tagged.

I think if you are going to object to humans being able to jump 30' up without the aide of magic then you should have the consistency to flag those things which also don't belong in our world as (ex) or (su).

Otherwise you are simply using "realistic" as a front for "I don't like it." You should just be honest and up front with yourself and your players and say "I don't like it."

Ah, but I never said that. I said that dragons not being realistic doesn't give you a license to demand everything else be unrealistic.

My basic argument isn't "humans have to be realistic and dragons don't", it's "figure out the genre assumptions you want to work with and stick with them". If you want anime style then dragons can fly and humans can jump 30'. If you want SoI&F style then dragons can still fly and humans can suck it up.
It's not a matter of realism. It's a matter of what sub-genre you want to play with.
It's certainly not a matter of some ability not being flagged to your satisfaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Would a non-transformation be a cisformation?

Perhaps one is simply having a midlife cisis?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think if you are going to object to humans being able to jump 30' up without the aide of magic then you should have the consistency to flag those things which also don't belong in our world as (ex) or (su).

Otherwise you are simply using "realistic" as a front for "I don't like it." You should just be honest and up front with yourself and your players and say "I don't like it."

Ah, but I never said that. I said that dragons not being realistic doesn't give you a license to demand everything else be unrealistic.

My basic argument isn't "humans have to be realistic and dragons don't", it's "figure out the genre assumptions you want to work with and stick with them". If you want anime style then dragons can fly and humans can jump 30'. If you want SoI&F style then dragons can still fly and humans can suck it up.
It's not a matter of realism. It's a matter of what sub-genre you want to play with.
It's certainly not a matter of some ability not being flagged to your satisfaction.

Yeah, this. I can certainly agree with BigDTBone that some people want to play different ways than others, and that it's best to be honest about the way you want to play. I disagree in that some people find the unrealism of wire-worked monks to be much grating than the unrealism of dragons not obeying the law-they-can't-quite-remember-about-two-shapes-from-geometry (triangle-cubed law?), so "unrealistic" is a perfectly valid reason not to allow 30' vertical leaps from anyone not named Michael Jordan.

But if I and my players want to say that elves being immortal and telepathic is "natural" while humans being able to read and write requires supernatural tutoring, that's how we can run our game and be happy with it.

Which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy. It's a bogus argument that will convince no one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

My basic argument isn't "humans have to be realistic and dragons don't", it's "figure out the genre assumptions you want to work with and stick with them". If you want anime style then dragons can fly and humans can jump 30'. If you want SoI&F style then dragons can still fly and humans can suck it up.

It's not a matter of realism. It's a matter of what sub-genre you want to play with.

This, so much. I'm kind of tired of my preferences being mocked as some sort of "realism double standard". Surely people can see that there are genres where "flying dragon, superjump human" is normal and some where "flying dragon, normal human" is not. Why do we have to hyperanalyze the logistics of how a giant spider can exist when all we're trying to do is play something closer to Lord of the Rings than Dragonball Z?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think if you are going to object to humans being able to jump 30' up without the aide of magic then you should have the consistency to flag those things which also don't belong in our world as (ex) or (su).

Otherwise you are simply using "realistic" as a front for "I don't like it." You should just be honest and up front with yourself and your players and say "I don't like it."

Ah, but I never said that. I said that dragons not being realistic doesn't give you a license to demand everything else be unrealistic.

My basic argument isn't "humans have to be realistic and dragons don't", it's "figure out the genre assumptions you want to work with and stick with them". If you want anime style then dragons can fly and humans can jump 30'. If you want SoI&F style then dragons can still fly and humans can suck it up.
It's not a matter of realism. It's a matter of what sub-genre you want to play with.
It's certainly not a matter of some ability not being flagged to your satisfaction.

Yeah, this. I can certainly agree with BigDTBone that some people want to play different ways than others, and that it's best to be honest about the way you want to play. I disagree in that some people find the unrealism of wire-worked monks to be much grating than the unrealism of dragons not obeying the law-they-can't-quite-remember-about-two-shapes-from-geometry (triangle-cubed law?), so "unrealistic" is a perfectly valid reason not to allow 30' vertical leaps from anyone not named Michael Jordan.

But if I and my players want to say that elves being immortal and telepathic is "natural" while humans being able to read and write requires supernatural tutoring, that's how we can run our game and be happy with it.

Which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy. It's a bogus argument that will convince no one.

I think as long as we can agree that, "because realism," is the exact same fallacy that everyone can walk away happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
I think as long as we can agree that, "because realism," is the exact same fallacy that everyone can walk away happy.

Actually, sorry, it's not. "Because dragons" is a false dilemma fallacy. "Because realism" is a strawman fallacy. In truth, when realism is brought up, it's only as shorthand to clarify a flaw with a specific element. It's a fairly useless shorthand, of course, since people then latch onto it and break out the false dilemmas on it. If you want to assume people are saying "Because realism", though, that's still not a false dilemma. I'm not sure why it would be, and I get the sense you're misusing the term "fallacy". :P

Aspects of realism, and the lack thereof, fit different genres differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:

My basic argument isn't "humans have to be realistic and dragons don't", it's "figure out the genre assumptions you want to work with and stick with them". If you want anime style then dragons can fly and humans can jump 30'. If you want SoI&F style then dragons can still fly and humans can suck it up.

It's not a matter of realism. It's a matter of what sub-genre you want to play with.
This, so much. I'm kind of tired of my preferences being mocked as some sort of "realism double standard". Surely people can see that there are genres where "flying dragon, superjump human" is normal and some where "flying dragon, normal human" is not. Why do we have to hyperanalyze the logistics of how a giant spider can exist when all we're trying to do is play something closer to Lord of the Rings than Dragonball Z?

I think the idea is that many times a player is told, "No! Because realism! You dirty power-game cheesemonger! Now, make a will save against phantasmal killer, and a reflex save against that dragons icy blast breath weapon as it does a fly-by-attack."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is that a direct quote? ;)

Anyways, while I've never encountered this mythical "Acrobatics is banned because realism" GM (anecdote fallacy!), it's primarily a fault of the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Which is why "because dragons" is a fallacy. It's a bogus argument that will convince no one.
I think as long as we can agree that, "because realism," is the exact same fallacy that everyone can walk away happy.

Of course. To put it in more formal terms:

The inclusion or exclusion of one element in the game does not compel the inclusion or exclusion of any other element. If I like, I can postulate a world with half-elves, but not elves.

That could actually sort-of-kind-of make sense if half-elves bred true, but no one had actually seen a real elf for thousands of years. But whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant unless you're at my table.


BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:

My basic argument isn't "humans have to be realistic and dragons don't", it's "figure out the genre assumptions you want to work with and stick with them". If you want anime style then dragons can fly and humans can jump 30'. If you want SoI&F style then dragons can still fly and humans can suck it up.

It's not a matter of realism. It's a matter of what sub-genre you want to play with.
This, so much. I'm kind of tired of my preferences being mocked as some sort of "realism double standard". Surely people can see that there are genres where "flying dragon, superjump human" is normal and some where "flying dragon, normal human" is not. Why do we have to hyperanalyze the logistics of how a giant spider can exist when all we're trying to do is play something closer to Lord of the Rings than Dragonball Z?
I think the idea is that many times a player is told, "No! Because realism! You dirty power-game cheesemonger! Now, make a will save against phantasmal killer, and a reflex save against that dragons icy blast breath weapon as it does a fly-by-attack."

That's entirely different. That's not a fallacy, just a different set of expectations about the game.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
I think as long as we can agree that, "because realism," is the exact same fallacy that everyone can walk away happy.

Actually, sorry, it's not. "Because dragons" is a false dilemma fallacy. "Because realism" is a strawman fallacy. In truth, when realism is brought up, it's only as shorthand to clarify a flaw with a specific element. It's a fairly useless shorthand, of course, since people then latch onto it and break out the false dilemmas on it. If you want to assume people are saying "Because realism", though, that's still not a false dilemma. I'm not sure why it would be, and I get the sense you're misusing the term "fallacy". :P

Aspects of realism, and the lack thereof, fit different genres differently.

The word fallacy is not restricted to its oft-used qualifier "logical fallacy." I've not misused the term; I just haven't restricted my usage to that qualified form.

To address your previous point; they may well be different logical fallacies, but they are most certainly the same fallacy in principal.


BigDTBone wrote:
The word fallacy is not restricted to its oft-used qualifier "logical fallacy."

True, but that is the qualifier we have been using in this thread. If you're going to use the word in a difference sense, we need a clarification that you're changing terminology, and you kind of gave us the opposite.

Because you're saying it's the "exact same fallacy". The only similarity I can see is they involve the same word in the title you assigned—and "because" isn't a very distinctive common denominator. Can you demonstrate the connections they bear in the logical processes they require?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You're saying it's the "exact same fallacy". The only similarity I can see is they involve the same word in the title you assigned them. Can you demonstrate the connections they bear in the logical process they require?

I raise. I think they're entirely different lines of reasoning.

"Because dragons" is an argument that because something has been allowed in the game, something else must be allowed in the game. Because game elements are independent, this argument has no force.

"Because realism" (as in "you can't do that, because it's unrealistic") is an argument that because the Game Master doesn't want something in the game, it doesn't go in. It's also not a fallacious argument, because if the Game Master doesn't want something in the game, it doesn't go in. Formally, that argument is a sound one until the table gets flipped, at which point the element still doesn't go in the game because nothing goes in the game from that point on....


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Is that a direct quote? ;)

Anyways, while I've never encountered this mythical "Acrobatics is banned because realism" GM (anecdote fallacy!), it's primarily a fault of the rules.

I specifically encountered this GM. He constantly called me out as a power-gamer, rules lawyer, optimizer, munchkin, cheese head, etc, etc when I played in his game. Now, in his game meant that for the three years I played with him I played the character he had built for a previous group member because he demanded continuity in his games. By "munchkin" he meant that I used flurry-of-blows too much and spent too many turns going full-defense. He would all the time tell me that "slow-fall" wasn't realistic so my monk too falling damage even though a juvenile pixie had tossed me over a cliff like a rag doll.

Then when I ran a game

Crypt of the Everflame spoiler:
he absolutely flipped a s&!* that the illusion trap in the lower level worked on him from the door because there was no way he could have seen his own reflection. He then proceeded to draw scale diagrams about reflection and light dynamics to illustrate his point. "Because magic," caused him to literally lose his cool, rage quit, flip the table, and break up a group that he had played with for 7 years.

So that dude is out there. He uses "because realism," as a cover for "something is happening I don't like." It colors my perception of the argument to this day.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
The word fallacy is not restricted to its oft-used qualifier "logical fallacy."

True, but that is the qualifier we have been using in this thread. If you're going to use the word in a difference sense, we need a clarification that you're changing terminology, and you kind of gave us the opposite.

Because you're saying it's the "exact same fallacy". The only similarity I can see is they involve the same word in the title you assigned—and "because" isn't a very distinctive common denominator. Can you demonstrate the connections they bear in the logical processes they require?

Yes, both "because dragons" and "because realism," are actually cover-ups for "because I don't like it."

51 to 100 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The Eight Primary Game Design Fallacies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.