| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always assumed the fantasy world that a campaign takes place in is exactly like the real world, except where it is listed that it isn't. As such, dragons can fly because the monster manual says they can. Magic works the way it does because it says it does.
Everything beyond that has to still be "realistic." Which means, it has to comport with what the GM thinks is realistic, considering all of the non-realistic elements that are already there.
This is why I dislike "because dragons." Just because one thing is listed, doesn't imply that every other thing is acceptable.
Well, it does make sense that centuries of practice can allow one greater skill than a human can achieve in much less than a century. Elves are also described as being superior to human in any ways.
That of course is simply an argueent for allowing Legolas to do what he does.
Yes, both "because dragons" and "because realism," are actually cover-ups for "because I don't like it."
Which, as Orfamay has clearly explained, is not a fallacy. It's a valid reason to dislike something.
And "because I do/n't like it" can be said to be the reason for literally everything if you really want to boil it down. Saying that they're the same because they both are motivated by dislike is like saying two philosophies are identical because they're both motivated by a quest for purpose.
Yes, both "because dragons" and "because realism," are actually cover-ups for "because I don't like it."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?
Almost - except that "because dragons" is usually a cover-up for "because I like it". It's an argument for inclusion not exclusion.
It's not really a fallacy though. In both cases it's just covering a personal preference with an false reason. A very common tactic and often not even conscious. Someone may not like something because it breaks his sense of how the setting should work and that translates internally as violating realism - or setting realism at least.
Inclusion/exclusion is a red herring. What it boils down to is, "because I want things to be a way..."
It is a fallacy because neither "dragons" nor "realism," actually have anything to do with it. Aka, they are fallacious statements.
Yes, both "because dragons" and "because realism," are actually cover-ups for "because I don't like it."Which, as Orfamay has clearly explained, is not a fallacy. It's a valid reason to dislike something.
And "because I do/n't like it" can be said to be the reason for literally everything if you really want to boil it down. Saying that they're the same because they both are motivated by dislike is like saying two philosophies are identical because they're both motivated by a quest for purpose.
They are fallacious statements; because they are misleading statements based on a falsehood or improper premise. "I want things to be a way," is a fine arguement. "Because dragons/realism" isn't. Dragons and/or realism isn't your real motivation (read: I don't believe you) unless you are prepared to account for the mechanisms of that choice. (Ie, you are prepared to explain WHY some natural laws apply and some don't, or why the same natural law doesn't apply in a ubiquitous manner.)
If you aren't prepared to account for those mechanisms (ie, designating dragon flight as (ex)) then you should just admit that you have a personal preference, that you intend to indulge it, and that dragons/realism really isn't the issue.
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.Depends. Do you mean in the books, or in the films?
If in the films, do you mean another elf, or Legolas?
And/or. Elves in general were portrayed as an extremely "superior" race, so I can't easily say they were bound by laws of physics. Like I said, I don't remember any specific implications.
In the movies, Legolas's feats were pretty crazy, but I could certainly buy them. Skating down a staircase on a shield? With adequate reflexes and luck, sure. Climbing up an elephant? Impressive, but not especially physics-breaking. Stabbing an orc with an arrow then turning and shooting another? Why not? I mean, I kinda wish they'd given some of that stuff to Gimli and Aragorn, but whatever, Orlando Bloom.
None of that bugs me. As stated in one of the other many "martials w/neat things" threads (which this didn't used to be), I'd love it if martials could get some more abilities along those lines. :)
Well, it does make sense that centuries of practice can allow one greater skill than a human can achieve in much less than a century. Elves are also described as being superior to human in any ways.
That of course is simply an argueent for allowing Legolas to do what he does.Hey, it's Jackson's world. He can show Legolas doing whatever he wants.
It's not particularly supported by Tolkien's books, that's all.
I wouldn't be so sure. While the specifics might be questionable, there is plenty of indications that elves are far more capable than humans. The stuff Legolas does in the movies is a good way to show that superiority.
They are fallacious statements; because they are misleading statements based on a falsehood or improper premise. "I want things to be a way," is a fine arguement. "Because dragons/realism" isn't. Dragons and/or realism isn't your real motivation (read: I don't believe you) unless you are prepared to account for the mechanisms of that choice. (Ie, you are prepared to explain WHY some natural laws apply and some don't, or why the same natural law doesn't apply in a ubiquitous manner.)If you aren't prepared to account for those mechanisms (ie, designating dragon flight as (ex)) then you should just admit that you have a personal preference, that you intend to indulge it, and that dragons/realism really isn't the issue.
Except different applications of realism bother us differently. Humans being held to different standards than dragons does not make the term "realism" fallacious, and you...oh, never mind. We're in such a stupid argument. If you want to broaden your definitions that widely, sure, they're completely identical. You can go tell your bad GM that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a fallacy because neither "dragons" nor "realism," actually have anything to do with it. Aka, they are fallacious statements.
No, wait, really? Seriously? Realism is absolutely involved. Again, just because you take the broadest possible definition—"Christianity and Islam both want to worship a god, so they're identical!"—does not make any of this make sense.
When someone objects to a human being able to jump fifty feet and invokes realism, that is absolutely freakin' valid. They want humans to be held to a different standard of realism than dragons because monsters and mages are not expected to be realistic. The same rule applies to why you see more animals than humans in cartoons—when an animation error occurs with a goat, we don't notice it as badly because we don't know goats as well. We can accept a dragon flying because they are from a different set of rules. Same with a mage spewing fireballs. But in many genres, a human fighter follows human rules. Bringing up realism in association with him isn't "fallacious", it's using the English language.
No matter how far you stretch these definitions, they are not going to hold up to your core tenant that "They are basically the same". The assertion started wrong and has only gotten wronger.
If you've been using "fallacy" to mean "fallacious statement", that explains a good deal of this thread.They are fallacious statements; because they are misleading statements based on a falsehood or improper premise. "I want things to be a way," is a fine arguement. "Because dragons/realism" isn't.Yes, both "because dragons" and "because realism," are actually cover-ups for "because I don't like it."Which, as Orfamay has clearly explained, is not a fallacy. It's a valid reason to dislike something.
And "because I do/n't like it" can be said to be the reason for literally everything if you really want to boil it down. Saying that they're the same because they both are motivated by dislike is like saying two philosophies are identical because they're both motivated by a quest for purpose.
My first use of that word was in post #89. So if you consider the most recent 20% to be "a good deal" then it demonstrates your perceptions of what is true get in the way of what is actually true.
Bold text means I'm banging on the make-believe pedestal to emphasize my points!
| 2 people 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.
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 ** spoiler omitted **
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.
Wow. I am so lucky with my gaming group. :/
It is a fallacy because neither "dragons" nor "realism," actually have anything to do with it. Aka, they are fallacious statements.No, wait, really? Seriously? Realism is absolutely involved. Again, just because you take the broadest possible definition—"Christianity and Islam both want to worship a god, so they're identical!"—does not make any of this make sense.
When someone objects to a human being able to jump fifty feet and invokes realism, that is absolutely freakin' valid. They want humans to be held to a different standard of realism than dragons because monsters and mages are not expected to be realistic. The same rule applies to why you see more animals than humans in cartoons—when an animation error occurs with a goat, we don't notice it as badly because we don't know goats as well. We can accept a dragon flying because they are from a different set of rules. Same with a mage spewing fireballs. But in many genres, a human fighter follows human rules. Bringing up realism in association with him isn't "fallacious", it's using the English language.
No matter how far you stretch these definitions, they are not going to hold up to your core tenant that "They are basically the same". The assertion started wrong and has only gotten wronger.
If you are prepared to be consistent then it can absolutely be valid. In my experience (and specifically in the pathfinder role playing game as written) it isn't consistent. If you are willing to accept those inconsistencies then you cannot turn around and say, "because realism." "Because realism" isn't the reason you don't like. Clearly, because you accept systemic inconsistencies with what and why realism governs. Essentially you have made "realism" into a slave of your caprious flights of fancy.
Which is fine, I don't care about your preferences, but you need to be honest with yourself and admit it isn't "realism," that is governing your decisions.
The exact same arguement can be constructed in reverse with "dragons" in place of "realism."
In one case I would assume realistic as the base assumption with exceptions made for fantastic creatures or abilities.
In one case you are assuming the fantastic is, in fact, fantastic as opposed to presuming that the fantastic is ordinary and the norm.
Which is great! You just need to designate the fantastic as such. Generally done by assigning it an (ex) or (su).
Which is great! You just need to designate the fantastic as such. Generally done by assigning it an (ex) or (su).In one case I would assume realistic as the base assumption with exceptions made for fantastic creatures or abilities.
In one case you are assuming the fantastic is, in fact, fantastic as opposed to presuming that the fantastic is ordinary and the norm.
Why?
What difference in the world does applying a two letter code that has no game effect make?I think 'Fantastic' abilities are generally pretty obvious without needing a code after them
That's just it. They do have in-game effects.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Depends. Do you mean in the books, or in the films?
If in the films, do you mean another elf, or Legolas?
And/or. Elves in general were portrayed as an extremely "superior" race, so I can't easily say they were bound by laws of physics. Like I said, I don't remember any specific implications.
In the movies, Legolas's feats were pretty crazy, but I could certainly buy them. Skating down a staircase on a shield? With adequate reflexes and luck, sure. Climbing up an elephant? Impressive, but not especially physics-breaking. Stabbing an orc with an arrow then turning and shooting another? Why not? I mean, I kinda wish they'd given some of that stuff to Gimli and Aragorn, but whatever, Orlando Bloom.
None of that bugs me. As stated in one of the other many "martials w/neat things" threads (which this didn't used to be), I'd love it if martials could get some more abilities along those lines. :)
The thing that makes it stand out is that Legolas wasn't playing under the same rules as everybody else. Everyone else was playing an E6 game, and Legolas had mythic tiers.
In the books, Gimli won their contest by 1 orc killed. The movies would basically have you believe that Legolas won by several thousand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, both "because dragons" and "because realism," are actually cover-ups for "because I don't like it."
Both can also be "because that's the genre and/or setting I propose for this game"
Yeah, can't really have Legolas with proper stats considering the circumstances.
Yeah, can't really have Legolas with proper stats considering the circumstances.
Why not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Elves have some advantages, particularly Noldor. Particularly Noldor who had lived in Aman. Legolas was Sindarin.
[...]
Even in the Silmarillion, when the Noldor were newly come from Valinor and at the height of their power, the heroes of Men were famed among them - Hurin and Turin and Beren and Tuor.
So? One of the major themes of the entire Legendarium is "things were better then"; which includes the mighty heroes of old. The Wise were wiser, the Strong were Stronger, the Beer didn't Taste as much like Goat Piss, so of course Heroic Men were both Manlier and More Heroic. The idea that Legolas is awesome because is one of the Sindaran footsoldiers of the Second Age -- actually, I don't think any age is listed in the books at all -- is in keeping with that same theme. Even the Second Age footsoldiers were mighty heroes by comparison with the nonsense today.
Oh, and get off my lawn.
Even when you say "he lost that contest in the Hornburg," that's not clear. He told Gimli that he lost, but I've always interpreted that scene, even in the books, as a case of unreliable narration and that he could very well be lying like a rug -- do elves have rugs? -- to allow Gimli to save face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stumbled upon another one:
Because Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the most powerful
Anytime someone suggests an ability, skill, item, etc. is too powerful, someone responds with "But its still not as powerful as Wizard, Cleric, or Druid."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stumbled upon another one:
Because Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the most powerful
Anytime someone suggests an ability, skill, item, etc. is too powerful, someone responds with "But its still not as powerful as Wizard, Cleric, or Druid."
... which is, IMHO, a completely valid response.
Let me unpack it.
1) Overpowerful abilities will break the game and make it not fun
2) Wizards, Clerics and Druids do not break the game
3) Therefore, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are not overpowerful.
4) This proposed new ability is less powerful than those given to W-C-D.
5) Therefore, this proposed ability is not overpowerful.
That seems a perfectly legitimate sorite to me.
...
1.The Realism Fallacy
This fallacy is basically caused by someone forgetting that the RPG is make-believe and therefore the only rules that exist are the ones we want to exist. Therefore saying something is "realistic" is no excuse for it being bad game design, even if it is realistic for our world. If the option is unequal and advertised as equal, and doesn't work as the FICTIONAL universe is supposed to work, it's bad game design no matter how accurate it models real world physics in magic dragon land.
...
I have one slight disagreement here. If the 'unrealistic' element is so jarring that it interrupts the players suspension of disbelief, then I think it is bad design since it detracts from immersion/enjoyment of the game.
With no specifics whatsoever:
A couple groups ago, one of the players had his character built around a particular ability. It wasn't really a corner case, overlooked misapplication of bad wording, or anything like that. It was very clearly allowed. It wasn't terribly powerful or broken.
But every time he did it everyone at the table had an eye-roll or just ignored it with a "yeah whatever" type of reaction.
Had it been a magic spell, divine power, or magic item that allowed; I don't think we would have had too much problem with it. But this was a supposedly normal, anyone can do it, that's just how things work kind of thing.
.
.
Also I think the Stormwind Fallacy still clearly exists, but I don't think it is anywhere nearly as prevalent as it used to be decades ago.
... which is, IMHO, a completely valid response.
To each their own. In my mind its far too simplistic an argument to equate to a rubber stamp for adding anything else into the game.
Some interesting stuff here.
Some of it is lemon-sucking cantankerousness, other parts are just childish belly-aching but the remainder are holes I Wil endeavor to avoid.
... which is, IMHO, a completely valid response.To each their own. In my mind its far too simplistic an argument to equate to a rubber stamp for adding anything else into the game.
It's not a rubber stamp for adding anything. It's however, a meaningless and pointless objection against.
Letting rangers grow wings for minutes per level might or might not be something you wanted to add. There are all sorts of reasons you might want to object to it. But it's certainly not overpowering, since it's the sort of thing that druids can already do for hours per level.
It's not a rubber stamp for adding anything. It's however, a meaningless and pointless objection against.
Well, here's a sample situation:
Person 1: "Let's give all non-casters all good saves, with an extra +1 to all of their saves every other level."
Person 2: "That sounds too powerful."
Person 1: "Wizards can already cast gate and summon demon lords of ultimate power, so its not more powerful than that."
While the proposed adjustment may not make the non-casters as powerful as a particular wizard's spell, that doesn't mean the argument "that sounds too powerful" is invalid.
It's not a rubber stamp for adding anything. It's however, a meaningless and pointless objection against.Well, here's a sample situation:
Person 1: "Let's give all non-casters all good saves, with an extra +1 to all of their saves every other level."
Person 2: "That sounds too powerful."
Person 1: "Wizards can already cast gate and summon demon lords of ultimate power, so its not more powerful than that."While the proposed adjustment may not make the non-casters as powerful as a particular wizard's spell, that doesn't mean the argument "that sounds too powerful" is invalid.
Which should be an indication that it actually isn't too powerful. It is very much a terrible idea for OTHER REASONS. Being overpowered isn't one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the proposed adjustment may not make the non-casters as powerful as a particular wizard's spell, that doesn't mean the argument "that sounds too powerful" is invalid.
Actually, that's exactly what it does mean. If we're agreed that
a) summoning demon lords don't break the game
b) saving throw bonuses are less likely to break the game than summoning demon lords,
then it follows immediately that
c) saving throw bonuses will not break the game.
If you don't like it, then you actually have a different objection.
c) saving throw bonuses will not break the game.
"Breaking the game" does not equal "overpowered." Something can be overpowered without breaking the game.
Measuring a proposed change against what is perceived to be the most powerful thing in the game does not strike me as a good idea to decide what should be included.
As such, stating that something is overpowered does seem like a valid rationale for rejecting a proposed change.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards can cast spells, dragons can fly, giant insects can breathe, not because the players got together and decided all these things individually, and not because the DM made it all up from scratch.
These things are true in the game, because a group of mates decided to play Pathfinder, and the PF rules have these creatures doing those things.
The PF rules also say that monks get Slow Fall. It's a dick move for a DM to say that it doesn't work 'because realism', especially when it's the DM who wrote the character sheet!
If the DM said, at character creation, 'Monks don't get anything I think is unrealistic, and can only Flurry 1/day/level', then I'd ask, 'What do they get to make up for what you've taken away?'
If the answer was, 'Sod all!', then I'd say, 'Good luck in finding someone to play one. Oh, and BTW, that dragon isn't really flying, that wizard is only pretending to cast spells, and no 6 inch high creature is going to hurl me off a cliff so I don't need Slow Fall anyway!'
It would probably go downhill from there...
c) saving throw bonuses will not break the game."Breaking the game" does not equal "overpowered." Something can be overpowered without breaking the game.
Measuring a proposed change against what is perceived to be the most powerful thing in the game does not strike me as a good idea to decide what should be included.
As such, stating that something is overpowered does seem like a valid rationale for rejecting a proposed change.
OVERpowered is by definition something that breaks the game. Otherwise it is just powerful.
Wizards can cast spells, dragons can fly, giant insects can breathe, not because the players got together and decided all these things individually, and not because the DM made it all up from scratch.
These things are true in the game, because a group of mates decided to play Pathfinder, and the PF rules have these creatures doing those things.
The PF rules also say that monks get Slow Fall. It's a dick move for a DM to say that it doesn't work 'because realism', especially when it's the DM who wrote the character sheet!
If the DM said, at character creation, 'Monks don't get anything I think is unrealistic, and can only Flurry 1/day/level', then I'd ask, 'What do they get to make up for what you've taken away?'
If the answer was, 'Sod all!', then I'd say, 'Good luck in finding someone to play one. Oh, and BTW, that dragon isn't really flying, that wizard is only pretending to cast spells, and no 6 inch high creature is going to hurl me off a cliff so I don't need Slow Fall anyway!'
It would probably go downhill from there...
Being one of my first forays into RPG's, I didn't know any better at the time...
Another reason the term munchkin and the like really grind my gears, I got stuck with the label before I even knew the rules.
Though I'd compare that one to Divine Protection instead of summoning Demon Lords. :)
Right - just trying to make sure the example provided was clear enough in disparity for the point to be effective.
OVERpowered is by definition something that breaks the game. Otherwise it is just powerful.
I'm not familiar with that usage of the term. "Breaking the game" to me means that the game is no longer playable as expected due to x. For example, introducing a race that gets +8 to all stats, fast healing 10, and DR 20/- with no corresponding weaknesses. The game is now broken because no one would ever select a race other than this new one.
"Overpowered" means that x, compared to other things that are comparable to x, is more powerful than those other things by a significant margin. For example, introducing a race that is better than the other races, and perhaps has a weakness but it isn't significant enough to balance the race compared to other races.
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.Depends. Do you mean in the books, or in the films?
If in the films, do you mean another elf, or Legolas?
And/or. Elves in general were portrayed as an extremely "superior" race, so I can't easily say they were bound by laws of physics. Like I said, I don't remember any specific implications.
In the movies, Legolas's feats were pretty crazy, but I could certainly buy them. Skating down a staircase on a shield? With adequate reflexes and luck, sure. Climbing up an elephant? Impressive, but not especially physics-breaking. Stabbing an orc with an arrow then turning and shooting another? Why not? I mean, I kinda wish they'd given some of that stuff to Gimli and Aragorn, but whatever, Orlando Bloom.
None of that bugs me. As stated in one of the other many "martials w/neat things" threads (which this didn't used to be), I'd love it if martials could get some more abilities along those lines. :)
The thing that makes it stand out is that Legolas wasn't playing under the same rules as everybody else. Everyone else was playing an E6 game, and Legolas had mythic tiers.
In the books, Gimli won their contest by 1 orc killed. The movies would basically have you believe that Legolas won by several thousand.
thank god someone told the truth.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Person 1: "Let's give all non-casters all good saves, with an extra +1 to all of their saves every other level."
Person 2: "That sounds too powerful."
Person 1: "Wizards can already cast gate and summon demon lords of ultimate power, so its not more powerful than that."While the proposed adjustment may not make the non-casters as powerful as a particular wizard's spell, that doesn't mean the argument "that sounds too powerful" is invalid.
You know, I play wizard PCs every so often, and I've never gotten to such a level that I can gate in demon lords who would do my bidding. How powerful do you have to be to do that?
Oh, you say that gate is a ninth-level spell? So Ezren needs to be at least 17th-level to gate in a demon lord, who would then likely devour him?
I don't see "wizards are super-cool for a couple of seconds at 17th level" to be much of a counter-argument against super saving throw bonuses being too powerful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stumbled upon another one:
Because Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the most powerful
Anytime someone suggests an ability, skill, item, etc. is too powerful, someone responds with "But its still not as powerful as Wizard, Cleric, or Druid."
... which is, IMHO, a completely valid response.
Especially when people start talking about how all 3PP stuff is overpowered and unbroken.
I have never seen anything from any 3PP that is weaker than a core monk, or more powerful than a wizard with all Paizo sources allowed. And the overwhelming majority of it is not as powerful as a core wizard.