Source of thread arguments?

[BiPolar]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but on lurking/participating here for awhile I've noticed an issue.

When responding to a question on rules/play, etc. there are several possible methods of response:

1. RAW through approved source material
2. RAI through Sage Advice
3. Opinion

What I've seen is pretty much everybody here responding through each of these. And it changes based on what, I think, the responder would like the result to be.

Now, all of this is completely reasonable. But it does create arguments very easily.

There is the RAW questions thread which seems to where RAW issues should be sorted. However, I'm not sure that means questions OUT of the thread are not for RAW. But it leaves the responders to provide guidance through the 3 above possibilities.

What that leaves are threads that are full of each type of response. With each responder defending their position or attacking the position of the other. I've seen specific commenters cite RAW in one thread and then denigrate another for citing RAW in another.

Should threads be tagged by the OP in some way to ask for RAW vs Opinion?

Or am I just reading too much into this?:smalleek:

[MaxWilson]

No, they don't!

RAW is the best. Opinions are the worst.

;-)

More seriously, I tend to respond to whatever it is that I think the OP is asking for. If he asks a question about RAW, I'll usually stick to responding about the RAW, unless I have a very strong recommendation on why the RAW is awful and needs to be changed. If so, I'll say that too.

As my .sig says, I respond to whatever is interesting, and try to ignore the rest. You must be interesting today because I'm responding.

[Shaofoo]

The problem is that there isn't a right answer most of the time. Or rather people are hung up on their version of the right answer and thus everyone who has a different version is wrong.

It isn't even RAW vs RAI vs opinion, it is "reinterpreting a sentence 3 different ways" so in essence is RAW vs RAW vs RAW.

Also you never ask for vs anything, that just invites trouble.

But also read my sig, some people when they ask question already have an answer in their mind, deviating from this established answer will cause the asker of the question to be just as defensive as anyone who puts out their answers. It is hard to sometimes see people who are genuinely asking questions vs those who just want an echo chamber.

[Coffee_Dragon]

"Opinion" is a terribly broad thing. People have all sorts of things informing their opinions, including gaming philosophy (role of DM, role of system, verisimilitude vs. cool, etc.), personal experience (with systems, player types, social contracts etc.), perceived thread context, subject knowledge (real or imagined), and so on. All of which can spawn arguments when misaligned, however temporarily.

[BiPolar]

"Opinion" is a terribly broad thing. People have all sorts of things informing their opinions, including gaming philosophy (role of DM, role of system, verisimilitude vs. cool, etc.), personal experience (with systems, player types, social contracts etc.), perceived thread context, subject knowledge (real or imagined), and so on. All of which can spawn arguments when misaligned, however temporarily.

Right, and that's where the issue of answering with RAW vs answering with opinion becomes the driver argument.

OPs tend not to ask if they are requesting RAW, but leave their questions open and looking for response. Some people respond with RAW and are attacked by others because they don't agree with the RAW. Not that the RAW is ambiguous, but that they just don't agree with it. And then those same people will answer with RAW in another thread and get upset when someone uses their opinion in response.

[MaxWilson]

Right, and that's where the issue of answering with RAW vs answering with opinion becomes the driver argument.

OPs tend not to ask if they are requesting RAW, but leave their questions open and looking for response. Some people respond with RAW and are attacked by others because they don't agree with the RAW. Not that the RAW is ambiguous, but that they just don't agree with it. And then those same people will answer with RAW in another thread and get upset when someone uses their opinion in response.

All the worst arguments I've ever seen are over whose "RAW" is actually correct.

Once someone says, "I acknowledge that those are the rules, but I just don't agree with RAW," there isn't often that much to say. Sometimes people argue anyway over whether a variant rule (e.g. point-buy) is more "official" than the "default" RAW, but honestly stat rolling is the only example I can think of where that happens. In both cases, the posters involved are really looking more for social validation from a supposed peer group than an enlightening discussion.

It is what it is--but there's certainly nothing wrong with the OP being clear about what he's asking for! Sometimes that really seems to help.

[Hrugner]

I generally answer with RAW. But then, I also don't argue the point, I just drop off my interpretation with the reasoning and move on. The source of the argument is more likely varying end goals between the debaters. Why is the discussion happening, what are you trying to achieve here, that sort of thing.

Generally speaking, it would be better for people to be specific about their goals, rather than the type of answers they want.

[Shaofoo]

Generally speaking, it would be better for people to be specific about their goals, rather than the type of answers they want.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a question?

Or rather isn't the goal of a question to get an answer. A type of answer is pointless to establish unless they bring about the answers first and then it becomes a multiple choice.



Oh and another thing to establish with arguments is that people tend to like to wedge in their beliefs and opinions even when it is unwarranted.

[Lombra]

The RAW thread is for short questions with short answers, most of the times discussions get fuzzy because people tend to not understand the other's point of view, and sometumes people don't express themselves clearly. I often read comments based on common sense and others strictly RAW. Since I like to think that I'm playing a game and that the designers of the game are better at designing then myself, I tend to stick with RAW and use the tools that I get at their best potential, others prefer to homebrew stuff up and i respect that, although by the very definition of homebrew, I feel like arguing about it is pointless, since anyways it's all up to the DM.

[Tanarii]

I like all three. Also sometimes chasing a tangent argument lomg past when the OP has lost interest because I'm working and some dip**** I'm trying to help put me on hold but I can't hang up so I'm sitting there for ten minutes waiting for him to get back on the line. Usually happens once or twice an hour.

The one thing I have to watch out for is falling into the arguing to win the argument trap. Because I fall for that one, like, ALL of the times.

[MrStabby]

Personally I think there are a couple of other issues, or probably extensions to other points here.

One is rules as fun - sometimes people just don't think the rules as written and as intended are fun and deliberately misinterpreting them adds something to the game, and want to push others to do the same. This is possible a codified version of opinion - not an opinion of the rules but an opinion of what's fun.

A second is rules as written vs rules as clarified. There is a (probably reasonable) view that if a player wants the rules of the game they buy the player's handbook and they are sorted. Anything not in there is extra and should be negotiated at the table. If the rules as written clearly and unambiguously say something but later a tweet says that the intent was otherwise it is a RAW vs RAI clash, if it is PHB vs Errata and a player builds a character under the assumption of a different set of rules to the ones being played then it is a bit of a different problem.

A more awkward one (which doesn't come up on GitP much) is the variant rules in the DMG - people insisting that "rules for climbing on a creature work as X" as suggested in the DMG. If the PHB is the rulebook then there are no explicit rules and it is a case by case basis for the DM.



Sometimes people argue anyway over whether a variant rule (e.g. point-buy) is more "official" than the "default" RAW, but honestly stat rolling is the only example I can think of where that happens. In both cases, the posters involved are really looking more for social validation from a supposed peer group than an enlightening discussion.


People arguing use of feats is more official than not using them also probably falls into this category? Also the optional rule for using variant human is often assumed to be the "more official" version.

[Gastronomie]

The truth is that these arguments will never come to and end, because all the people arguing are DMs.

DMs have final say. They even have the right to screw the rules if they think it makes the session more fun.

When multiple people who think themselves as "good DMs" clash together with their opinions, since they think their word is always final say, they can't help but continue on arguing, despite how worthless the argument is (because in the first place, no matter what sort of RAW or RAI or sage (lol) advice ruling there is, we can do nothing to help the topic creator who asked the rulings question, and only the DM who's playing with him can ever hope to give the right answer).

[BiPolar]

The truth is that these arguments will never come to and end, because all the people arguing are DMs.

DMs have final say. They even have the right to screw the rules if they think it makes the session more fun.

When multiple people who think themselves as "good DMs" clash together with their opinions, since they think their word is always final say, they can't help but continue on arguing, despite how worthless the argument is (because in the first place, no matter what sort of RAW or RAI or sage (lol) advice ruling there is, we can do nothing to help the topic creator who asked the rulings question, and only the DM who's playing with him can ever hope to give the right answer).

That's an interesting viewpoint. I didn't see answers as "this is how I'd rule" but as "this is what the rules say". WIth the latter being interpreted through the 3 lenses of RAW, RAI, Opinion.

If it's the former of This is How I'd Rule, then yes - the arguments will never cease because it is ALL opinion based.

My hope was that we could minimize the personal DM ruling and be able to parse RAW from ambiguous RAI/Opinion. But that's clearly never going to happen :)

[ClintACK]

Once someone says, "I acknowledge that those are the rules, but I just don't agree with RAW," there isn't often that much to say.

Oh, you're ignoring all the arguments over whether something that's RAW is "perfect", "cheesy", "overpowered", or "broken" -- and what needs to be done to fix it.

Those seem to get fairly heated -- I suspect they're mostly fueled by one person having played in a game where one character dominated (either the spotlight or the successes or both) using a certain build (often for reasons unrelated to the build itself) and another person likes to play that build and feels like the other is trying to take away their fun.


The one thing I have to watch out for is falling into the arguing to win the argument trap. Because I fall for that one, like, ALL of the times.

I resemble that remark.

https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2014/11-23/yYXwjXEczB-6.png

[Specter]

Your Honor, my client blames 5e, I move for dismissal.

[MaxWilson]

People arguing use of feats is more official than not using them also probably falls into this category? Also the optional rule for using variant human is often assumed to be the "more official" version.

A valid point. I have seen a couple of arguments over feats; I don't think I've seen any over variant humans but I'm sure they occur.


The truth is that these arguments will never come to and end, because all the people arguing are DMs.

DMs have final say. They even have the right to screw the rules if they think it makes the session more fun.

When multiple people who think themselves as "good DMs" clash together with their opinions, since they think their word is always final say, they can't help but continue on arguing, despite how worthless the argument is (because in the first place, no matter what sort of RAW or RAI or sage (lol) advice ruling there is, we can do nothing to help the topic creator who asked the rulings question, and only the DM who's playing with him can ever hope to give the right answer).

Wow. +1, insightful!

[Shaofoo]

My hope was that we could minimize the personal DM ruling and be able to parse RAW from ambiguous RAI/Opinion. But that's clearly never going to happen :)

It'll never happen because people want to be right when there is no right answer.

People want to win when there is nothing to be won.

You want a RAW answer, read the book yourself and whatever you understand that is your answer, that is the true definition of RAW. If the book is unclear or says nothing then it stops being a RAW debate and starts into RAI. You must also understand that the rules were written in good faith and meant to be used by people who actually want to play the game itself and not to any of the people trying to put the rules under a spotlight and microscope; such exaggerated analysis will not hold up usually because the point of the rules is immediately defeated; most "problems" I dare say aren't even problems because people will usually talk it out like rational adults (usually... I have read the horror stories where this isn't the case).

[Hrugner]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a question?

Or rather isn't the goal of a question to get an answer. A type of answer is pointless to establish unless they bring about the answers first and then it becomes a multiple choice.



Oh and another thing to establish with arguments is that people tend to like to wedge in their beliefs and opinions even when it is unwarranted.

I'm missing the bit where establishing the purpose of the question makes that question pointless and don't understand how it could enforce a list. I see that you said it, but I don't see why you think that.

[Shaofoo]

I'm missing the bit where establishing the purpose of the question makes that question pointless and don't understand how it could enforce a list. I see that you said it, but I don't see why you think that.

The purpose for a question is to get an answer, if the purpose of the question isn't an answer then it stops being a question.

If you are looking for secondary characteristics then go ahead but that is pointless in the grand scheme of finding answers. If you expect a particular set of answers then it just becomes a multiple choice problem, not a question.

The purpose of a question is clarification, that is the common goal of all questions plain and simple.

[BurgerBeast]

Well, the arguing to always be right thing can be bothersome. It can be more bothersome when you're not actually doing it but being accused of it.

When people start a tangent, and then tell the people who respond to the tangent that "they're really moving away from the topic."

When people misuse the term semantic, or mistakenly accuse a person or argument of being, at its core, semantic, when it isn't.

When people mistake consensus for truth.


The truth is that these arguments will never come to and end, because all the people arguing are DMs.

I'd say that they do come to an end. Many of them never even started. It's just that someone doesn't know that, and they keep arguing as if they have a leg to stand on. And yes, sometimes I do that.


DMs have final say. They even have the right to screw the rules if they think it makes the session more fun.

That doesn't make them right though. The same can be said of referees, but there's a reason why we can say that referee has made a mistake. So there is an objective standard by which we can say that referees, and DMs, are wrong. That objective standard is the body of rules or laws.


It'll never happen because people want to be right when there is no right answer.

This brings up another peeve: when people claim there is no right answer, but there is one. Some questions are not, in principle, answerable. Some questions are, but their answer is not quantitative or absolute, and people don't like that. Some questions are answerable and people try to say that they are not.


You want a RAW answer, read the book yourself and whatever you understand that is your answer, that is the true definition of RAW.

No, that isn't the true definition of RAW. The notion of RAW is predicated on the notion that there is objectively such a thing as "as written." In other words, that there is an objective standard for determining the meaning of what is written, however vague or ambiguous. This is the same standard that allows dictionaries to exist (or you might alternatively say that it came into existence when the notion of the dictionary came into existence - which I personally disagree with but isn't unthinkable). If and only if you acknowledge that it is possible to objectively determine the meaning of English sentences, then you can enter the debate about what the meaning is. If not, you're taking on a pursuit that is inescapably fruitless.

To some extent the problem in RAW debates arises because people enter the debate without (whether knowingly or unknowingly - it's hard to tell sometimes) making this acknowledgement, and in those cases the argument can't, in principle, progress. But in the cases where both parties acknowledge it, there is something to be gained.


You must also understand that the rules were written in good faith and meant to be used by people who actually want to play the game itself and not to any of the people trying to put the rules under a spotlight and microscope; such exaggerated analysis will not hold up usually because the point of the rules is immediately defeated; most "problems" I dare say aren't even problems because people will usually talk it out like rational adults (usually... I have read the horror stories where this isn't the case).

I'm not sure you've got this right. I think I get what you're driving at but you seem to be incorrect in at least a few spots. The rules are precisely for the points where the spotlight applies, which seems to be the opposite of what you've said. If it weren't for the cases that draw the spotlight, you wouldn't need rules. You seem to have this muddled.

[Shaofoo]

This brings up another peeve: when people claim there is no right answer, but there is one. Some questions are not, in principle, answerable. Some questions are, but their answer is not quantitative or absolute, and people don't like that. Some questions are answerable and people try to say that they are not.



Well then present the answer if a question does have an answer, also this is a D&D forum so maybe you shouldn't be thinking it that much.


No, that isn't the true definition of RAW. The notion of RAW is predicated on the notion that there is objectively such a thing as "as written." In other words, that there is an objective standard for determining the meaning of what is written, however vague or ambiguous. This is the same standard that allows dictionaries to exist (or you might alternatively say that it came into existence when the notion of the dictionary came into existence - which I personally disagree with but isn't unthinkable). If and only if you acknowledge that it is possible to objectively determine the meaning of English sentences, then you can enter the debate about what the meaning is. If not, you're taking on a pursuit that is inescapably fruitless.

To some extent the problem in RAW debates arises because people enter the debate without (whether knowingly or unknowingly - it's hard to tell sometimes) making this acknowledgement, and in those cases the argument can't, in principle, progress. But in the cases where both parties acknowledge it, there is something to be gained.


So what you are saying is that RAW does not exist or rather RAW is as a concept a meaningless and futile thought experiment.



I'm not sure you've got this right. I think I get what you're driving at but you seem to be incorrect in at least a few spots. The rules are precisely for the points where the spotlight applies, which seems to be the opposite of what you've said. If it weren't for the cases that draw the spotlight, you wouldn't need rules. You seem to have this muddled.

The rules are for everything not just for "spotlight" areas (whatever that is). I said that fierce deconstruction of the rules tends to break down the game as a whole and that people tend to play the games rather than play rules lawyers. I am not sure where were you going with this.

But this is another way to deconstruct why do we argue.

[MaxWilson]

Well, the arguing to always be right thing can be bothersome. It can be more bothersome when you're not actually doing it but being accused of it.

You don't have to intellectually engage with half-wits if you don't feel like it. That's what the Ignore button is for. :)

[BurgerBeast]

The other sources of confusion I wanted to point out are (1) when semantics actually does impede the conversation, generally, and (2) when the word "opinion," specifically, is the source of semantic disagreements.

Opinion has at least three important common meanings which are distinct enough to be worth mentioning, and I tend to have this conversation with my students as early as I can in any class I teach because it can nip misunderstandings in the bud.

First, there is the type of opinion that is purely subjective. One example of this type of opinion is "I think tomatoes taste good." This is the type of opinion that it is completely illogical to criticize, because there is no good reason that anyone is a better judge of how the tomatoes taste than the taster himself or herself. Just imagine the absurdity of insisting that there are "correct" answers to how foods taste. When considering these types of opinions, everyone is equal, because logically, each individual is the best judge of their own perceptions. The right answer is literally determined by the subject in all cases.

Second, there is the type of opinion that is quantitatively objective. A good example of this is "I think Lionel Messi is the best footballer." This is the type of opinion which is informed by understanding of the sport of football, how to play it well, and how well Messi plays it. There is room for disagreement, but the amount of room depends on the degree of qualification. For example, if someone says "no, Cristiano Ronaldo is the best footballer" we may need to have a discussion... but it is objectively 100% true that Mike Tyson is not the best footballer. Two people may argue over who is best out of Messi and Ronaldo, but if we qualify the statement further by saying the best passer, or the best shooter, this might allow us to make a determination between the two. When considering these types of opinions, it is correct to give more credence to the opinions of people with more expertise, because they are better equipped to make the relevant determinations required to form such a judgment. It is also important to understand that there is not necessarily a right answer, and experts can be wrong.

Third, there is the type of opinion that is speculative. An example might be "I think the best way to treat this patient is using chemotherapy." The answer to this question can't be known, because nobody is ever going to exhaust every possible scenario to determine the best treatment, not least because it's physically impossible. These are "best-guess" scenarios in which experience and professional judgment is all we have to go on, and there are good reasons to think that professionals do make better decisions than laymen. In such cases, whether there is even a solution that works is unknown, and if there are multiple solutions that work, it's not possible to be certain which is best. Further, because we can't see the future, it is possible to select the "best" course of action and have it not work anyway. Yet still, in such situations, it makes sense to give more credit to an expert than a layman.

Of course there are probably more types of opinions, but these three illustrate the point that not all "opinions" are equal, nor can they be regarded in the same way.


...So what you are saying is that RAW does not exist or rather RAW is as a concept a meaningless and futile thought experiment.

No. I'm saying that RAW does exist, and is meaningful.


The rules are for everything not just for "spotlight" areas (whatever that is).

Agreed. "Spotlight" was the term you used. I was trying to reply in your terms.


I said that fierce deconstruction of the rules tends to break down the game as a whole and that people tend to play the games rather than play rules lawyers.

This is too hard to address via online forum. I'll say that I disagree with what you've said here but it may be the case that a further discussion would lead to agreement.

[Hrugner]

The purpose for a question is to get an answer, if the purpose of the question isn't an answer then it stops being a question.

If you are looking for secondary characteristics then go ahead but that is pointless in the grand scheme of finding answers. If you expect a particular set of answers then it just becomes a multiple choice problem, not a question.

The purpose of a question is clarification, that is the common goal of all questions plain and simple.

If your question isn't precise enough, you get answers that aren't valuable. And if you have people both answering the same imprecise question having assumed different specifics, then you can have arguments when the people would normally be agreeing.

So certainly, the purpose of asking a question is to get an answer, but the question is incomplete without the intent. And if you have an incomplete question, the answers will also be incomplete.

[pwykersotz]

Maybe I'm at odds with a large swath of other forum-goers here, but I find that the arguments (discussions) are the primary worth of a forum like this.

People's opinions, they're GM style, their player base, the context of why they run D&D, it's all relevant and interesting. I'm not nearly as interested in a "correct" answer as I am interested in why you think a given answer might be correct. Is it a particular style of language you interpret in a particular way? RAI from the devs? A fundamental belief in how RPG's should be played? Then I like to test how strong that particular viewpoint is, mostly because if it holds up to basic rigor then it might be worth adopting as a viewpoint.

I have many different gamers, and they have many different ways of gaming. Understanding the reasons people do the things they do is key to running a good game for those people. The wide array of personalities here at the playground makes this a pretty fertile ground for that understanding.

The only thing I find frustrating is when, as someone else mentioned, someone is only looking for an echo chamber and not a discussion. I find it fairly impossible to extract anything useful from someone who won't actually engage.

[BiPolar]

Maybe I'm at odds with a large swath of other forum-goers here, but I find that the arguments (discussions) are the primary worth of a forum like this.

People's opinions, they're GM style, their player base, the context of why they run D&D, it's all relevant and interesting. I'm not nearly as interested in a "correct" answer as I am interested in why you think a given answer might be correct. Is it a particular style of language you interpret in a particular way? RAI from the devs? A fundamental belief in how RPG's should be played? Then I like to test how strong that particular viewpoint is, mostly because if it holds up to basic rigor then it might be worth adopting as a viewpoint.

I have many different gamers, and they have many different ways of gaming. Understanding the reasons people do the things they do is key to running a good game for those people. The wide array of personalities here at the playground makes this a pretty fertile ground for that understanding.

The only thing I find frustrating is when, as someone else mentioned, someone is only looking for an echo chamber and not a discussion. I find it fairly impossible to extract anything useful from someone who won't actually engage.

The problem with that is generally people aren't asking how would this work at your table, they're asking if it is within the rules to do X.

Discussions are worthwhile, but only if the IP is looking for a discussion. If they're looking for an answer that falls within the given rules, then approaching it as what you would do at your table isn't as helpful and generates arguments and not discussion.

[pwykersotz]

The problem with that is generally people aren't asking how would this work at your table, they're asking if it is within the rules to do X.

Discussions are worthwhile, but only if the IP is looking for a discussion. If they're looking for an answer that falls within the given rules, then approaching it as what you would do at your table isn't as helpful and generates arguments and not discussion.

If there is a clear answer to be had, I completely agree. If someone asks "How far can a human move in one round?" then there is a clearly defined and proper answer, sometimes accounting for if that human is a monk or not.

However, sometimes the rules aren't so clear. "What is the range of my sense of smell?" has no RAW answer (that I am aware of). But saying "DM discretion" alone isn't really helpful. The person clearly needs an idea of how to figure this out, and discussion and context is useful.

That all said, I'm not sure I have ever seen a thread on this forum where the RAW was not given within the first several posts. Typically the RAW is laid out clearly and quickly, and the rest of the discussion is about the validity of the interpretation, which serves both purposes.

[LaserFace]

I was gonna talk about fallacies and junk, but then I realized that person whose name I can't pronounce said something cooler than anything I was gonna type up.


Maybe I'm at odds with a large swath of other forum-goers here, but I find that the arguments (discussions) are the primary worth of a forum like this.

People's opinions, they're GM style, their player base, the context of why they run D&D, it's all relevant and interesting. I'm not nearly as interested in a "correct" answer as I am interested in why you think a given answer might be correct. Is it a particular style of language you interpret in a particular way? RAI from the devs? A fundamental belief in how RPG's should be played? Then I like to test how strong that particular viewpoint is, mostly because if it holds up to basic rigor then it might be worth adopting as a viewpoint.

I have many different gamers, and they have many different ways of gaming. Understanding the reasons people do the things they do is key to running a good game for those people. The wide array of personalities here at the playground makes this a pretty fertile ground for that understanding.

The only thing I find frustrating is when, as someone else mentioned, someone is only looking for an echo chamber and not a discussion. I find it fairly impossible to extract anything useful from someone who won't actually engage.

[Pex]

I've noticed a number of responses criticizing those who have a gripe against 5E for the audacity of griping. To clarify, I don't mean disagreeing with the gripe itself and counterpointing why they think the gripe is unwarranted. The criticizing is in how dare the poster gripe about 5E at all. It's as if 5E is an absolutely perfect in every way nirvana of a game system, and if you don't like everything single thing about it you're a dumb donkey.

I'm quite willing to accept that people really like the game and find it a vast improvement over previous editions. As much as I like 3E & Pathfinder even I can acknowledge there are particular 5E rules I find a more fun mechanic, such as being able to move as far as your speed allows with no restrictions on what things you can do for your action. However, colloquial your finding 5E to be your favorite system does not forbid others from not liking every aspect of it and talking about why.

[BurgerBeast]

I was gonna talk about fallacies and junk, but then I realized that person whose name I can't pronounce said something cooler than anything I was gonna type up.

I had the same sentiment. The same applies to Pex's post above. Without a +1 function I wasn't sure how to go about complimenting someone's post or agreeing with someone without violating forum rules, though.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I like it when people with the same avatar get into arguments, because it looks like someone is having a shouting match with themselves.

[2D8HP]

I'll make it simple for you..
When others on this Forum argue RAW they are probably correct and I'm probably wrong.
When I argue an opinion than
I am always correct, and anyone who argues otherwise is wrong!
But when everyone agrees than there is no thread and that's boring, so people should argue anyway, unless their just telling stories, that's good as well.
That help?
:wink:

[Shaofoo]

The other sources of confusion I wanted to point out are (1) when semantics actually does impede the conversation, generally, and (2) when the word "opinion," specifically, is the source of semantic disagreements.

Opinion has at least three important common meanings which are distinct enough to be worth mentioning, and I tend to have this conversation with my students as early as I can in any class I teach because it can nip misunderstandings in the bud.

First, there is the type of opinion that is purely subjective. One example of this type of opinion is "I think tomatoes taste good." This is the type of opinion that it is completely illogical to criticize, because there is no good reason that anyone is a better judge of how the tomatoes taste than the taster himself or herself. Just imagine the absurdity of insisting that there are "correct" answers to how foods taste. When considering these types of opinions, everyone is equal, because logically, each individual is the best judge of their own perceptions. The right answer is literally determined by the subject in all cases.

Second, there is the type of opinion that is quantitatively objective. A good example of this is "I think Lionel Messi is the best footballer." This is the type of opinion which is informed by understanding of the sport of football, how to play it well, and how well Messi plays it. There is room for disagreement, but the amount of room depends on the degree of qualification. For example, if someone says "no, Cristiano Ronaldo is the best footballer" we may need to have a discussion... but it is objectively 100% true that Mike Tyson is not the best footballer. Two people may argue over who is best out of Messi and Ronaldo, but if we qualify the statement further by saying the best passer, or the best shooter, this might allow us to make a determination between the two. When considering these types of opinions, it is correct to give more credence to the opinions of people with more expertise, because they are better equipped to make the relevant determinations required to form such a judgment. It is also important to understand that there is not necessarily a right answer, and experts can be wrong.

Third, there is the type of opinion that is speculative. An example might be "I think the best way to treat this patient is using chemotherapy." The answer to this question can't be known, because nobody is ever going to exhaust every possible scenario to determine the best treatment, not least because it's physically impossible. These are "best-guess" scenarios in which experience and professional judgment is all we have to go on, and there are good reasons to think that professionals do make better decisions than laymen. In such cases, whether there is even a solution that works is unknown, and if there are multiple solutions that work, it's not possible to be certain which is best. Further, because we can't see the future, it is possible to select the "best" course of action and have it not work anyway. Yet still, in such situations, it makes sense to give more credit to an expert than a layman.

Of course there are probably more types of opinions, but these three illustrate the point that not all "opinions" are equal, nor can they be regarded in the same way.


I only find that your first point is what I would call an opinion

Your second point is only an opinion if there is no general consensus to any metric. To put this into actual topic it is asking "What is the most OP class?" and then people saying "Fighter because PAM/GWM" or "Druid cause infinite HP" or "Wizards cause I can't think of anything original" and going in circles because no one agrees what does being OP mean. If people decide on a metric then it stops being an opinion because you are using actual facts, of course getting people to agree on a metric is a whole nother can of worms. Of course in a cosmic viewpoint then these metrics are useless because somewhere else then the metric might change but for the purposes of a discussion once hard facts are an established metric then it stops being opinion for the purposes of the discussion. BUt in a cosmic standpoint then yes it is an opinion.

The third point I wouldn't call an opinion because I would hope that your "opinion" is based on established facts. You will give chemo to the patient with cancer, not to the guy with the broken arm or to the heart attack patient (unless they also have cancer). There might be multiple ways to solve a problem and you might think that there is a best way but you would probably have a reason why this is the best way based on actual facts. It might still be an opinion but I would hope the people will not argue your reasoning of why you would chose such an opinion. It is an opinion based on facts and if the facts are rational then they should rarely be argumentative.


No. I'm saying that RAW does exist, and is meaningful.

If RAW is dependent on the person then there is no metric and is not meaningful (See your own second point on opinion).



This is too hard to address via online forum. I'll say that I disagree with what you've said here but it may be the case that a further discussion would lead to agreement.

The rules were written so people can play a game, not so they can be deconstructed. A lot of supposed "ambiguity" I don't see affecting play because people can probably deal with it in some capacity but of course take those ambiguity under the fine comb and everything breaks apart. Although I do believe some people are into D&D just so they can complain and point out the flaws in the system like how people buy tickets to bad movies.


I've noticed a number of responses criticizing those who have a gripe against 5E for the audacity of griping. To clarify, I don't mean disagreeing with the gripe itself and counterpointing why they think the gripe is unwarranted. The criticizing is in how dare the poster gripe about 5E at all. It's as if 5E is an absolutely perfect in every way nirvana of a game system, and if you don't like everything single thing about it you're a dumb donkey.

I'm quite willing to accept that people really like the game and find it a vast improvement over previous editions. As much as I like 3E & Pathfinder even I can acknowledge there are particular 5E rules I find a more fun mechanic, such as being able to move as far as your speed allows with no restrictions on what things you can do for your action. However, colloquial your finding 5E to be your favorite system does not forbid others from not liking every aspect of it and talking about why.

I haven't seen anyone go against someone just because they hate D&D 5e. Not saying that it doesn't happen but if we are talking about here then I haven't seen it nor people saying that 5e is the second coming of Gygax either.

[BurgerBeast]

I only find that your first point is what I would call an opinion

Well then what do you call the others? They are not matters of fact in the same way that "Washington, D.C. is the capital of the U.S.A." is a fact.


Your second point is only an opinion if there is no general consensus to any metric.

Exactly. So which metrics are the important metrics is a matter of opinion. For example, maybe one expert thinks that speed is more important than passing while the other thinks passing is more important than speed.


If people decide on a metric then it stops being an opinion because you are using actual facts, of course getting people to agree on a metric is a whole nother can of worms.

To some degree you are right here, but it depends on the nature of the metric and how discernible it is. Sometimes there is still no absolutely correct answer but the range is narrowed, so it remains a matter of opinion. In other cases, we qualify it as you suggest, to the point that is no longer an opinion but a fact.


The third point I wouldn't call an opinion because I would hope that your "opinion" is based on established facts. You will give chemo to the patient with cancer, not to the guy with the broken arm or to the heart attack patient (unless they also have cancer).

Yes but that's not what I'm driving at. What I'm driving at is whether, for this particular Cancer patient, the best treatment is chemotherapy. It may be the case that the best treatment is surgery, or a lighter form of chemo (pills as opposed to IV), or a heavier form (pills and chemo).

If we had the ability to suspend time and run a controlled experiment, discover the truth after trying every method on this particular patient, we could arrive at the truth. But we can't. The truth is literally not attainable, so this is not a matter of fact. We are forced to rely on opinions about how a variety of actions might affect the future.


There might be multiple ways to solve a problem and you might think that there is a best way but you would probably have a reason why this is the best way based on actual facts.

Yes but those facts are different than this particular fact we are trying to determine.


It might still be an opinion but I would hope the people will not argue your reasoning of why you would chose such an opinion. It is an opinion based on facts and if the facts are rational then they should rarely be argumentative.

Of course these things are argued. If someone is diagnosed with cancer and they are told that they can take the IV for a 15% survival rate, or the IV and pills for a 19% survival rate, but that the side-effects of the combination are extremely debilitating, they have a real decision to make.

If they could see into the future, they might know that the IV alone is enough to save them, in which case the combination is an objectively worse choice. But without this knowledge, the opinion to take the combination might appear better. One expert might recommend one and a different expert might recommend the other. Absent a crystal ball, the patient who chose the combination would only ever know after surviving that the method worked, and feel happy about it. But the patient will never know if the IV alone would have worked. The truth couldn;t possibly be known.


If RAW is dependent on the person then there is no metric and is not meaningful (See your own second point on opinion).

This is correct. I am saying that RAW doesn't depend on the person reading it. I'm saying RAW is a matter of fact. Facts don't fit into any of the types of opinions because they're not opinions.

[Zalabim]

The other sources of confusion I wanted to point out are (1) when semantics actually does impede the conversation, generally, and (2) when the word "opinion," specifically, is the source of semantic disagreements.

Though there's a risk of repeating Shaofoo with this, I feel I can do a decent TL;DR breakdown of this.


First, there is the type of opinion that is purely subjective. One example of this type of opinion is "I think tomatoes taste good." This is the type of opinion that it is completely illogical to criticize, because there is no good reason that anyone is a better judge of how the tomatoes taste than the taster himself or herself. Just imagine the absurdity of insisting that there are "correct" answers to how foods taste. When considering these types of opinions, everyone is equal, because logically, each individual is the best judge of their own perceptions. The right answer is literally determined by the subject in all cases.

Purely subjective opinions. Sometimes people make a statement that falls into category two or three, but try to carry on as if they've made a category one statement.


Second, there is the type of opinion that is quantitatively objective. A good example of this is "I think Lionel Messi is the best footballer." This is the type of opinion which is informed by understanding of the sport of football, how to play it well, and how well Messi plays it. There is room for disagreement, but the amount of room depends on the degree of qualification. For example, if someone says "no, Cristiano Ronaldo is the best footballer" we may need to have a discussion... but it is objectively 100% true that Mike Tyson is not the best footballer. Two people may argue over who is best out of Messi and Ronaldo, but if we qualify the statement further by saying the best passer, or the best shooter, this might allow us to make a determination between the two. When considering these types of opinions, it is correct to give more credence to the opinions of people with more expertise, because they are better equipped to make the relevant determinations required to form such a judgment. It is also important to understand that there is not necessarily a right answer, and experts can be wrong.

A matter of facts wherein the subjectivity is in the valuing of those facts. Anyone with a knowledge of the facts can typically weigh in on the matter. This could also be called an expert analysis. Arguments can stem from this when people make a statement intending category one and people analyze it like category two.


Third, there is the type of opinion that is speculative. An example might be "I think the best way to treat this patient is using chemotherapy." The answer to this question can't be known, because nobody is ever going to exhaust every possible scenario to determine the best treatment, not least because it's physically impossible. These are "best-guess" scenarios in which experience and professional judgment is all we have to go on, and there are good reasons to think that professionals do make better decisions than laymen. In such cases, whether there is even a solution that works is unknown, and if there are multiple solutions that work, it's not possible to be certain which is best. Further, because we can't see the future, it is possible to select the "best" course of action and have it not work anyway. Yet still, in such situations, it makes sense to give more credit to an expert than a layman.

A matter of facts which are not known or even cannot be known. There may be some objectively true statement(s), but it's impossible for us to identify it empirically. This is where expert opinions come from. It's otherwise the same as category two for having subjectivity in the value placed on the information, if it's available (like quality of life versus length of life). Again, anyone with the knowledge can weigh in on the matter, but getting knowledge is more difficult in these fields. Documentation may be limited in availability or applicability, and experience is often used to make up the slack. It can be very hard for a layperson to identify an expert. It's easy to see how arguments happen around these kinds of expert opinions.


Of course there are probably more types of opinions, but these three illustrate the point that not all "opinions" are equal, nor can they be regarded in the same way.

It really does illustrate how people come up with actually or seemingly counter-factual opinions, or present opinions and facts interchangeably.


Opinion has at least three important common meanings which are distinct enough to be worth mentioning, and I tend to have this conversation with my students as early as I can in any class I teach because it can nip misunderstandings in the bud.

You teach? I feel sorry for your students. I really prefer the meandering conversation style to the meandering lecture style.Moved to not start off with a joke or insult, but I'm not in the right mind to edit my feelings.


I was gonna talk about fallacies and junk, but then I realized that person whose name I can't pronounce said something cooler than anything I was gonna type up.

You can't pronounce Pwykersotz? I admit I might pronounce it wrong, but I think of it as coming out similar to quicker socks.


I've noticed a number of responses criticizing those who have a gripe against 5E for the audacity of griping. To clarify, I don't mean disagreeing with the gripe itself and counterpointing why they think the gripe is unwarranted. The criticizing is in how dare the poster gripe about 5E at all. It's as if 5E is an absolutely perfect in every way nirvana of a game system, and if you don't like everything single thing about it you're a dumb donkey.

I'm quite willing to accept that people really like the game and find it a vast improvement over previous editions. As much as I like 3E & Pathfinder even I can acknowledge there are particular 5E rules I find a more fun mechanic, such as being able to move as far as your speed allows with no restrictions on what things you can do for your action. However, colloquial your finding 5E to be your favorite system does not forbid others from not liking every aspect of it and talking about why.

I know I often find myself divided when I try to defend subjective design decisions or correct inaccurate statements about 5E's skill system while also not feeling like 5E has a subjectively good skill system. I haven't seen a ton of different styles of skill systems, but none of them have felt really good to me, so I just don't know what to do with it.

[BurgerBeast]

Purely subjective opinions. Sometimes people make a statement that falls into category two or three, but try to carry on as if they've made a category one statement.

The fact that you call these "purely subjective opinions" implies that there must be other types of opinions that are not purely subjective. What do you think is an example of an opinion that isn't purely subjective, and what makes it so?


A matter of facts wherein the subjectivity is in the valuing of those facts.

Exactly. How do you value them? The answer is your opinion. That's why it's an opinion.


Anyone with a knowledge of the facts can typically weigh in on the matter.

In fact, anyone at all can. You don't need to have a knowledge of the facts to "weigh in." But the point remains: "weigh in" in this case means "share your opinion." Thus, it's an opinion.


This could also be called an expert analysis.

Clearly.


Arguments can stem from this when people make a statement intending category one and people analyze it like category two.

Agreed. But that's not the only reason why people might argue. They might argue for a variety of reasons, some of which I gave in a previous post.


A matter of facts which are not known or even cannot be known.

You keep re-stating the obvious. It's not exactly clear what you're disagreeing about.


There may be some objectively true statement(s), but it's impossible for us to identify it empirically.

Empirically or at all. Sure.


This is where expert opinions come from.

No, it isn't.


It's otherwise the same as category two for having subjectivity in the value placed on the information, if it's available (like quality of life versus length of life).

So, if it's otherwise the same, then we agree that it's different, right?


Again, anyone with the knowledge can weigh in on the matter,...

Again, anyone at all can weight in.


...but getting knowledge is more difficult in these fields.

Which fields?


Documentation may be limited in availability or applicability, and experience is often used to make up the slack.

Maybe. I still don't know which fields you're referring to.


It can be very hard for a layperson to identify an expert. It's easy to see how arguments happen around these kinds of expert opinions.

You're calling them "expert opinions" now. So do you agree that they are opinions, now? Or are you still saying they're matters of fact?


It really does illustrate how people come up with actually or seemingly counter-factual opinions, or present opinions and facts interchangeably.

A counter-factual opinion? This is nonsense. Perhaps you mean an opinion that ignores the facts? Because generally, if you state a fact incorrectly, that's not a counter-fact. It's an incorrect fact.


You teach? I feel sorry for your students. I really prefer the meandering conversation style to the meandering lecture style.Moved to not start off with a joke or insult, but I'm not in the right mind to edit my feelings.

I feel sorry for you. You clearly didn't understand most of what I said, and you're clearly confused. Also, there's no logical reason to connect the way I write on an internet forum to the way I teach. But it's apparent that logic isn't high on your priority list.


You can't pronounce Pwykersotz? I admit I might pronounce it wrong, but I think of it as coming out similar to quicker socks.

I think you mean you pronounce it incorrectly.

"Can't" in this case means "do it poorly or incorrectly." It's sort of like when a person says "I can't sing." They don't literally mean they can't. They mean that they can sing, but they do so poorly.

So, basically, when you say "I might pronounce it wrong [sic]," that is what is meant by "can't pronounce it." So you're admitting that you might not be able to pronounce it, either.

You're welcome.


I know I often find myself divided when I try to defend subjective design decisions...

5e design decisions are subjective by definition. Someone (a subject) made them.

Mostly, you seem to misunderstand pretty much everything I said. Beyond that, you should look up redundant and learn what it means, and then apply it to your writing/thinking.

[Cybren]

Source of most thread arguments: boredom.

[Tanarii]

Source of most thread arguments: boredom.
lol that's some truth right there

[Safety Sword]

A few of the identifiable camps that people argue from on these forums are:

Those that read the rules and play the game that way with the best of intentions
Those that read the rules incorrectly and play the game that way to prove it's "broken"
Those that always think every rule is broken and feel the need to "fix" it (Designers of games never know what they're doing)
Those that just like to be controversial and start arguments


This is by no means an exhaustive list. Conflicts come when these camps shout into the same space anonymously on the interwebs.

[JumboWheat01]

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Conflicts come when these camps shout into the same space anonymously on the interwebs.

I'M NOT SHOUTING!

...All right I'm shouting. I'M SHOUTING! I'M SHOUTING! I'M *clubbed!*


One problem with arguments is how language can be read. We're very personable creatures, us humans. Without hearing the voice behind the words, they can often be misconstrued and seem offensive or aggressive. Especially if a single word could have different meanings depending on WHERE it's used in a sentence.

[Vogonjeltz]

The problem is that there isn't a right answer most of the time. Or rather people are hung up on their version of the right answer and thus everyone who has a different version is wrong.

It isn't even RAW vs RAI vs opinion, it is "reinterpreting a sentence 3 different ways" so in essence is RAW vs RAW vs RAW.

Spot on assessment.

I'd also note the following is likely to break out in such cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse

Disclaimer: As always, if you want more information, don't just stop at the wiki pages. They're only intended as an easy jumping off point. :).

The discussion in the last link about the white horses to simply one party being disingenuous as it requires a deliberate effort to obfuscate the meaning.


If there is a clear answer to be had, I completely agree. If someone asks "How far can a human move in one round?" then there is a clearly defined and proper answer, sometimes accounting for if that human is a monk or not.

However, sometimes the rules aren't so clear. "What is the range of my sense of smell?" has no RAW answer (that I am aware of). But saying "DM discretion" alone isn't really helpful. The person clearly needs an idea of how to figure this out, and discussion and context is useful.

That all said, I'm not sure I have ever seen a thread on this forum where the RAW was not given within the first several posts. Typically the RAW is laid out clearly and quickly, and the rest of the discussion is about the validity of the interpretation, which serves both purposes.

It is also often that case that only incomplete information is given from one source, or several responders who are trying to provide a RAW answer didn't factor in pertinent information from multiple page locations/sources.

[2D8HP]

Those that read the rules and play the game that way with the best of intentions
Those that read the rules incorrectly and play the game that way to prove it's "broken"
Those that always think every rule is broken and feel the need to "fix" it (Designers of games never know what they're doing)
Those that just like to be controversial and start arguments
.There's also those maybe just me who are dain bramaged; and despite studying them for two years, can't remember the rules of the current edition of the game as well as the rules from over 30 years ago, and consequently encourages many new rules to be left out and old rules brought back even when the new rules are more fun.
Just so hard to learn new, and forget old!

[Zalabim]

Mostly, you seem to misunderstand pretty much everything I said. Beyond that, you should look up redundant and learn what it means, and then apply it to your writing/thinking.

Irony? I did say, right off, I was attempting a less dense rephrasing of what you'd said. You took that and dissected it looking for disagreement where it was not intended, only warned that I may veer off a little from what you were trying to convey. Let me see what I can salvage from your reply.


In fact, anyone at all can. You don't need to have a knowledge of the facts to "weigh in." But the point remains: "weigh in" in this case means "share your opinion." Thus, it's an opinion.

You're thinking of 4. Slang To join in a discussion; utter a remark: She weighed in with some pertinent facts. The Free Dictionary dot com

I'm thinking of 2. to bring one's weight or influence to bear especially as a participant, contributor, or mediator <weighed in with an opinion> Merriam-Webster dot com


Which fields?

I don't think examples of fields needed to be repeated. You mentioned medicine. The difference between 2nd and 3rd seems clear enough to decide on the spot when presented with a case.


A counter-factual opinion? This is nonsense.

Nonsense would be a synonym. I'm sorry(?) you hadn't been exposed to that phrase yet.

Those that just like to be controversial and start arguments is definitely a camp. It is a lively camp.

[Safety Sword]

Can I just add that no matter what camp (or camps) you happen to shout from, MOST people have good intentions when they post.

Sometimes it's hard to get people to see your point of view because they've already decided to stick firmly to an incorrect assumption or rules reading.

Personally I don't enjoy it when people speak for the majority when they have no data to back their position and I get frustrated that people continue arguing even when it's been shown without doubt that many people disagree with their interpretation of a rule.

I tend to argue strongly against intentional rule bending or rules lawyering too. None too subtle sometimes :smallredface:

[BurgerBeast]

You're thinking of 4. Slang To join in a discussion; utter a remark: She weighed in with some pertinent facts. The Free Dictionary dot com

I'm thinking of 2. to bring one's weight or influence to bear especially as a participant, contributor, or mediator <weighed in with an opinion> Merriam-Webster dot com

I wasn't thinking of either. I was trying to answer in a way that you could take either definition as you see fit, since you brought in the term. Using either definition, my point remains. Anyone is capable of either.


Nonsense would be a synonym. I'm sorry(?) you hadn't been exposed to that phrase yet.

I've been exposed to the term. I'm just used to this (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/counterfact) definition, not the one you've used. In any case I think Orwell would take exception to the usage, no matter how popular.