Giant in the Courthouse [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Waker

2017-07-21, 03:55 PM

I was recently pondering the various number of Laws, Fallacies and Axioms that are often thrown about as commonplace terms in the various forum arguments. And with the recent issues that some of the other gaming forums were having, I thought it might be a good idea to try and consolidate them in one place. So repost those little gems of gaming wisdom here.
Preferably I would like the original text by the law's creator.

I. Thou shalt not give up thy caster levels.
II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.
III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty.
IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.
V. Thou shalt not give up thy caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.
VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.
VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.
VIII. When beseeching the Brethren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance.
IX. Invoke not "common sense", for it is not common.
X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build toppled by the Brethren within five minutes of posting.
Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game.
The fallacy is that all breaks from reality should be treated equally in terms of acceptance and skepticism. Just because we accept dragons does not mean we have to accept rogues phasing through fireballs.
Just because a word has multiple valid definitions does not mean it has multiple applicable definitions
If a person says he knows that a build choice is unoptimal but they want to do so anyways, then give them advice that makes the choice better, not advice on picking something better.
Ignore any attempt to involve a game's redefinition of a word in a discussion involving the ordinary definion of the word. In particular, if you try to convince someone that macrocosmic teleportation via pure martial skill is magical because it has an (Ex) tag, no-one will believe you.
The tendency to interpret the rules, not based on any validity with RAW or logic, but that which makes the game (in their eyes) more balanced.
This tendency is often fueled by the incorrect belief that the game is balanced or the desire for it to be.
You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.
Things I can't do can't be done without spells.
(Paraphrased) There is no problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue with (whatever rule) because you can always Rule 0 the problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue.
Selectively building a character to deal with a specific challenge proves nothing about the viability of a class.
All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
Just because something is not explicitly stated exist in D&D does not mean that it doesn't exist in the D&D world. D&D mimics Real Life except when noted.
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

You should not try to solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.
It is the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!
Fluff is mutable. All fluff is ultimately constrained by the crunch and much be supported or at least not opposed by it.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-21, 04:11 PM

I believe this is the original post for the Stormwind Fallacy.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Afgncaap5

2017-07-21, 04:16 PM

Anyone have the actual wording for Stormwind Fallacy?

According to this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22250/what-is-the-stormwind-fallacy), this is how it appeared at the WotC forums:

Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

And for the longform description with included thoughts...

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

EDIT: Swordsaged!

Waker

2017-07-21, 04:18 PM

I'm gonna go with the shortened version of the Stormwind Fallacy to save on room a bit.

tiercel

2017-07-22, 02:20 AM

Waker

2017-07-22, 12:37 PM

While trying to come across the original text for the Stormwind Fallacy, I did see the argument about the "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" brought up. I am mostly just concerned with sharing the platitudes thought up by gamers, some of which may help improve gaming. Hopefully people don't come away with the wrong message from them.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 04:25 PM

Bucky

2017-07-22, 04:28 PM

Guy at the Gym fallacy - If it can't be done IRL, then a high level mundane character shouldn't be able to do it.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 04:43 PM

Guy at the Gym fallacy - If it can't be done IRL, then a high level mundane character shouldn't be able to do it.

No, that's "If it can't be done IRL by someone I know, then a high-level mundane character shouldn't be able to do it." Ability to be done IRL at all is what defines mundane.

Waker

2017-07-22, 04:52 PM

There's also the Playgrounder's Fallacy (Any discussion about roleplaying games is always a discussion about D&D, especially 3.5) and the "But dragons!" Fallacy (Because some things in a roleplaying game will always be unrealistic, there is no reason to be concerned with realism at all).

Do you have a source on either of these? Not familiar with them.
I'll message bekeleven to give a summarized version of Guy at the Gym.

Florian

2017-07-22, 05:02 PM

"But dragons!" Fallacy (Because some things in a roleplaying game will always be unrealistic, there is no reason to be concerned with realism at all).

I fear that one is no fallacy and pretty much connected with "Guy at the Gym", at least when a simulation is the intention and rules should be modeled to reflect the in-game reality.

Florian

2017-07-22, 05:06 PM

Guy at the Gym.

That one is easy as it´s connected to verisimilitude: "People that do things that we can also do, can´t do things we can´t do - My only reference point for verisimilitude is me".

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 05:07 PM

Do you have a source on either of these? Not familiar with them.
I'll message bekeleven to give a summarized version of Guy at the Gym.

The "But dragons!" fallacy: (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445781-The-quot-BUT-DRAGONS!-quot-Fallacy) "All breaks from reality should be treated equally in terms of acceptance and skepticism."

I can't find an origin for Playgrounder's but googling reveals several instances of its use (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=but+dragons+fallacy+giantitp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=jstzWdPHAajVXuLntKgF#q=%22playgrounder%27s+fall acy%22+giantitp&filter=0).

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-22, 05:09 PM

The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy)

Hackulator

2017-07-22, 05:39 PM

The Fallacy Fallacy, when people throw around the word fallacy for things that aren't fallacies, just disagreements.

The "did you really create a law of gaming named after yourself and then include in a list of you referred to as gems of wisdom" fallacy.

Coidzor

2017-07-22, 05:40 PM

I think there is an important distinction (re: Stormwind Fallacy) between "optimizing does not infringe upon roleplaying or vice versa" and "optimizing does not preclude roleplaying or vice versa."

The latter states that the two are *not necessarily* incompatible, while the former can be seen as implying that the two are *never* incompatible.

In particular, the former can fall into the territory of "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" in that anyone who questions whether one *ever* infringes upon another can find him/herself shouted down with NO, STORMWIND FALLACY without actually seeing whether the player/DM in question is, in a particular instance, emphasizing either the optimization or roleplay aspect of the game unduly compared to his/her group's playing style.

(If nothing else, as a DM I generally have had a finite amount of prep time and energy for gaming sessions, and while nothing necessarily precludes me from having a potentially interesting story AND well-balanced encounters, sometimes I don't have the werewithal to pull off a balance of both for a given session, and have to settle for more roleplay-heavy story elements or more optimized challenging encounters because I just didn't have the time/oomph/inclination to pull off both to the same level this week.)

Situations where a player cannot come up with a coherent character for the mechanical options they chose when making it are vanishingly rare and nearly impossible, and actually become impossible if the GM is at least halfway reasonable and willing to discuss things with their players.

Situations where a player simply chooses not to bother to come up with a coherent character is just an example of their choice, not something that shows that making their character infringed upon their ability to roleplay or what have you, they just were never interested in the first place.

Ability to be done IRL at all is what defines mundane.

Not in D&D 3.5 it doesn't.

Extraordinary abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities) are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Nor Pathfinder, for that matter.

Extraordinary abilities (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Extraordinary-Abilities-Ex-) are non-magical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.

Mundane characters are explicitly able to do things that are physically impossible for those of us here in the real world.

That's without even getting into how capabilities increase as ability scores increase or skill ranks increase. Or how much damage a dude with a stick can cause by power attacking.

gooddragon1

2017-07-22, 05:44 PM

I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-22, 05:46 PM

I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?

No, but it doesn't stop broken content from being broken.

Coidzor

2017-07-22, 05:48 PM

I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?

Only if you also believe that your system of houserules, homebrew, and spectrum of kludgy to elegant fixes mean that there weren't problems you had to address in order to make the game work for your group.

Waker

2017-07-22, 05:48 PM

I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?

You are free to disagree with it, no harm done. I don't agree with the Snowbluff Axiom, but some people would, so in the list it goes.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 06:25 PM

Not in D&D 3.5 it doesn't.

Nor Pathfinder, for that matter.

Mundane characters are explicitly able to do things that are physically impossible for those of us here in the real world.

That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane". And that's not the point, really: if in my game hippos have eight legs and fly, that doesn't mean that's what a hippo actually is, only that the game has a stipulated definition of "Hippo" that deviates from the real one. Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world. What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-22, 06:27 PM

That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane". And that's not the point, really: if in my game hippos have eight legs and fly, that doesn't mean that's what a hippo actually is, only that the game has a stipulated definition of "Hippo" that deviates from the real one. Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world. What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.

This is why I dislike using the word mundane to describe anything in D&D except 1st level Commoners.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 06:27 PM

That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane". And that's not the point, really: if in my game hippos have eight legs and fly, that doesn't mean that's what a hippo actually is, only that the game has a stipulated definition of "Hippo" that deviates from the real one. Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world. What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.

Mundane in D&D refers to characters that are incapable of using magic via class features. You can see where the miscommunication came from.

EDIT; This term was created by the community, not the game itself.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 06:31 PM

This is why I dislike using the word mundane to describe anything in D&D except 1st level Commoners.

Well a 20th-level fighter is plenty mundane, ignoring details like "The rules for lava and falling are stupid and should be rewritten". It's just not mundane in a sense that I'm talking about.

Mundane in D&D refers to characters that are incapable of using magic via class features. You can see where the miscommunication came from.

EDIT; This term was created by the community, not the game itself.

Well, mundane still means a lot of things. I don't think that it's reasonable to insist that mundane and extraordinary are the same thing though.

bekeleven

2017-07-22, 06:31 PM

If I were to get really pithy about the Guy at the Gym fallacy, it would be, "Things I can't do can't be done without spells."

Most of the other summaries in this thread have a bit more nuance.

Waker

2017-07-22, 06:37 PM

If I were to get really pithy about the Guy at the Gym fallacy, it would be, "Things I can't do can't be done without spells."

Most of the other summaries in this thread have a bit more nuance.

Nuance is lost with these shorthand explanations, but trying to cram the full discussion of multiple laws/fallacies would really quickly fill up the posts.
I will update your Fallacy now.

Oh and if anyone who has a law/fallacy wants to update or otherwise clarify, just lemme know and I'll edit them.

Psyren

2017-07-22, 06:42 PM

I had one, but since it's about gaming forums themselves I doubt it would be popular here.

If I were to get really pithy about the Guy at the Gym fallacy, it would be, "Things I can't do can't be done without spells."

Most of the other summaries in this thread have a bit more nuance.

How about "without magic?" Lots of folks who have a problem with martials doing things like Ex Teleportation are fine with Su and SLA versions.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-22, 06:50 PM

Well a 20th-level fighter is plenty mundane, ignoring details like "The rules for lava and falling are stupid and should be rewritten". It's just not mundane in a sense that I'm talking about.

:smallconfused: So, if you ignore chunks of the rules they're mundane?

Level 20 Fighters can lift more than ordinary people can too.

Waker

2017-07-22, 06:50 PM

Feel free to share, Psyren. If you think it's a worthwhile contribution, let us hear it.

Coidzor

2017-07-22, 07:28 PM

That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane".

We both know that you understand. Pretending otherwise just makes you look bad.

Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world.

Ok, that's a positively bizarre semantic argument and you're using a definition that flies in the face of convention, but, yeah, you're technically correct if you want to say that something that is constrained by the limits of the real world should be constrained by the limits of the real world.

The problem crops up when people try to constrain things by the limits of the real world that the rules tell them not to. Which is what actually matters here, but for some reason you danced around that, so I'll just ask you point blank.

So do you agree with people doing that or disagree?

Or are we going to get sidetracked on something completely irrelevant?

What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.

Wait, what? Did you forget what subforum we're in right now? :smallconfused:

We're in the D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 subforum, mate. If you didn't somehow forget that, then exactly what D&D has to do with what we're talking about is patently obvious.

I had one, but since it's about gaming forums themselves I doubt it would be popular here.

Never doubt the capacity for people to come into a thread just to start an argument?

Never doubt the capacity for people on a gaming forum getting distracted and offtopic and arguing about a tangent that doesn't even matter to the main point of the topic at hand?

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 08:21 PM

We both know that you understand. Pretending otherwise just makes you look bad.

I understand you, I just do not agree with you. I didn't pretend otherwise: putting an (ex) tag on something doesn't mean that it's mundane in any real sense of the word.

Since we're coming up with all these new laws, here's one: A game term's definition may not have anything to do with its meaning as a real word, and trying to equate the two isn't helpful. More specifically, if you try to claim that teleportation is nonmagical just because a game rule says it is, no-one will believe you.

Cosi

2017-07-22, 08:25 PM

More specifically, if you try to claim that teleportation is nonmagical just because a game rule says it is, no-one will believe you.

Wait transporters are magic now? Is Star Trek fantasy? Are the people who study quantum teleportation Wizards?

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 08:26 PM

More specifically, if you try to claim that teleportation is nonmagical just because a game rule says it is, no-one will believe you.

If I saw someone teleport in real life I wouldn't assume it was magic. I would assume it was technology like in Star Trek.

EDIT: Actually, you'd have a harder time convincing me is was magic.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 08:27 PM

Wait transporters are magic now? Is Star Trek fantasy? Are the people who study quantum teleportation Wizards?

I didn't think I would need to clarify "Macrocosmic teleportation without any specialist equipment, for example of the sort which appears in the Tome of Battle", but apparently I do.

Coidzor

2017-07-22, 08:29 PM

I understand you, I just do not agree with you. I didn't pretend otherwise: putting an (ex) tag on something doesn't mean that it's mundane in any real sense of the word.

Then say what you mean in the first place, Jormengand, if you had just been direct instead of trying to be cute or clever or whatever you thought you were doing we would have been spared several unnecessary posts.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 08:29 PM

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 08:31 PM

Then say what you mean in the first place, Jormengand, if you had just been direct instead of trying to be cute or clever or whatever you thought you were doing we would have been spared several unnecessary posts.

I... don't understand how saying "And that's not the point, really: if in my game hippos have eight legs and fly, that doesn't mean that's what a hippo actually is, only that the game has a stipulated definition of "Hippo" that deviates from the real one." was in any way indirect: it's fairly obvious what the point is: a game isn't just allowed to redefine words and expect me to believe that the thing it's referring to is the thing that that word actually means in real life. I'm sorry, but I don't know how I can be plainer than that.

Considering that nothing in your post had to do with ToB, I sure didn't make the connection between teleporting and Martial Adepts.

Stay here long enough and you'll realise that most of the ex-mundane disparity comes from ToB, with "But evasion though!" and the fact that the amount of damage that lava and gravity do is too little being the main core examples.

Waker

2017-07-22, 08:33 PM

Jormengand, if you wanna make a law or fallacy, just show me how you want to have it written and I'll add it. Don't forget the name, names have power.
I'm adding the False Balance Fallacy as well.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 08:35 PM

I'm adding the False Balance Fallacy as well.

Oh, Thanks.

Cosi

2017-07-22, 08:39 PM

I didn't think I would need to clarify "Macrocosmic teleportation without any specialist equipment, for example of the sort which appears in the Tome of Battle", but apparently I do.

Uh, okay, at this point it basically sounds like you decided your position in advance ("Tome of Battle is not mundane!") and are now shifting the goalposts after the fact to make it true. I could probably find some counterexample somewhere, but at that point you'd just say "and also not that specific thing".

Incidentally, plane shift is now apparently less magical than ... whichever maneuver you are complaining about, because it requires specialist equipment (the tuning fork).

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 08:52 PM

Jormengand, if you wanna make a law or fallacy, just show me how you want to have it written and I'll add it. Don't forget the name, names have power.

The (Ex) Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_(philosophy)): Ignore any attempt to involve a game's redefinition of a word in a discussion involving the ordinary definion of the word. In particular, if you try to convince someone that macrocosmic teleportation via pure martial skill isn't magical because it has an (Ex) tag, no-one will believe you.

Uh, okay, at this point it basically sounds like you decided your position in advance ("Tome of Battle is not mundane!") and are now shifting the goalposts after the fact to make it true. I could probably find some counterexample somewhere, but at that point you'd just say "and also not that specific thing".

Incidentally, plane shift is now apparently less magical than ... whichever maneuver you are complaining about, because it requires specialist equipment (the tuning fork).

I don't know where you got the idea that because macrocosmic teleportation without equipment is definitely magical, macrocosmic teleportation with equipment is definitely nonmagical. Shadow Jaunt is overtly, obviously magical and there's no real way that can be disputed. Some of the other shadow hand maneuvers and stances (say, assassin's stance) aren't overtly magical because they don't involve telling the laws of physics to go sit in the corner for a bit.

Assuming you don't have futuristic devices (and whether, say, the teletransporter is really teleportation in the sense we're accustomed to is up for debate anyway), teleportation in that manner is clearly magical. Only pedantry like "Well what if the swordsage has an anachronistic device that we're not certain is actually possible to make yet?" even allows you to dodge that temporarily before the hammer of "Well he can do that naked so clearly he doesn't have such a device" hits home.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 08:53 PM

Quick question, what's the name of the maneuver that let's you teleport?

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 08:56 PM

Quick question, what's the name of the maneuver that let's you teleport?

Shadow Jaunt

"A cloud of shadow energy engulfs you, spins into a tiny mote, and disappears. A moment later, this shadowy cloud appears across the battlefield and expels you from it.

As part of this maneuver, you disappear in a cloud of darkness and teleport up to 50 feet away. You must have line of sight and line of effect to your destination. If you attempt to use this maneuver to move into an occupied space, you do not move, and the maneuver is expended but has no effect."

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 09:00 PM

Shadow Jaunt

"A cloud of shadow energy engulfs you, spins into a tiny mote, and disappears. A moment later, this shadowy cloud appears across the battlefield and expels you from it.

As part of this maneuver, you disappear in a cloud of darkness and teleport up to 50 feet away. You must have line of sight and line of effect to your destination. If you attempt to use this maneuver to move into an occupied space, you do not move, and the maneuver is expended but has no effect."

Why does that have to be magic? Can't it just be a superpower like Nightcrawler's power?

ToB classes aren't sword mages, they're superheroes.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:04 PM

Why does that have to be magic? Can't it just be a superpower like Nightcrawler's power?

ToB classes aren't sword mages, they're superheroes.

So...

"Why does that have to be magic? Can't it just be magic, but with a different name?"

I'm not talking "Magic" as in "Things which the setting in question explicitly refers to as magic" but "Things which are magical in a more general sense of laws-of-physics-go-bye-bye-now".

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-22, 09:08 PM

Cosi

2017-07-22, 09:09 PM

I don't know where you got the idea that because macrocosmic teleportation without equipment is definitely magical, macrocosmic teleportation with equipment is definitely nonmagical.

Doesn't have to be definite, just possible. Your definition clearly allows a totally unmodified plane shift to be presented as not magical. Your whole definition rests on the notion that <some effect> is magic but <some effect + random item> is not magic, which you retreated to after having it explained to you that, no, Star Trek is not in fact a fantasy series.

Shadow Jaunt is overtly, obviously magical and there's no real way that can be disputed.

Yes there is. The rules say it isn't. That's really all there is to it. You don't like what the rules say about the magical-ness of shadow jaunt? Fine. I don't like what the rules say about SLAs and wish. But that doesn't mean the rules are somehow lying when they say it.

Some of the other shadow hand maneuvers and stances (say, assassin's stance) aren't overtly magical because they don't involve telling the laws of physics to go sit in the corner for a bit.

No rule does that. The laws of physics are simply "whatever things are possible". If you can teleport, whether by magic or not, the laws of physics permit that. No rule can allow you to do something physically impossible, because your ability to do it necessarily implies its physical possibility.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 09:10 PM

So...

"Why does that have to be magic? Can't it just be magic, but with a different name?"

I'm not talking "Magic" as in "Things which the setting in question explicitly refers to as magic" but "Things which are magical in a more general sense of laws-of-physics-go-bye-bye-now".

Fine, but by that logic Superman and every other superhero is magical too.

Additionally, every D&D character is magical at high level since they all break the laws of physics.

And then it just becomes confusing because you're using a different definition than the game.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:14 PM

Wouldn't that make just about everything in 3.5 magical?

Not really, no. Most (Ex) things are fine. Most core fighter feats are too - maybe whirlwind attack is kinda in the "Stretches credibility" part, but apart from that...

You don't like what the rules say about the magical-ness of shadow jaunt? Fine. I don't like what the rules say about SLAs and wish. But that doesn't mean the rules are somehow lying when they say it.

I refer you to the hippo analogy. Yes, the eight-legged flying monstrosity in question may be defined, in-game, to be a hippo, but it doesn't meet the real-world criteria for hippo. The real-world criteria for mundane (possible in real world) and magic (not possible in real world) are blindingly obviously the ones to which I'm referring, not least because I've clarified that multiple times. Teleporation without equipment to do so is magical. Teleportation with nothing to your name but a tuning fork is magical. If you deny that I don't know what to say to you.

Fine, but by that logic Superman and every other superhero is magical too.

Yes.

Additionally, every D&D character is magical at high level since they all break the laws of physics.

No.

And then it just becomes confusing because you're using a different definition than the game.

I was very clear on the fact that I wasn't using the game definition. Exceptionally clear. Why anyone keeps bringing up the game definitions at this point I'm unsure.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 09:17 PM

Waker

2017-07-22, 09:17 PM

Hey you guys, this is a thread about compiling a bunch of easy to use tidbits for gaming forums. Keep talking about non-magical teleportation and I'll turn the hose on ya!

Also added the (Ex) Razor.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 09:19 PM

No.

Yes.

See, I can do single word responses to.

I was very clear on the fact that I wasn't using the game definition. Exceptionally clear. Why anyone keeps bringing up the game definitions at this point I'm unsure.

Except, magic isn't a real thing. You can't claim something is definitely magical because magic doesn't exist. We have to use the D&D definition for magic since there isn't a real one.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:19 PM

I don't like the D&D description of elves. Elves should be short, wear green, and build toys. D&D elves aren't anything like elves, so I'm not going to call them elves. Additionally, I will get mad if you insist that they are in fact elves.

Nice strawman!

More like "I notice your new game doesn't contain any elves. I mean sure, it contains 32-legged dragons which it calls "Elves", but it doesn't actually contain anything that I would recognise as an elf."

Yes.

See, I can do single word responses to.

I mean sure you can. It won't stop you being wrong, but sure you can.

Except, magic isn't a real thing. You can't claim something is definitely magical because magic doesn't exist. We have to use the D&D definition for magic since there isn't a real one.

Yes, there is a real definition for magical. Same as "Nonexistent." We have a pretty good definition for that even though nonexistent things don't exist.

Cosi

2017-07-22, 09:20 PM

I refer you to the hippo analogy. Yes, the eight-legged flying monstrosity in question may be defined, in-game, to be a hippo, but it doesn't meet the real-world criteria for hippo. The real-world criteria for mundane (possible in real world) and magic (not possible in real world) are blindingly obviously the ones to which I'm referring, not least because I've clarified that multiple times. Teleporation without equipment to do so is magical. Teleportation with nothing to your name but a tuning fork is magical. If you deny that I don't know what to say to you.

Okay, let's use the real world as our benchmark. Oh, wait, no, that's the Guy At The Gym fallacy. What you seem to want is "what can be done in the real world, but expanded in the unspecified ways that Jormengand thinks are kind of like the real world, but not other ways".

You can't both have "martials can exceed what is physically possible for a human body in the real world" and "martials can't do things that are impossible for human bodies in the real world".

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:22 PM

Okay, let's use the real world as our benchmark. Oh, wait, no, that's the Guy At The Gym fallacy.

Would you believe that I already addressed this in my second post in the thread?

Because I addressed this in my second post in the thread.

Tiri

2017-07-22, 09:23 PM

Hey you guys, this is a thread about compiling a bunch of easy to use tidbits for gaming forums. Keep talking about non-magical teleportation and I'll turn the hose on ya!

Also added the (Ex) Razor.

The (Ex) Razor in the first post needs a 'not' before the 'magical'.

Also, Jormengand is not wrong. He is simply using the definition of magic an observer from inside the game world would most likely use, and since D&D is all about playing characters in that world, that is a definition that has value.

Of course, a swordsage's shadow movement isn't stopped by what we know as an 'Anti-Magic Field', but to someone in D&D, that just means the swordsage knows a kind of magic that bypasses the field, not that the shadow movement isn't magical.

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-22, 09:25 PM

Nice strawman!

More like "I notice your new game doesn't contain any elves. I mean sure, it contains 32-legged dragons which it calls "Elves", but it doesn't actually contain anything that I would recognise as an elf."

It's not a strawman, because elves aren't real, so there is no basis for elves.

You're complaining that ToB is magic despite magic already existing in D&D. You're argument is just confusing, are you going to get angry at Superhero stories for making a distinction between powers and magic? They aren't real, so if the work claims they're different, then they are.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:29 PM

It's not a strawman, because elves aren't real, so there is no basis for elves.

You're complaining that ToB is magic despite magic already existing in D&D. You're argument is just confusing, are you going to get angry at Superhero stories for making a distinction between powers and magic? They aren't real, so if the work claims they're different, then they are.

If we accept the definition of magic as "having or apparently having supernatural powers (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+magic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Xgl0Waa4GITc8AfrqI_YDg)" and of supernatural as "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+magic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Xgl0Waa4GITc8AfrqI_YDg#q=define+supernatural)", because words don't lose their meanings just because they don't describe anything in the real world (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+magic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Xgl0Waa4GITc8AfrqI_YDg#q=define+elf), then we can have a real discussion.

To be clear, I'm not interested in whether the game defines things to be magic. I'm interested in whether they're magic in the standard sense of the word.

Cosi

2017-07-22, 09:29 PM

Would you believe that I already addressed this in my second post in the thread?

Because I addressed this in my second post in the thread.

So to be clear, "energy equivalent to a supernova" is a totally mundane ability because supernovas are real, but "teleport 5ft" is always magical?

Uh, sure. Supernovas are definitely mundane in a way that teleportation is not.

Tiri

2017-07-22, 09:31 PM

It's not a strawman, because elves aren't real, so there is no basis for elves.

You're complaining that ToB is magic despite magic already existing in D&D. You're argument is just confusing, are you going to get angry at Superhero stories for making a distinction between powers and magic? They aren't real, so if the work claims they're different, then they are.

Well, I don't think he's arguing that all ToB is magic, just, you know, the parts that seem magical, since that is what you would call it if you saw it in real life. Someone looking at it in the game would too.

So to be clear, "energy equivalent to a supernova" is a totally mundane ability because supernovas are real, but "teleport 5ft" is always magical?

Uh, sure. Supernovas are definitely mundane in a way that teleportation is not.

No, what he is saying is that if someone had the ability to create a supernova, that would be magic, because no real person can do that.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:33 PM

So to be clear, "energy equivalent to a supernova" is a totally mundane ability because supernovas are real, but "teleport 5ft" is always magical?

Uh, sure. Supernovas are definitely mundane in a way that teleportation is not.

No. No, I didn't say that. At all. Nor did I, in any way, imply it.

To be clear, I am using the definition of magical whereby that which cannot be done in the real world is magical and that which can be is mundane, or nonmagical. The creation of energy equivalent to a supernova by a human, presumably by waving a sword about for a bit, is magical. So is teleportation. If a human can do it, it's not magical when a human does it (unless there's some factor which would prevent them from doing so without resorting to magic). If a human cannot do it, it's magical when a human does it. If a bear can't do it, it's magical when a bear does it. I'm afraid I don't know how to make the definitions I'm using any clearer.

No, what he is saying is that if someone had the ability to create a supernova, that would be magic, because no real person can do that.

Almost. First, I'm not a he. Second, it's less about whether any real person can do that and more about whether any hypothetical real person could do that.

Tiri

2017-07-22, 09:38 PM

Almost. First, I'm not a he. Second, it's less about whether any real person can do that and more about whether any hypothetical real person could do that.

I think the hypothetical nature of this discussion was already well-established.

Besides, you have multiple personalities. I was simply betting on the fact that at least one male one was reading this right now. It's simpler for me.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:42 PM

I think the hypothetical nature of this discussion was already well-established

Maybe as far as you or I are concerned, yes. It does slightly concern me that you can, with presumably fairly little effort made to strain your powers of reading comprehension, discern what I mean while others appear to have no clue whatsoever no matter how many times I explain it.

Besides, you have multiple personalities. I was simply betting on the fact that at least one male one was reading this right now. It's simpler for me.

He's asleep. :smalltongue:

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-22, 09:45 PM

You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
:smallredface: It still makes me feel all happy inside when someone remembers this.

Anyway, my understanding of the Guy at the Gym fallacy is that it's used as an argument against letting non-magic characters do interesting high-level type things, because that's totally impossible, no real person can jump more than a few feet in the air, rendering balance difficult or impossible. And I think, semantic arguments about the meaning of the word "mundane" aside, you would agree that's garbage in 3.5, yes, Jormengand?

Hackulator

2017-07-22, 09:48 PM

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clarke

Along with my corollary:

"Magic is just science you haven't learned yet."

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-22, 09:50 PM

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clarke

Along with my corollary:

"Magic is just science you haven't learned yet."

The corollary is any sufficiently advanced magic is science. :smalltongue:

Tiri

2017-07-22, 09:52 PM

The corollary is any sufficiently advanced magic is science. :smalltongue:

No, it's not, because if you're still calling it magic, that presumably means you don't understand it, so it's not science.

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 09:53 PM

"Magic is just science you haven't learned yet."

Well, no. If it were science we hadn't learned yet then it would work when we tried to do it in real life (and I'm sure at least a few kids have seriously attempted to teleport Shadow Jaunt style). The difference is that until fairly recently, the photoelectric effect was science we hadn't learned yet but it still happened when someone shone a light on an electrified plate. Magic is stuff that never works and never will.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-22, 09:57 PM

No, it's not, because if you're still calling it magic, that presumably means you don't understand it, so it's not science.

Sufficiently analyzed I meant; it was a joke/reference.

Hackulator

2017-07-22, 10:09 PM

Jormengand

2017-07-22, 10:12 PM

Magic is defined as "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

Therefore, any sort of science that is beyond your understanding falls into this definition, as it would be mysterious and supernatural (defined as attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature).

Only if you're overtly pedantic about the slightly odd wording of the Google Define defition, I guess. I suppose I just take magic=impossible mundane=possible for granted, because that's how I, and everyone else IME, uses the terms when not being overly pedantic so they can make essentially ridiculous statements which are only true with the application of enough semantic nonsense.

Hackulator

2017-07-22, 10:17 PM

Only if you're overtly pedantic about the slightly odd wording of the Google Define defition, I guess. I suppose I just take magic=impossible mundane=possible for granted, because that's how I, and everyone else IME, uses the terms when not being overly pedantic so they can make essentially ridiculous statements which are only true with the application of enough semantic nonsense.

You're arguing about the definitions of words and then complaining that I am make semantics arguments.....

Pleh

2017-07-22, 10:39 PM

The Fallacy Fallacy, when people throw around the word fallacy for things that aren't fallacies, just disagreements.

Actually the fallacy fallacy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy) is when people presume that, because an argument contains a fallacy, therefore the conclusion is wrong.

For example, "the sky is blue because earth's sky has a blue color" possesses the fallacy of circular reasoning. Yet, despite the fallacy, the conclusion happens to be correct.

The fallacy fallacy would be invoked by the opponent who says the sky can't be blue since the argument provided contained circular reasoning.

Psyren

2017-07-23, 12:57 AM

Never doubt the capacity for people to come into a thread just to start an argument?

Never doubt the capacity for people on a gaming forum getting distracted and offtopic and arguing about a tangent that doesn't even matter to the main point of the topic at hand?

Ha, yeah, but that's any message board. I'm talking about a phenomenon unique to gaming forums specifically - that the people who go on those forums to complain about a game think they represent the majority of that game's playerbase, when the true majority are simply playing and enjoying the game., warts and all.

gooddragon1

2017-07-23, 02:00 AM

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clarke

Along with my corollary:

"Magic is just science you haven't learned yet."

Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science? (www.girlgeniusonline.com)
(Somewhere in that webcomic)

Only if you also believe that your system of houserules, homebrew, and spectrum of kludgy to elegant fixes mean that there weren't problems you had to address in order to make the game work for your group.

But it's the truth. 3.5 is the best edition of D&D ever created so far.

Also I haven't had my fix of D&D 3.5 in years. So long. So very long.

Jormengand

2017-07-23, 05:32 AM

You're arguing about the definitions of words and then complaining that I am make semantics arguments.....

The reason I am arguing about the definitions is because other people are trying to drag other meanings from the ones I'm actually using into the argument. If you just stuck with what I'm actually talking about rather than trying to redefine what I'm saying until it means something nearly unrelated, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sho

2017-07-23, 12:54 PM

I just want to jump into this with my two cents.

I do have a particular statement regarding a feat being done with specialist equipment versus not being done with specialist equipment, ie: teleportation. Some things that equipment is capable in doing is allowing humans to mimic feats done by other creatures in the animal kingdom, and then, universally, there's creatures we know nothing yet about. The issue is that the mechanics of the game precludes certain things to be magical or supernatural by raw design, and people are largely used to seeing something represented in magical or supernatural similarities in actual class chassis, ie: teleportation.

Jormengand may be arguing for distinctions to be kept within the rule-set clear. If something seems magical by previous design points, then it should be labeled as magical, using the (Sp) or (Su) labels. In retrospect, one can very clearly see these similarities. The issue people likely have is breaking with the mold or immersion coupled with real world progress and scientific reasoning. Extraordinary and magical in real terms are scarcely apart enough when one looks at the power the sun provides. Real living miracles, etc, etc.

On my own, I disagree with Jormengand; I am more attached to the idea that there is the possibility in (Ex) similar abilities for some characters and creatures to use.

Jormengand

2017-07-23, 01:01 PM

Jormengand may be arguing for distinctions to be kept within the rule-set clear. If something seems magical by previous design points, then it should be labeled as magical, using the (Sp) or (Su) labels.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that something can be magical and (ex), but all that means is that it's a type of magic that doesn't go away in an antimagic field. It's small-m magic instead of The Thing Which Is Called Magic In This Game. But the fact that it has an (ex) tag, crucially, doesn't help me if I want a mundane character because I like that aesthetic.

And I expect the company who made winning with mundane feats of genuine martial skill possible in a game called Magic to be able to deliver the same experience in a game which has always had mundane classes in it.

Keltest

2017-07-23, 01:32 PM

In light of this and other semantic arguments about definitions of words I have seen within the past couple of days, I propose the Dictionary Fallacy: "Just because a word has multiple valid definitions does not mean it has multiple applicable definitions."

If a game term is defined in a specific way by a ruleset, they are probably using that meaning when they use the term, as are people discussing the ruleset. Using a different meaning for that term during a game discussion, especially without specifically saying so, is just being needlessly confusing even if you are correct.

Hackulator

2017-07-23, 01:35 PM

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that something can be magical and (ex), but all that means is that it's a type of magic that doesn't go away in an antimagic field. It's small-m magic instead of The Thing Which Is Called Magic In This Game. But the fact that it has an (ex) tag, crucially, doesn't help me if I want a mundane character because I like that aesthetic.

And I expect the company who made winning with mundane feats of genuine martial skill possible in a game called Magic to be able to deliver the same experience in a game which has always had mundane classes in it.

Everything in MtG involves summoning magic though.

Jormengand

2017-07-23, 01:50 PM

Everything in MtG involves summoning magic though.

It's at least abstracted enough that you can think of it as the people actually turning up. And a lot of the abilities are almost explicitly nonmagical (some are actually explicitly nonmagical (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=8813)). D&D's (ex)-magic less so.

Sho

2017-07-23, 03:45 PM

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that something can be magical and (ex), but all that means is that it's a type of magic that doesn't go away in an antimagic field. It's small-m magic instead of The Thing Which Is Called Magic In This Game. But the fact that it has an (ex) tag, crucially, doesn't help me if I want a mundane character because I like that aesthetic.
I think I would applaud trying to keep to an aesthetic.

I think the point you're trying to get across however gives me a headache. It is not that I do not understand. I agree that things extraordinary can certainly seem magical by function and comparison, but it ignores something for favor in being counter-intuitive.

It's like Batman trying to be Not-Batman while out and Batman-ing. And that previous statement itself could start an argument and discussion itself, that's what is so bad about the point being made.

EldritchWeaver

2017-07-23, 03:55 PM

The fallacy is that all breaks from reality should be treated equally in terms of acceptance and skepticism. Just because we accept dragons does not mean we have to accept rogues phasing through fireballs.

Actually, it depends. There is a thing called verisimilitude in fiction. That concept describes if certain things seem to be "realistic" in a certain context. If necromantic stuff isn't available in a setting, then suddenly having a guy raising zombies is either breaking a convention set by the original author(s) or is some kind of plot point. In the first case, the decision to have a necromancer can be disagreed with.

This relates to the fallacy, as one person can view "having dragons" as the boundary of the verisimilitude and consider everything else less fantastical to be clearly possible. Another person imports reality into the game and considers surviving a nuclear blast inside a leaded refrigerator as impossible, even if this would be in game explained with evasion. Here is my position, that the game is an abstraction based on both of the belief how reality works and what actual rules are enjoyable for players. So saying that something can't work because it doesn't in real life is ignoring that the rules are imperfect representations of reality anyway. Also guy in the gym fallacy.

Waker

2017-07-23, 04:30 PM

Jormengand

2017-07-23, 05:40 PM

A valid point, EldritchWeaver. If I had to guess, I'd assume the idea arose from conflicting expectations for the world between the DM and party.
I'll add the Dictionary Fallacy.

Guys, I'm asking again to curb the talk about magic in here. This thread has nothing to do with it.

You can't create a thread about fallacies and then ask them not to debate whether the fallacies are real fallacies or not. I mean you can, but no-one will take you seriously.

Waker

2017-07-23, 05:48 PM

You can't create a thread about fallacies and then ask them not to debate whether the fallacies are real fallacies or not. I mean you can, but no-one will take you seriously.

Actually I can, since I'm the OP and the very first thing I said in the thread is
I was recently pondering the various number of Laws, Fallacies and Axioms that are often thrown about as commonplace terms in the various forum arguments. And with the recent issues that some of the other gaming forums were having, I thought it might be a good idea to try and consolidate them in one place. So repost those little gems of gaming wisdom here.
No where does it say, prove the validity of your law or why this fallacy doesn't actually apply. This is a compilation thread. It's weird how the guy who starts the thread can apparently dictate what is and is not on topic.

gooddragon1

2017-07-23, 07:19 PM

I wonder if the 10 commandments of practical optimization count?

I. Thou shalt not give up thy caster levels.

II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.

III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty.

IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.

V. Thou shalt not give up thy caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.

VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.

VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.

VIII. When beseeching the Brethren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance.

IX. Invoke not "common sense", for it is not common.

X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build toppled by the Brethren within five minutes of posting.

Waker

2017-07-23, 07:44 PM

I wonder if the 10 commandments of practical optimization count?

I will allow it.

Svata

2017-07-23, 07:48 PM

Exception to rule 6. That odd number is 1.

Hackulator

2017-07-24, 06:36 AM

Actually I can, since I'm the OP and the very first thing I said in the thread is
No where does it say, prove the validity of your law or why this fallacy doesn't actually apply. This is a compilation thread. It's weird how the guy who starts the thread can apparently dictate what is and is not on topic.

Actually, nowhere in the forum rules does it say you have some sort of editorial control over your thread after you post it. Just because you started a conversation doesn't mean you control it.

Inevitability

2017-07-24, 07:07 AM

VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.

Zhentarim Soldier, anyone?

Jormengand

2017-07-24, 07:10 AM

Zhentarim Soldier, anyone?

"Also, thou shalt make no build with an even number of Sneak Attack fighter levels, and also thou canst if thou wishes create an ordinary fighter build with exactly one fighter level, even though one is odd."

Yeah, that rule seems a bit overly simplistic...

DigoDragon

2017-07-24, 08:18 AM

The But Dragons! Fallacy made me chuckle, as just last session my ranger took no damage from three fireballs detonating in the hallway he was in.

Exception to rule 6. That odd number is 1.

I'll agree. Some builds just want the fighter proficiencies, and the bonus feat is just that. :3

Speaking of optimization, while I'm usually all for it, I always remind my more zealous players that it is only a tool. Optimization doesn't help much if you don't know how to use it. The perfect example of this can be found in the current local group I'm in, where the Monk-2/Cleric-2/Fighter-2 has been consistently more effective clearing a room full of opponents than the Wizard-6 has been. :smalltongue:

Cosi

2017-07-24, 08:40 AM

Anyway, my understanding of the Guy at the Gym fallacy is that it's used as an argument against letting non-magic characters do interesting high-level type things, because that's totally impossible, no real person can jump more than a few feet in the air, rendering balance difficult or impossible. And I think, semantic arguments about the meaning of the word "mundane" aside, you would agree that's garbage in 3.5, yes, Jormengand?

The Guy at the Gym fallacy has a contextual element that's being missed here. The fundamental problem with "mundane" characters in D&D is that what "mundane" characters can do is capped, but what magical characters can do is not. And this necessarily causes eventual problems, given enough advancement.

Imagine two characters: the Flash and Mundane Running Guy. The Flash runs really fast because he uses the Speedforce. Mundane Running Guy runs really fast because he is a trained sprinter. At the (very) low end, those characters are balanced. The Flash draws a small enough amount of Speedforce to only run as fast as Mundane Running Guy, and they can happily compete in nominally fair ways. But the top speed Mundane Running Guy is able to achieve is way lower than the top speed the Flash is able to achieve. The Flash can run faster than light and travel back in time and people are willing to accept that because he has superpowers. But no one is going to accept Mundane Running Guy as mundane if he runs at even relatively low speeds like 90 MPH. So you have a choice. Either the Flash never reaches the limits of his character concept, Mundane Running Guy exceeds the limits of his, or the game is imbalanced.

And that's what the Guy at the Gym fallacy is about. It's not really "you can't expect mundanes to match guys at the gym", it's "you can't limit mundanes to guys at the gym and expect them to compete with magic".

Magic is stuff that never works and never will.

Can you make a triangle with three right angles?

It depends. If you're working on a flat surface, the answer is no. All triangles on flat surfaces have three non-zero angles which total 180 degrees, and therefore you cannot create a triangle with three right angles. But if you work on a concave surface, you can.

From the perspective of D&Dland, there is no difference in possibility between "swinging a sword" and "making a fireball". Those are both things you can do with sufficient training and talent. One of them is possible in our world, and one is not, but they're both possible in D&Dland.

Jormengand

2017-07-24, 09:25 AM

The Guy at the Gym fallacy has a contextual element that's being missed here. The fundamental problem with "mundane" characters in D&D is that what "mundane" characters can do is capped, but what magical characters can do is not. And this necessarily causes eventual problems, given enough advancement.

Imagine two characters: the Flash and Mundane Running Guy. The Flash runs really fast because he uses the Speedforce. Mundane Running Guy runs really fast because he is a trained sprinter. At the (very) low end, those characters are balanced. The Flash draws a small enough amount of Speedforce to only run as fast as Mundane Running Guy, and they can happily compete in nominally fair ways. But the top speed Mundane Running Guy is able to achieve is way lower than the top speed the Flash is able to achieve. The Flash can run faster than light and travel back in time and people are willing to accept that because he has superpowers. But no one is going to accept Mundane Running Guy as mundane if he runs at even relatively low speeds like 90 MPH. So you have a choice. Either the Flash never reaches the limits of his character concept, Mundane Running Guy exceeds the limits of his, or the game is imbalanced.

There are numerous ways around this - for example, making mundane ways of doing things (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=201135) about equally as effective as magical ones (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=184770) for different reasons, say. Or just make them do different things which are worth about the same and have similar thematics - sure, mundane running guy won't be as good at running as the flash... but you can make it so that one character has limited-use magical bursts of speed and another has the ability to run well all the time, say.

Or you can make mundane and magical people good at different things, the way that Warhammer: The Game of Fantasy Battles did (Imma pretend the latest edition doesn't exist for a moment). If you want to have a survivable, fighty guy who does lots of damage in combat, you need a non-spellcaster (or a part-caster like the Loremasters who are good at fighting and okay at spells). If you want someone who hides in the back buffing your army and occasionally throwing fireballs at people but can't actually hold anyone up in combat, that's a mage's job. A lord without any magical support - not even magical items - can be more of a nightmare to deal with than a mage, and crucially, the one spell which lets the mage actually be good at fighting, Transformation of Kadon, stops them casting spells for the rest of the game.

In D&D terms, there's no reason why a mundane fighter shouldn't be able to walk up to the guy in a bathrobe and ram several feet of steel down his throat. And it's a weakness of D&D that that's not actually possible because said guy in said bathrobe not only has fifteen billion warding spells up, but also probably has enough hitpoints to survive being stabbed.

One of them is possible in our world, and one is not, but they're both possible in D&Dland.

Yes, I understand that. In this world of our imagination, both of those things are possible. I can imagine a world where neither is possible. But I refer to "Mundane" and "Magic" in terms of the real world because that is the dichotomy that I, and not only I, want to make.

I would want an explanation if a muggle in Harry Potter or a non-rider non-dragon non-(insert other types of magic-user here) in Inheritance or a non-magician in The Black Magician started doing things that weren't possible in the real world, because we have an understanding of what is and what isn't magic. "Oh, it's not magic, that's just a thing that's possible in this world because reasons" is a really, really weak excuse in any setting that's gone to the bother of making a magic-nonmagic divide in the first place.

Kaleph

2017-07-24, 09:58 AM

Cosi

2017-07-24, 10:26 AM

There are numerous ways around this - for example, making mundane ways of doing things (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=201135) about equally as effective as magical ones (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=184770) for different reasons, say.

But you can't do that. Because you rejected an ability less powerful than dimension door as inherently not mundane.

Or just make them do different things which are worth about the same and have similar thematics - sure, mundane running guy won't be as good at running as the flash... but you can make it so that one character has limited-use magical bursts of speed and another has the ability to run well all the time, say.

Yes, if you cap level, you can make less powerful concepts viable. But that's not a solution if you want to make powerful concepts viable. If I want full power Flash, Mundane Running Guy can't work.

In D&D terms, there's no reason why a mundane fighter shouldn't be able to walk up to the guy in a bathrobe and ram several feet of steel down his throat. And it's a weakness of D&D that that's not actually possible because said guy in said bathrobe not only has fifteen billion warding spells up, but also probably has enough hitpoints to survive being stabbed.

Yes there is. Mages can fly. Or be on another plane. Or just be good at fighting. Mundane is a low level concept. If you try to force it into high level, it stops being high level. And you get 4e. Which is dumb and bad.

Some people want to play Dr Strange, and Conan is inherently incapable of contributing equally to a story with fully powered Dr Strange in it.

Keltest

2017-07-24, 10:29 AM

I would want an explanation if a muggle in Harry Potter or a non-rider non-dragon non-(insert other types of magic-user here) in Inheritance or a non-magician in The Black Magician started doing things that weren't possible in the real world, because we have an understanding of what is and what isn't magic. "Oh, it's not magic, that's just a thing that's possible in this world because reasons" is a really, really weak excuse in any setting that's gone to the bother of making a magic-nonmagic divide in the first place.

Ok, but wheres the line drawn? Why can you accept Dwarves just because, but not implausibly strong humans? Why can you accept dragons but not nonmagical teleportation?

Segev

2017-07-24, 10:32 AM

The big thing to accept is that most games that we discuss around here - especially D&D - take a mythic view on human capability. Krillin isn't magical by the world of DBZ; he just trained REALLY REALLY HARD (and eventually developed ki powers).

Beowulf is a mortal human by his own legend, but he's a great hero who is mighty because he developed those skills and muscles and talents.

Anime characters who jump 20 feet straight up can be perfectly mundane mortals who just happen to train their bodies at martial arts.

The Guy At The Gym fallacy tries to limit to scale of what real humans can do, IRL. Ignore that; let humans go as mighty as they have to, and you can get "mundane" abilities that are pretty good at keeping up with mid-level magic.

And then we have (Ex) powers and abilities. These explicitly can violate "IRL rules." Without being "magic." It should be harder to get an (Ex) power than an equivalent (Su) power, which should be harder than getting an equivalent (Sp) power or access to a spell. Because it comes with progressively more restrictions as we move through that list. But you want an (Ex) teleport? Why not?

Debatra

2017-07-24, 12:10 PM

Honestly, I think a far better description for the Guy at the Gym Fallacy comes from this thread on the subject (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy). To somewhat paraphrase:

The mundane classes do things we can do (not that we can do them nearly as well). We can jump; they can jump 50 feet. We can shoot a bow; they can shoot a man at 500 yards with a crooked sight. We can swim; they can swim across the ocean.

This mindset forms the core of the Guy at the Gym Fallacy: Because mundane classes do things that real people can do, they cannot be allowed to do things real people cannot do.

Waker

2017-07-24, 12:43 PM

Is there any law or fallacy that says, more or less, any bad decision from a DM (including horrible homebrew design, unrealistic events or effects, improvised and arbitrary stretching of the rules, etc.) shall not be defended by invoking rule 0?
I don't know of any. If no one else knows of such a fallacy, then there isn't any reason you couldn't make it yourself.

Honestly, I think a far better description for the Guy at the Gym Fallacy comes from this thread on the subject (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy). To somewhat paraphrase:
Well, bekeleven was in this thread earlier and he provided the phrasing I used for the post. As the fallacy's creator, he is the one who determines how it's written.

I don't think I've ever seen Digo post outside the Campaign Quotes or MLP threads before. I'm scared.

ATHATH

2017-07-24, 03:42 PM

I've noticed that some of the fallacies state what to do, while others state what NOT to do, with very little to tell readers which are which. I suggest labelling them to fix this problem.

Debatra

2017-07-24, 03:54 PM

I've noticed that some of the fallacies state what to do, while others state what NOT to do, with very little to tell readers which are which. I suggest labelling them to fix this problem.

That actually seems to be the main cause of the above discussion of the Guy at the Gym Fallacy.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-24, 03:59 PM

Florian

2017-07-24, 04:20 PM

Pretty sure that's covered by the Oberoni Falacy.

A thing that doesn´t exist.

Cosi

2017-07-24, 04:30 PM

A thing that doesn´t exist.

Yes it does.

Florian

2017-07-24, 04:36 PM

Yes it does.

They don´t. The rules are not self-contained like, say, the rules for a german-style board game, so they can´t work without a gm as the final element.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-24, 04:38 PM

They don´t. The rules are not self-contained like, say, the rules for a german-style board game, so they can´t work without a gm as the final element.

That doesn't mean that rule 0 makes the game free of flaws.

Florian

2017-07-24, 04:47 PM

That doesn't mean that rule 0 makes the game free of flaws.

No. It means that the game was expected to have flaws and Rule Zero was implemented to try to fix them. Big difference.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-24, 04:49 PM

No. It means that the game was expected to have flaws and Rule Zero was implemented to try to fix them. Big difference.
And the fallacy simply says that those flaws, though fixable, still exist.

EldritchWeaver

2017-07-24, 04:56 PM

No. It means that the game was expected to have flaws and Rule Zero was implemented to try to fix them. Big difference.

Rule 0 is for cases, where game rules don't cover the case, game rules contradict each other in that case, or game rules violate the verisimilitude of the game. Only the third one is clearly in GM territory, because authors can't foresee everything, especially how gaming groups consider something acceptable. The first one is shared: It can be expected from the game authors to provide enough coverage of at least the standard cases and advice how to extrapolate from them. The middle one is clearly the authors's fault. If you say that the game is fine, because you can rule 0 the contradiction away, that is the Oberoni fallacy.

Svata

2017-07-24, 05:00 PM

No. It means that the game was expected to have flaws and Rule Zero was implemented to try to fix them. Big difference.

It only means this. "The existence of Rule 0 does not mean that the game is perfect." Just because something is fixable does not mean it wasn't broken to begin with. In fact, the fact that it needs to be fixed means it was broken.

Florian

2017-07-24, 05:10 PM

It only means this. "The existence of Rule 0 does not mean that the game is perfect." Just because something is fixable does not mean it wasn't broken to begin with. In fact, the fact that it needs to be fixed means it was broken.

Not drunk enough to engage this kind of BS.

Rule 1 in the DMG is that you have to houserule the PHB to get the "final product".

Svata

2017-07-24, 05:12 PM

If I have to make up my own rules to play anyway, what was the point of dropping $150 on the PHB, DMG, and MMI? Why not just free-form it?

Florian

2017-07-24, 05:16 PM

If I have to make up my own rules to play anyway, what was the point of dropping $150 on the PHB, DMG, and MMI? Why not just free-form it?

Why do you go to the movies instead of some impromptu storytelling? Why you go to a festival instead of making your own unique sound?

Because it´s easier to dough out some cash to have a leg up and spare some work.

EldritchWeaver

2017-07-24, 05:20 PM

Why do you go to the movies instead of some impromptu storytelling? Why you go to a festival instead of making your own unique sound?

Because it´s easier to dough out some cash to have a leg up and spare some work.

Don't you expect some sort of quality of the movie (Why does the heroine in the slasher fic drop a weapon as soon she used it?) or entertainment from the festival performances (juggler can't juggle), if you pay cash for it?

Svata

2017-07-24, 05:29 PM

Why do you go to the movies instead of some impromptu storytelling? Why you go to a festival instead of making your own unique sound?

Because it´s easier to dough out some cash to have a leg up and spare some work.

I don't have to edit the movie. I don't have to conduct the band. I shouldn't have to rewrite the rules just to make it functional.

Florian

2017-07-24, 05:39 PM

The customer is always that cheapest kind of labour.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-24, 05:52 PM

The customer is always that cheapest kind of labour.

That's a horrible business model.

Pleh

2017-07-24, 10:00 PM

Goat simulator.

Sometimes the glitchy, nonsensical, unfinished jumble is as fun, or more fun, than a perfect game.

This does not mean the game is not broken. It means the brokeness can be fun (if you're not trying to take it seriously).

Minecraft. There's a mod for that.

Half the fun of minecraft has consistently been its openness to writing your own modifications.

Almost every part of minecraft encourages the player to make their own game and just hands them a set of tools to work with.

The incompleteness IS part of the point. But it's kind of silly to argue that this means the incompleteness makes it complete. After all, if incompleteness is the purpose, then completing the game with incompleteness removes the incompleteness, leaving the game incomplete.

If being broken makes a game work as intended, then it isn't broken and therefore doesn't work as intended.

Much better to say, "it's broken and incomplete, but it's still fun anyway and can be enjoyed because of or in spite of these flaws"

Otherwise you end up shifting the goalpost such that you are (almost literally) winning for losing and all semantic meaning gets lost in pointless paradoxes.

danielxcutter

2017-07-25, 03:32 AM

Is there a law, fallacy, or other term that talks about people telling me to do something more optimal when I specifically said I wanted something else?

If not, making it now.

DXC's Razor: If a person says he knows that a build choice is unoptimal but they want to do so anyways, then give them advice that makes the choice better, not advice on picking something better.

Because some people barely read the OP, let alone respect my choices. :smallmad:

Hackulator

2017-07-25, 08:45 AM

danielxcutter

2017-07-25, 08:55 AM

The optimization fallacy: The belief that the best choice for a character is always the most optimized one.

Yeah. Either way, could this be added?(I think that DXC's Razor sounds cooler and it's named after me, but if "optimization fallacy" has already been used...)

Hackulator

2017-07-25, 08:59 AM

Yeah. Either way, could this be added?(I think that DXC's Razor sounds cooler and it's named after me, but if "optimization fallacy" has already been used...)

No I just made that up, I just think naming something after yourself is kind of gauche.

danielxcutter

2017-07-25, 09:09 AM

No I just made that up, I just think naming something after yourself is kind of gauche.

There are currently three terms named after someone at the very least; Grog's Law, the Snowbluff Axiom, and Waker's Law. No, I'm not quite as experienced as them, but I've seen enough of what I mentioned to make that.

Also, mine is a "razor", which is a rule of thumb, and your term is a "fallacy". They talk about the same thing, but have different points. Of course, the choice is entirely up to Waker, so let's wait for him.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-25, 09:16 AM

There are currently three terms named after someone at the very least; Grog's Law, the Snowbluff Axiom, and Waker's Law. No, I'm not quite as experienced as them, but I've seen enough of what I mentioned to make that.
Along with Oberani and Stormwind.

EDIT: Grog's Law sounds like part of the pirate code. "Thou Shalt Give Your Crew The Cheapest Drink, But Yea, In Abundance."

Hackulator

2017-07-25, 09:18 AM

There are currently three terms named after someone at the very least; Grog's Law, the Snowbluff Axiom, and Waker's Law. No, I'm not quite as experienced as them, but I've seen enough of what I mentioned to make that.

Also, mine is a "razor", which is a rule of thumb, and your term is a "fallacy". They talk about the same thing, but have different points. Of course, the choice is entirely up to Waker, so let's wait for him.

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight and don't care at all whether either of those things gets added to this post. However, you are certainly not the first person to realize or vocalize that it is annoying to ask for something and then have people tell you they know better than you and you don't want that thing, you want something else.

I mostly think this thread is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

danielxcutter

2017-07-25, 09:25 AM

Along with Oberani and Stormwind.

EDIT: Grog's Law sounds like part of the pirate code. "Thou Shalt Give Your Crew The Cheapest Drink, But Yea, In Abundance."

Oh, those were names too? Didn't know that.

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight and don't care at all whether either of those things gets added to this post. However, you are certainly not the first person to realize or vocalize that it is annoying to ask for something and then have people tell you they know better than you and you don't want that thing, you want something else.

I mostly think this thread is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

Yeah now that I think of it I was being a bit annoying and egoistic. Still think that the idea itself is worth mentioning though.

Telonius

2017-07-25, 10:12 AM

Here's an axiom for you. I've been giving this advice for quite a few years, and haven't seen anyone cite it. Call it Tel's Axiom if you want:

You should not try to solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.

Telonius

2017-07-25, 10:20 AM

Well, no. If it were science we hadn't learned yet then it would work when we tried to do it in real life (and I'm sure at least a few kids have seriously attempted to teleport Shadow Jaunt style). The difference is that until fairly recently, the photoelectric effect was science we hadn't learned yet but it still happened when someone shone a light on an electrified plate. Magic is stuff that never works and never will.

Side note on this one - reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" to my daughter recently, and came across this gem.

And after dinner the Magician did a very useful and beautiful piece of magic. He laid two blank sheets of parchment on the table and asked Drinian to give him an exact account of their voyage up to date: and as Drinian spoke, everything he described came out on the parchment in fine clear lines till at last each sheet was a splendid map of the Eastern Ocean, showing Galma, Terebinthia, the Seven Isles, the Lone Islands, Dragon Island, Burnt Island, Deathwater, and the land of the Duffers itself, all exactly the right sizes and in the right positions. They were the first maps ever made of those seas and better than any that have been made since without Magic. For on these, though the towns and mountains looked at first just as they would on an ordinary map, yet when the Magician lent them a magnifying glass you saw that they were perfect little pictures of the real things, so that you could see the very castle and slave market and streets in Narrowhaven, all very clear though very distant, like things seen through the wrong end of a telescope.

Seems a lot less magical now that we have Google Maps. :smallbiggrin:

BowStreetRunner

2017-07-25, 10:30 AM

I always liked this little gem from Steven Brust (the Vlad Taltos series): “No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.”

I've seen more than my share of super optimized caster PCs that had some weakness in their build that stared out at you like the exhaust port in a moon-sized imperial battle station.

Waker

2017-07-25, 10:33 AM

DXC's Razor: If a person says he knows that a build choice is unoptimal but they want to do so anyways, then give them advice that makes the choice better, not advice on picking something better.
Yeah, that is definitely something that I've observed a lot here on these forums.

Grog's Law sounds like part of the pirate code. "Thou Shalt Give Your Crew The Cheapest Drink, But Yea, In Abundance."
Grog's Law has always been more of what you would call a guideline rather than a rule.

Call it Tel's Axiom if you want:

You should not try to solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.
And that's another one I've seen every time a poster asks what to do with a toxic party or a jerky DM/player.

Kaleph

2017-07-25, 10:34 AM

Pretty sure that's covered by the Oberoni Falacy.That's not exactly what I was referring to. The Oberoni Fallacy says, that a possible fix of a flaw through Rule-0 doesn't change the fact that the game was flawed in the first place.

What instead I was meaning, is that very often ridiculous in-game events happen, because the DM hasn't followed a standard rule which worked in the first place, with the well-known consequence, that the players weren't anymore in the position of chosing the right course-of-actions. Or, if they would, the consequences of said course-of-actions would be anyhow screwed up by the DM, in case he would arbitrarily resolve it ignoring the rules, the common sense and the verisimilitude.

In many places, especially in RL or on socials (e.g. FB), I hear funny stories of "dumb role-players" and their epic fails where, in most of the cases, the DM's twisted existing rules or improptu created new ones - either because they wanted to railroad the event, or in the name of a rule-of-cool they alone could see, or simply because they were dumb DM's. And, worthless to say, those who champions the thesis of the dumb role-player instead, will always defend him in saying "it's his right, he's the master, he may change the rules whenever he sees fit". Which is a fallacy, in this case (probably more related to "but, Dragons", rather that to "Oberoni fallacy").

Pleh

2017-07-25, 04:18 PM

Waker

2017-07-25, 05:13 PM

I mostly think this thread is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

My clue was when the original post contained a law named after the thread maker which I had never actually heard anyone reference and included it in the list of references that have stood the test of time.
Fine, I'll pay attention to your complaints.
As I said right at the beginning, my purpose for making this thread was to consolidate the various frequently used opinions that people reference when they talk about things on a gaming forum. And yes, they are opinions, not set in stone provable facts. On the previous page, there were people arguing about the "Guy at the Gym" and "Oberoni" fallacies, despite them having been around for years. You both seem to have the belief that I'm trying to become famous or otherwise stroke my ego by posting a law with my name on it. How would I accomplish this? By dropping the name in other threads or at the very least putting it in my signature? Anyone can see that I haven't done so, so just maybe I'm not trying to score internet groupies. Hell, you guys have done more advertising for it than I have.
As to why no one has ever referenced it before is because until this thread I never bothered to put a name to it even if I have otherwise stated it.

The rules of D&D exist to give a framework for what a character can do in any given situation. Having ranks in Move Silently lets a character sneak about unnoticed, and the spell Fly obviously details rules on how a character can fly about. Conversely it also limits what a character can do. I might claim my character is a world-class swordsman, but if I don't have the right proficiency or have a bad BAB progression, the concept doesn't hold up. When you design a character, your character concept needs to adhere to the rules as allowed by the aspects of a character's racial and class abilities.
Taken from a thread earlier this month.

I've said it many times in many threads, but I'm a pretty easy going guy when it comes to fluff. There is one thing that is very important to me though and that is that fluff must be supported or at least not contradicted by mechanics. Regardless of how I try to spin it, if my character has crappy BAB and no proficiencies, he ain't gonna be some amazing swordsman. Rangers can fulfill a number of concepts be they bounty hunters, army scouts or rangers (as in, one who protects a forest, countryside etc.) Rogues can be thieves, thief-catchers, spies, assassins... I could go on with the other classes, but you probably get my idea. The class features, skills and other facets of the class support the concept.
Taken from a thread two months ago.
Even if I've never bothered to call it "Waker's Law" before, it is a concept that has existed for some time. If people decide to use it as shorthand for an argument, that's fine. If they don't, that's also fine. As strange as this concept may seem to some, but the adoration of people I am likely to never meet has no real bearing on my self-worth.

One Step Two

2017-07-25, 06:42 PM

I think this is an interesting resource, and if I may, I would like to add a Fallacy, or more specifically codify one that has been explored by the Order of the Stick itself, ever since we met Miko in the comics and compared them to O'chul and other paladins, this fallacy applies to anything with the same stigma with crunch/fluff that seem leery in a players hands, such as the Kender race and those who have misgivings with them. I call it:

The Paladin/Kender Fallacy: The portrayal of a character with restrictive/disruptive fluff and/or crunch, does not mean they exist only to restrict and/or disrupt games. Stories can be enriched by them by those who wish to try as easily as they can be disrupted by those who try equally to do so.

It could be seen as an addendum to Tel's Axiom which is fine, because usually problematic classes/races/etc are chosen by people who wish to be problematic. But with that said, the core of the Fallacy is that just because a Paladin has to be LG does not make it a straight jacket of actions, nor does not mean he holds the party's reins, and just as a Kender is disruptive by it's existence, does not mean that they cannot add to a story in some way if they player works with his party to do so.

Dimers

2017-07-25, 07:45 PM

"No game is better than bad game." That's the typical formatting, though it's clearer as something like "Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game."

Call it the Bad Game Guideline? Definitely not claiming it as my own -- that'd be hypocritical, given how many times I've violated it.

The Paladin/Kender Fallacy: The portrayal of a character with restrictive/disruptive fluff and/or crunch, does not mean they exist only to restrict and/or disrupt games. Stories can be enriched by them by those who wish to try as easily as they can be disrupted by those who try equally to do so.

That could be an addendum to The Giant's commentary on the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

Hackulator

2017-07-25, 08:06 PM

Even if I've never bothered to call it "Waker's Law" before, it is a concept that has existed for some time. If people decide to use it as shorthand for an argument, that's fine. If they don't, that's also fine. As strange as this concept may seem to some, but the adoration of people I am likely to never meet has no real bearing on my self-worth.

Look man, it is clearly bad form to try to name something after yourself.

Now please note that as I say that I am being mostly humorous. While I do think it's bad form, I don't think it's terrible or that you necessarily are trying to get attention. However, it DOES come off a little douchey, and so I'm going to make jokes about it because to be honest, that's just who I am. That combined with the fact that I think a lot of the things people call "fallacies" when it comes to this stuff do not even come close to meeting the criteria for a fallacy means that I'm going to poke fun at this entire thread.

Please don't take it super personally. This is literally an argument about arguments about fantasy made up characters. It's as far from serious as it can be.

One Step Two

2017-07-25, 08:11 PM

"No game is better than bad game." That's the typical formatting, though it's clearer as something like "Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game."

Call it the Bad Game Guideline? Definitely not claiming it as my own -- that'd be hypocritical, given how many times I've violated it.

That could be an addendum to The Giant's commentary on the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

So shall we codify both then?

The Giant's Law: It is the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.

danielxcutter

2017-07-25, 08:12 PM

Waker

2017-07-25, 09:11 PM

So shall we codify both then?

The Giant's Law: It is the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!'.
I shall add The Giant's Law.

"No game is better than bad game." That's the typical formatting, though it's clearer as something like "Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game."
Call it the Bad Game Guideline? Definitely not claiming it as my own -- that'd be hypocritical, given how many times I've violated it.
And I'll put in the Bad Game Guideline.

Look man, it is clearly bad form to try to name something after yourself.
I'm less concerned with form. If I could had come up with a descriptive name for the law, I would have used that. However I am notoriously lazy and the path of least resistance led to the name "Waker's Law".

Tainted_Scholar

2017-07-29, 03:13 PM

"Selectively building a character to deal with a specific challenge proves nothing about the viability of a class."

I believe this is Schrodinger's Fighter, but I could be wrong.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-07-29, 03:41 PM

"Selectively building a character to deal with a specific challenge proves nothing about the viability of a class."

I believe this is Schrodinger's Fighter, but I could be wrong.

I think it's Schrodinger's [Insert Class Here], actually.

Waker

2017-07-29, 04:01 PM

I will add Schrodinger's [Insert Class Here] Fallacy.

Debatra

2017-07-30, 12:06 AM

"Schrodinger's Build"?

gooddragon1

2017-07-30, 12:39 AM

"Schrodinger's Build"?

Actually, I think "Heisenberg's Build" might be more appropriate.

Here's an attempt:
"When evaluating the capabilities of a class, a sample character with a continually changing build in response to challenges cannot be treated as capable against all challenges if some changes would significantly impede their ability to deal with the former challenges."

It's common sense, but I've seen it happen.

Florian

2017-07-30, 02:29 AM

I believe this is Schrodinger's Fighter, but I could be wrong.

Nope. Everything with "Schrödinger" in its name are (class) builds that are flexible enough to be changed on the fly to fit the current situation. Schrödingers Fighter is the one that can swap feats on the fly, Schrödingers Wizard can swap prepared spells, and so on.

Pleh

2017-07-30, 04:58 AM

Actually, I think "Heisenberg's Build" might be more appropriate.

It may be, but more people are familiar with schrodinger's cat than heisenburg's uncertainty.

Debatra

2017-07-30, 11:31 AM

Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

I'm not really sure that applies to the situation, though I'm sure we can come up with something for it.

Pleh

2017-07-30, 11:51 AM

I'm not really sure that applies to the situation, though I'm sure we can come up with something for it.

It's similar to schrodinger (they're related physical concepts).

The Schrodinger equation is used to find the allowed energy levels of quantum mechanical systems (such as atoms, or transistors). The associated wavefunction gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain position.

While heisenburg's principle offers a relation in the certainty of position and momentum, schrodinger's equation actually defines that same relationship for a given set reference.

My point being that either name is just about equally applicable as a metaphor in talking about building characters for an RPG. Because either way, it's a metaphor describing the seemingly quantum behavior of character possibility, probability, and uncertainty.