D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

[Hex08]

I used to think the 24-hour news cycle was Orwell's Two Minutes of Hate expanded and made available on demand. Then I found the internet.

I was going to like your post but then I read the last line and instead think I am going to seek out a bottle of whiskey to blot out the sadness.....

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

They parrot the jargon but fail to understand the meaning behind the words.

Feynman's Technique I think works wonders. "Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language. Without using the [new] word tell me what you know now about the [topic]."

I think we could cut through a lot of BS if we even half attempted to use that. Skip the jargon and explain what you think it means. But people would rather sound informed (i.e. use jargon they don't understand) than be informed (i.e actually know what they're talking about).

I think that this is a big part of it.

I think the other big part of it is that on the internet, no one knows you are a dog. Well, I mean, if you are a dog, that would be impressive! But seriously- the internet creates this effect where everyone wants to argue everything, even when they have no real basis for experience in it. (Part of this is also because a lot of different ways of interacting on the internet are more useful for argument than they are for collaborative discussion)

So we end up with a lot of people who have adopted mechanisms that allow them to argue about anything and everything. If they don't know something, they google it and think that it substitutes for knowledge. And they use the same techniques (such as logical fallacies) to try and turn the conversation from a substantive one into yet another argument about arguing ("That's a strawman." "Is not!" "Is too!" etc.).

 

[Thomas Shey]

In short, no.

Look, maybe we are talking about different things. But you clearly are using a definition of "rational" that is not used when people that I am familiar with are discussing these concepts. Whether something is "rational" or not in this context cannot, by definition, be a matter of perspective. See also homo economicus.

In addition, something either is or isn't a fallacy; the issues raised by path dependencies are not .... dependent on fallacies and cognitive biases.

I can't help but disagree with both. Rationality is always based on data; if your data is faulty, that doesn't mean you're irrational making the decision you are, it just means its a rational decision based on bad data. But if you're making the decision without making an effort to ensure that data is good, that is irrational.

And a fallacy is no different; its a failure of reasoning, and making a decision on bad data can produce a bad outcome while still be sound reasoning.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For instance, the appeal to authority can be a fallacy or not. "My neighbor is a doctor and he said something medical so it must be true" is a fallacy and an appeal to authority, the neighbor may be talking outside his field of expertise for example. "The consensus of the medical community specializing is the relevant field of study said something medical so it must be true" is not a fallacy because, although it is still an appeal to authority that authority is giving us the best current information available.

the problem with the appeal to authority is that it discounts expertise...

I have personal experience (non professional) that he dumb password restrictions at work make the passwords less safe. (people end up having to write down and hide passwords, and many of the people you see use the same hiding place on the desk)

My buddy who works in IT security (actually two) have very technical reasons why the password requirements at best are a minor inconvenience to modern hackers...and these dumb double auth things I hate even more are better.


if someone disagrees with me that the stupid password requirements work they throw "your personal experience isn't data" and "Your 'friend' in IT is an appeal to authority... so I can't use my own experience, and I can't quote someone that is an expert and at that point how can you say ANYTHING?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can't help but disagree with both. Rationality is always based on data; if your data is faulty, that doesn't mean you're irrational making the decision you are, it just means its a rational decision based on bad data. But if you're making the decision without making an effort to ensure that data is good, that is irrational.

And a fallacy is no different; its a failure of reasoning, and making a decision on bad data can produce a bad outcome while still be sound reasoning.

Look, disagree all you want, but you're talking about something else. Which is good for you, but not productive for a conversation.

These words have specific uses, and I am trying to use them in that way. So we will have to agree to not agree on these things.

 

[Minigiant]

You were? I don't remember that being promised. Mearls talked about some overall goals early on but I don't remember anything like this. On the other hand like many projects wish list goals are often cut based on the realities of implementation.

I kknow the feeling. I was promised every class in any PHB would be in 5e in one way or another. I then had one of my two favorite classes not show up (still now 8 years later I need to kitbash to play a warlord)

They promised every race (not class) to be in the 5e PHB after many fans cried about the gnome race no one even plays.

I feel for ya. That is a rock and hard place for WOTC. On one hand, the mechanics have changed making a Warlord hard to do in 5E. If you make a version that 4E fans hate, its going to just pour salt in the wound.

All the new to 4e classes are doable as new classes in 5e. The issue is that the designers decided early that they weren't adding new classes to the PHB that weren't in the 3e PHB besides Warlock. All new classes would be setting only and due to the slooooow publishing schedule of 5e, only one was created.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is most certainly true, and works both ways, but unless we can mind-read or perform psychological evaluations we really have no choice, in my view (especially when speaking in general terms such as in this thread), but to take others at their word. Ascribing motivations without evidence is dangerous.

Fair; as I've noted, Internet Telepathy is a bad road to go down. But that said, when you've seen enough examples of people claiming they think something because of X when further contact makes it blindingly clear they are doing so because of Y, I don't think its unreasonable to have questions in your mind the next time you hit an apparently similar construction of doing that thing because of X. You still may be wrong, but you know that there's at least a non-trivial chance you're reading the situation right. And when assessing the overall populace of people saying the same, you pretty much can be certain that at least some of them are doing so.

So I'd say projecting a given failure here on any given individual you're talking to is a bad idea, but assuming some of a group of any size doing so is not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Look, disagree all you want, but you're talking about something else. Which is good for you, but not productive for a conversation.

These words have specific uses, and I am trying to use them in that way. So we will have to agree to not agree on these things.

Fine. But I still think its relevant to point at hand.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Fine. But I still think its relevant to point at hand.

You can certainly think that all you want; but if you don't even try to understand why I used the specific term "rational" (for example) instead of adopting your own usage just so you can argue, you won't see why I am no longer interested in this conversation, and why I clearly don't think it's relevant.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

All the new to 4e classes are doable as new classes in 5e. The issue is that the designers decided early that they weren't adding new classes to the PHB that weren't in the 3e PHB besides Warlock. All new classes would be setting only and due to the slooooow publishing schedule of 5e, only one was created.

even that we now have a generic non Ebberon Artificer, so if this new 2024 book is really just a reprint of 2014 I would like to see some new classes in new books