I suppose the "how far can you change a game before you have to call it something else" is marginally worth addressing:
Poker
Also Poker
Still Poker
Poker Too
And Poker
Chess, Western aka International Chess
Chess, Japanese
Chess, Chinese aka Elephant Chess
Fairy Chess; Fairy Chess; Fairy Chess, Fairy Chess and Fairy Chess.
Bowling
Bowling
Bowling
Bowling
Bowling
So it's actually fairly common for radically different subgames and variants to be part of the same game in common terminology, or at most differentiated from other games in the same family by a single adjective.
Shadzar Fallacy
Moderator: Moderators
-
Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
-
Stubbazubba
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 6:01 pm
- Contact:
Shadzar, you realize your post in the 5e thread is committing this Shadzar fallacy, right? I don't like how D&D currently is (too many rules, too many restrictions, it tells you how to play), so WotC should change it to be what I want it to be (give the DM the god-like power he's supposed to have, no rules for much of anything so the group can make it up as they go along, THAC0), forcing said change on everyone else, as well. And that's a perfectly valid opinion. But it is not a fallacy, it's just an opinion. WotC will decide which opinions to listen to, based on what they think will help or hurt the success of the game. That's just the way of things, that's how products get improved. Every innovation in technology and even the basic principles of the scientific method are examples of the Shadzar fallacy. Three cheers for the Shadzar fallacy! I will make this fallacy my mantra in life, and use it as frequently as possible, because it is actually one of the building blocks of cognitive progress, and is by far the best fallacy one can use in life, ever.
I don't like tyrannical kings in my government, I want the government to change so there are no kings. BAM! Democratic Republic. Good thing or bad thing?
I don't like having to get a custom-engineered automobile which costs more than I'll ever earn and is only serviceable by the guy who custom-made it, I want cars to change so that they have interchangeable parts and are mass-produced so as to be affordable. BAM! Ford Model T. Progress or laziness, shadzar?
I don't like cars that are as large as boats, extremely non-aerodynamic, and get about 4 miles to the gallon, not to mention the ugly color schemes, I want cars to change so they are smaller, more streamlined, get better gas mileage and are painted in a respectable color. BAM! Japanese automobiles. Those Japanese are so lazy, aren't they, shadz?
I don't like computers taking up an entire warehouse, with discs that look more like weights, which require you to be familiar with coding language in order to edit text, I want them to change so that they can fit on a desk, be user-friendly, and allow the end-user to edit text. BAM! Personal computers and user interfaces. Lazy retards couldn't use a command prompt to save their lives!
I don't like having one chance to roll at least a 9 in a given stat in order to play the character concept I'd like to in my table-top RPG, nor do I like that a dwarf couldn't be a wizard anyway, nor do I like having to think first up and then down to determine the success of my attack, I want them to change the RPG so that I can build the character I want with more granular options, unify mechanics for completion of skill-based tasks and attacks, and for pity's sake let races play any class. BAM! D&D 3e.
These incremental revisions of products to bring them in line with customer expectations are not what any rational person would call fallacious, thus the requesting of said revisions is also, non-fallacious. What would be fallacious is for the company in charge of said revisions to say, "We have product X at iteration 4, but, y'know what, there are still people who prefer iteration 2, therefore, we should go back to iteration 2." That is a fallacy. Of some kind. There's not actually a reason given there, so maybe it's not even a fallacy. But it's a bad idea. WotC decided to move away from 2e consciously, they had their reasons. You can disagree and argue those reasons, but 3e was not the result of "lazy, stupid players" twisting the designer's arms until they created something they didn't like; they thought that their design improved the game, as did most players and many new customers. In short, the market and the community has spoken; 3e was an improvement to 2e. Kuntz may disagree, but his relevance in the history of D&D does not make him correct.
I don't like tyrannical kings in my government, I want the government to change so there are no kings. BAM! Democratic Republic. Good thing or bad thing?
I don't like having to get a custom-engineered automobile which costs more than I'll ever earn and is only serviceable by the guy who custom-made it, I want cars to change so that they have interchangeable parts and are mass-produced so as to be affordable. BAM! Ford Model T. Progress or laziness, shadzar?
I don't like cars that are as large as boats, extremely non-aerodynamic, and get about 4 miles to the gallon, not to mention the ugly color schemes, I want cars to change so they are smaller, more streamlined, get better gas mileage and are painted in a respectable color. BAM! Japanese automobiles. Those Japanese are so lazy, aren't they, shadz?
I don't like computers taking up an entire warehouse, with discs that look more like weights, which require you to be familiar with coding language in order to edit text, I want them to change so that they can fit on a desk, be user-friendly, and allow the end-user to edit text. BAM! Personal computers and user interfaces. Lazy retards couldn't use a command prompt to save their lives!
I don't like having one chance to roll at least a 9 in a given stat in order to play the character concept I'd like to in my table-top RPG, nor do I like that a dwarf couldn't be a wizard anyway, nor do I like having to think first up and then down to determine the success of my attack, I want them to change the RPG so that I can build the character I want with more granular options, unify mechanics for completion of skill-based tasks and attacks, and for pity's sake let races play any class. BAM! D&D 3e.
These incremental revisions of products to bring them in line with customer expectations are not what any rational person would call fallacious, thus the requesting of said revisions is also, non-fallacious. What would be fallacious is for the company in charge of said revisions to say, "We have product X at iteration 4, but, y'know what, there are still people who prefer iteration 2, therefore, we should go back to iteration 2." That is a fallacy. Of some kind. There's not actually a reason given there, so maybe it's not even a fallacy. But it's a bad idea. WotC decided to move away from 2e consciously, they had their reasons. You can disagree and argue those reasons, but 3e was not the result of "lazy, stupid players" twisting the designer's arms until they created something they didn't like; they thought that their design improved the game, as did most players and many new customers. In short, the market and the community has spoken; 3e was an improvement to 2e. Kuntz may disagree, but his relevance in the history of D&D does not make him correct.
Last edited by Stubbazubba on Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[quote="Josh_Kablack]Fairy Chess; Fairy Chess; Fairy Chess, Fairy Chess and Fairy Chess.
So it's actually fairly common for radically different subgames and variants to be part of the same game in common terminology, or at most differentiated from other games in the same family by a single adjective.[/quote]
Maybe common terminology, but I can't help but notice that every link to "Fairy Chess" that you provide is a link a different game, WITH A DIFFERENT NAME. You're saying they're all "Fairy Chess", but the actual links say otherwise, and the same is true for the other "same" games you list.
Back to the point, even if the games are similar, it's actually quite common to give them different names, and truly unusual to have extremely different games be presented as having the same name.
So it's actually fairly common for radically different subgames and variants to be part of the same game in common terminology, or at most differentiated from other games in the same family by a single adjective.[/quote]
Maybe common terminology, but I can't help but notice that every link to "Fairy Chess" that you provide is a link a different game, WITH A DIFFERENT NAME. You're saying they're all "Fairy Chess", but the actual links say otherwise, and the same is true for the other "same" games you list.
Back to the point, even if the games are similar, it's actually quite common to give them different names, and truly unusual to have extremely different games be presented as having the same name.
Last edited by Doom on Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
no it doesn't nor does any other post, as the come at designing such as Gygax, Mearls, Twet, etc. well Gygax at least.Stubbazubba wrote:Shadzar, you realize your post in the 5e thread is committing this Shadzar fallacy, right?
it isnt Bob the designer designing based on own iews but someone else determining what it should be and the designer following that as if that one customer need it that way to play.
im too tired to go into or read you entire post right now.
the fallacy goes into how the "current" was arrived at. it never said the current should exist in the first place.
read the first post again and look at the last line of it.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
-
Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
First, links for a terminology that is apparently more obscure than I though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess
http://www.chessvariants.com/fairy.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FairyChess.html
Next let me repeat myself with smaller words and more explanation:
They are all different games, yes; they all have names for their own sub-variant, yes but they are also all denoted by the singular name for the entire family of games - even though the individual games can be very different from each other.
If I say that "I played poker last night". It is entirely possible that the technically precise name of the game I actually played should be 5-card draw, 7 card-stud, texas-hold 'em, lowball, hi-lo, or some combination of those and/or other games. However, in standrard English, all of those subgames and variants have enough rules similarity that they are commonly called poker
If I say that "I played chess last night", then since I am speaking as an American, it's assumed that I probably played western chess aka international chess aka chess of the mad queen. But if were from Hong Kong or Okinawa the assumed game would be a different evolution of the same root game. If I said that I played "a chess variant", ( or as the three links I provided above explain a type of "fairy chess" ) that means that I played some game with a board divided into spaces and a number of distinct pieces which move around in distinct ways upon it. The term "chess variant" ( nor it's equivalent "fairy chess") does not in any way narrow the precise game down to a group of more than one out of several thousand.
If I say "I went bowling", you'd assume that I meant 10-pin, that being far and away the most common in this region, but I have in the past both bowled duckpins and bocce - and heard native speakers of English refer to both of those games as bowling.
Now I'm going to add yet another instance of the same phenomona:
If I say I "shot pool', you have to ask to know whether I meant 8-ball, 9-ball, Snooker or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_pool]Bumper Pool] - and no matter which particular game I meant, they are all called "pool".
This sort of using a general name to describe a whole set of games with differences that start out minor and grow larger over time is actually really, really common in the history of games and the English language.
****
So arguing that Redbox, or 2e, or Essentials or whatnot "isn't D&D" is exactly equivalent to arguing that "Texas Hold 'Em isn't poker" which is exactly equivalent to arguing that "Duckpins aren't bowling" and that "Nineball isn't pool".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess
http://www.chessvariants.com/fairy.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FairyChess.html
Next let me repeat myself with smaller words and more explanation:
They are all different games, yes; they all have names for their own sub-variant, yes but they are also all denoted by the singular name for the entire family of games - even though the individual games can be very different from each other.
If I say that "I played poker last night". It is entirely possible that the technically precise name of the game I actually played should be 5-card draw, 7 card-stud, texas-hold 'em, lowball, hi-lo, or some combination of those and/or other games. However, in standrard English, all of those subgames and variants have enough rules similarity that they are commonly called poker
If I say that "I played chess last night", then since I am speaking as an American, it's assumed that I probably played western chess aka international chess aka chess of the mad queen. But if were from Hong Kong or Okinawa the assumed game would be a different evolution of the same root game. If I said that I played "a chess variant", ( or as the three links I provided above explain a type of "fairy chess" ) that means that I played some game with a board divided into spaces and a number of distinct pieces which move around in distinct ways upon it. The term "chess variant" ( nor it's equivalent "fairy chess") does not in any way narrow the precise game down to a group of more than one out of several thousand.
If I say "I went bowling", you'd assume that I meant 10-pin, that being far and away the most common in this region, but I have in the past both bowled duckpins and bocce - and heard native speakers of English refer to both of those games as bowling.
Now I'm going to add yet another instance of the same phenomona:
If I say I "shot pool', you have to ask to know whether I meant 8-ball, 9-ball, Snooker or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_pool]Bumper Pool] - and no matter which particular game I meant, they are all called "pool".
This sort of using a general name to describe a whole set of games with differences that start out minor and grow larger over time is actually really, really common in the history of games and the English language.
****
So arguing that Redbox, or 2e, or Essentials or whatnot "isn't D&D" is exactly equivalent to arguing that "Texas Hold 'Em isn't poker" which is exactly equivalent to arguing that "Duckpins aren't bowling" and that "Nineball isn't pool".
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
poker:hold 'em
RPG:D&D
FALSE
big difference, and big problem.
see dilution and rome related threads on ENWorld......
see Xerox, Jell-o, band-aid
game:poker
game:D&D
TRUE
kingdom/phylum/.../genus/species
there is a reason that sequence exists because too narrow a term helps nobody if you are really looking for information.
if your conversation goes like this
person a: i played poker last night
person b: i went bowling last night
the subject wasnt your activity so narrowing the focus down doesnt matter, because neither really cares what the other did. the subject was the previous night.
just like a thread on a forum, a conversation can be derail simply by shifting the subject.
person a: i played poker last night.
person b: i prefer spades
a word exists to clearly identify what you are speaking about. if you mean one thing and say another, you are at fault for using the wrong term when someone doesn't understand.
WotC bought a company that made many game for 2 of them specifically: AD&D and D&D. they then went to obfuscate those games and turn them form having a clear meaning to a confusing one by turning it into a brand name. all thanks to HASBRO.
1997: WotC buys TSR
1999: HASBRO buys WotC
2000: WotC releases 3rd edition
HASBRO loves brands
you want to look at it in an even funnier sense...Mike Mearls articles Legends and Lore deal with all those forms of "D&D" as it were, yet the forums places ALL discussion in a 4th edition only area. so prior to 4th edition is NOT D&D anymore, otherwise these discussions would be located in an edition neutral forum. go figure...
"poker" was coined to collect a type of game into a group to easily describe them, it never was the name of a single game.
while a variant of chess i still a chess variant, it doesnt make a single variant actual chess.
likewise the same is true for D&D, 4th edition and 3rd are variants. sadly nobody can figure out what 4th is a variant of, but it is clear to see 3rd is a variant of "AD&D, 2nd edition, Player's Option".
3rd is NOT D&D, but AD&D as that is its parentage. 4th is...i dont even fucking know what...."Star Wars Saga Edition Fantasy Role Playing Game with (A)D&D proprietary terms" because that system is its parentage...at least in part.
2nd edition is NOT D&D, as it is AD&D.
RPG:D&D
FALSE
big difference, and big problem.
see dilution and rome related threads on ENWorld......
see Xerox, Jell-o, band-aid
game:poker
game:D&D
TRUE
kingdom/phylum/.../genus/species
there is a reason that sequence exists because too narrow a term helps nobody if you are really looking for information.
if your conversation goes like this
person a: i played poker last night
person b: i went bowling last night
the subject wasnt your activity so narrowing the focus down doesnt matter, because neither really cares what the other did. the subject was the previous night.
just like a thread on a forum, a conversation can be derail simply by shifting the subject.
person a: i played poker last night.
person b: i prefer spades
a word exists to clearly identify what you are speaking about. if you mean one thing and say another, you are at fault for using the wrong term when someone doesn't understand.
WotC bought a company that made many game for 2 of them specifically: AD&D and D&D. they then went to obfuscate those games and turn them form having a clear meaning to a confusing one by turning it into a brand name. all thanks to HASBRO.
1997: WotC buys TSR
1999: HASBRO buys WotC
2000: WotC releases 3rd edition
HASBRO loves brands
you want to look at it in an even funnier sense...Mike Mearls articles Legends and Lore deal with all those forms of "D&D" as it were, yet the forums places ALL discussion in a 4th edition only area. so prior to 4th edition is NOT D&D anymore, otherwise these discussions would be located in an edition neutral forum. go figure...
"poker" was coined to collect a type of game into a group to easily describe them, it never was the name of a single game.
while a variant of chess i still a chess variant, it doesnt make a single variant actual chess.
likewise the same is true for D&D, 4th edition and 3rd are variants. sadly nobody can figure out what 4th is a variant of, but it is clear to see 3rd is a variant of "AD&D, 2nd edition, Player's Option".
3rd is NOT D&D, but AD&D as that is its parentage. 4th is...i dont even fucking know what...."Star Wars Saga Edition Fantasy Role Playing Game with (A)D&D proprietary terms" because that system is its parentage...at least in part.
2nd edition is NOT D&D, as it is AD&D.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
I think that'd be non-sequitir, a conclusion that doesn't actually follow from the premises given.Stubbazubba wrote:What would be fallacious is for the company in charge of said revisions to say, "We have product X at iteration 4, but, y'know what, there are still people who prefer iteration 2, therefore, we should go back to iteration 2." That is a fallacy. Of some kind. There's not actually a reason given there, so maybe it's not even a fallacy.
You're correct, but fallacies are a subset of non-sequiters.Chamomile wrote:I think that'd be non-sequitir, a conclusion that doesn't actually follow from the premises given.Stubbazubba wrote:What would be fallacious is for the company in charge of said revisions to say, "We have product X at iteration 4, but, y'know what, there are still people who prefer iteration 2, therefore, we should go back to iteration 2." That is a fallacy. Of some kind. There's not actually a reason given there, so maybe it's not even a fallacy.
-
Draco_Argentum
- Duke
- Posts: 2434
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm