The way game used to be

[Ascanio Giovanni]

I've heard a lot of talk recently on the boards about "the game I remember" or "the way game used to be" or even "the previous game" to make a point and create an even bigger divide. This previous game is being put on quite a pedestal as the game they want to go back to.

Well, merits and flaws of the specifics of the way things used to be aside, there is one undeniable fact that seems to be forgotten.

When Sean's staff took over in 2012, the game had around 35-40 active players. Now it has 80-100. Let's remember this before we put "the way things used to be" on too big a pedestal. That's the game that reduced our numbers from around 100 active players when I joined in 2006 to 35-40 by 2012.

I think the numbers speak quite well for themselves. Keep that in mind when reading anyone else talking about "the way things used to be".

[Kevin K]

I think this is a strawman argument. Nobody is advocating a complete rollback to that system, or the ooc issues that were also a factor in depopulation.

If you feel that some of the specific things we are talking about (lower powers, less magic, fewer home brew rules, etc) drove that reduction, then let's talk about them.

Otherwise, recall that the game has consistently been at around 100 people except for that period. In fact, as far as participation goes, I think it makes the point that it's more about community than rule sets. From what I gather, trust with the community was broken. I really credit Sean's staff for restoring a lot of that with transparency and conversation.

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

Yeah this doesn't actually fit with what anyone I've heard about has said at all Jaron. There was a period where the game dwindled down to nothing because of a culture of STs whose perfect game as players seemed to be one where the STs never 'interfered' with player plots and plans. I walked out and went and played werewolf during that period and had a lot of fun doing it. So the idea that I'd advocate for that style of game is very deeply flawed.

Like Kevin, I recognize that Sean's run brought back a lot of friendliness and community and transparency to the game, which I love.

What I don't love is the power bloat, which leads to world exploding plots and anime-epic NPCs.

[Thornstar]

Jan 5, 2014 14:35:22 GMT -8 Kevin K said:

I think this is a strawman argument.

Actually, not to pick nits, it's what's known as a "False Dichotomy."

There's very little lately in these discussions that doesn't involve:

Ad Hominem arguments
"Begging the question" arguments
Post Hoc arguments
Ad Ignorantum arguments
Burden of Proof Reversal arguments
Non Sequitur arguments

And the one most offensive to me, the Bandwagon Fallacy.

[Kevin K]

For rhetoric nerds, I was looking at Jaron's comment as reducing recent discussions to "wanting to revert to a previous ruleset/approach". And (as perceived by me) as an oversimplification of the opposing argument, I felt it was a strawman. Eg: You just want to revert to pre-Sean stuff, and that's bad. Reverting to that would be bad, but that's not anybody's position.

I didn't see the dichotomy there, could you elaborate? And I just really like categorization, so if this is distracting, we can move it to PMs or whatever.

[Katie Hester]

The dichotomy would be stating that the options are either the way things used to be or the way they are now. Which is false. There is always a middle ground between the points.

The fallacy that I just love seeing over and over is the false correlation/ causation arguments. Classic!

[Thornstar]

Jan 5, 2014 15:48:33 GMT -8 Kevin K said:

For rhetoric nerds, I was looking at Jaron's comment as reducing recent discussions to "wanting to revert to a previous ruleset/approach". And (as perceived by me) as an oversimplification of the opposing argument, I felt it was a strawman. Eg: You just want to revert to pre-Sean stuff, and that's bad. Reverting to that would be bad, but that's not anybody's position.

I didn't see the dichotomy there, could you elaborate? And I just really like categorization, so if this is distracting, we can move it to PMs or whatever.

I was calling out the argument of "Numbers!" in response to the introduction of "This is what I am assuming people are trying to do to divide the opinions of the player base."

From my perspective, I do think that there is an inherent Strawman aspect to this, but that it was undeveloped and without closing argument, and thus, the strawman would only live in potential, not as an actual counterpoint to be knocked down.

Either way, "We have more people" as a proof for "The game is healthier" is definitively a logical fallacy.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

Either way, "We have more people" as a proof for "The game is healthier" is definitively a logical fallacy.

You think that a game more people actually want to play, one where new players who come to try it actually stay instead of getting bored and leaving after a few weeks is not inherently healthier?

I was very deliberately not making an argument with this post. I was posting the numbers because established facts (unless you listen to politicians or Fox News) are not variable. It was one point that I hoped would remind people of what they were advocating for and what I had seen it lead to in the past. Clearly I've failed.


However, I'm done. I have spent far too much energy fighting here and I'm just drained. This isn't a discussion. It's a bitch fight, and I realized that I am contributing to the problem by even acknowledging it. I won't be responding further. Goodbye. I dearly hope we never return to the game I remember from the Great Before Time that you all seem to worship. I barely tolerated it then, and only because I didn't know any better yet. Such a style now that forced everyone to sit in a corner being ignored while the special people got to do what they wanted would probably drive me from game for good.

[Ross]

Jan 5, 2014 16:39:40 GMT -8 Thornstar said:

Either way, "We have more people" as a proof for "The game is healthier" is definitively a logical fallacy.

I think the phrase being sought here is "Argumentum ad populum"

-Ross