An end to the "It works fine/is broken in my campaign" argument! [Archive] - Wizards Community

An end to the "It works fine/is broken in my campaign" argument! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
WayneTheGame
03-26-07, 11:15 AM I've seen this crop up as an excuse to justify that some class or feat or spell is fine/is broken far too often, and quite frankly it's totally incorrect. So, in the vein of others (hoping it starts to be drilled into the masses), I present to you:

The WTG Fallacy
AKA The Personal Experience As Hardcore Proof Fallacy

Just because a particular class, feat, spell or whatever was overpowered in your particular campaign does not mean that said class/feat/spell/whatever is broken in general.

Corollary: Having a personal experience (for good or ill) with something doesn't mean that others will automatically have the same experience as you did.

Generalization: If a certain class that appears broken worked fine in your group, another group might find it broken in their view. Contrarily, if a class that everyone claims was fine turned out to be broken in a specific campaign, it doesn't mean that class is thereby broken in general.

I am rather tired of seeing people try to justify if something is broken/fine only because "Well I have played it and it didn't unbalance the game". There are tons of factors that can break something; personal experience should be given as an opinion, not as hardcore proof that a certain thing is broken or not broken.
Zumarai
03-26-07, 11:19 AM Totally – my group think LA's are fine, in fact, great, but apparently (if you look on the races forum) a lot of people despise them.

…Among many other things – fighters etc.
Eruenno
03-26-07, 11:43 AM I absolutely agree... my friends even though of banning some "useless" spells, feats etc.... Thank the lords they gave up... and they didn't touch monks(grrrrrr... no one messes with my fav. class) hehe
Noblehawk33
03-26-07, 11:47 AM Perhaps I missed it but what then is the guide line to determine when something is broken? I agree with the statement and personally have always used a loose interpretation of the "rules" and treat each game as a story more then a game to me that is the essence of RPG and think that all this rule lawyering ruins the fun of the game. Balance if there is such a thing should and can be addressed on a game by game basis by cooperation between players and DM.
WayneTheGame
03-26-07, 11:48 AM The guide line is that everyone should try the thing out for themselves. This fallacy is to be used against the folks who say "Well I tried it and it was broken for me, so that means that it's totally broken for everyone". Basically using their own experience as proof that it's broken for everyone instead of basically saying "Well, it didn't work for me, but it might work for you"
Bruunwald
03-26-07, 12:19 PM A human being can only relate through the experience he has. If a person has had a bad experience with something, he has every right to offer that experience when a relevant topic is put forth to him.

On the one hand, it would be naive at best for somebody to think that his experience is the only possible outcome for trying or using something. On the other hand, I doubt that this happens so often on the board that this thread is called for.

More likely, a person offers his experience and others here take the opportunity to jump on him, attack him, and accuse him of acting as though he is somehow nerfing the game for them by relating what he has seen.

This speaks to a bigger problem on the board, which is that there are many here who probably know what a poster is saying, what he means, that he is joking, etc., but who intentionally take everything someone says either in the most literal, or negative way possible, just to be able to, in their minds, legitimize the bad treatment they are about to give that poster.

Probably, it would be a better course of discussion to clarify that most of everything everyone says is "in their personal experience," that a simple "well, that may be true in your experience" is all that is necessary as a reply, and not start threads devoted to standardizing attacks to be made against those we pretend are somehow insulting us by not completely clarifying to our satisfaction.
Zumarai
03-26-07, 12:32 PM This speaks to a bigger problem on the board, which is that there are many here who probably know what a poster is saying, what he means, that he is joking, etc., but who intentionally take everything someone says either in the most literal, or negative way possible, just to be able to, in their minds, legitimize the bad treatment they are about to give that poster.

Probably, it would be a better course of discussion to clarify that most of everything everyone says is "in their personal experience," that a simple "well, that may be true in your experience" is all that is necessary as a reply, and not start threads devoted to standardizing attacks to be made against those we pretend are somehow insulting us by not completely clarifying to our satisfaction.

Very well said.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WayneTheGame 03-26-07, 11:15 AM	I've seen this crop up as an excuse to justify that some class or feat or spell is fine/is broken far too often, and quite frankly it's totally incorrect. So, in the vein of others (hoping it starts to be drilled into the masses), I present to you: The WTG Fallacy AKA The Personal Experience As Hardcore Proof Fallacy Just because a particular class, feat, spell or whatever was overpowered in your particular campaign does not mean that said class/feat/spell/whatever is broken in general. Corollary: Having a personal experience (for good or ill) with something doesn't mean that others will automatically have the same experience as you did. Generalization: If a certain class that appears broken worked fine in your group, another group might find it broken in their view. Contrarily, if a class that everyone claims was fine turned out to be broken in a specific campaign, it doesn't mean that class is thereby broken in general. I am rather tired of seeing people try to justify if something is broken/fine only because "Well I have played it and it didn't unbalance the game". There are tons of factors that can break something; personal experience should be given as an opinion, not as hardcore proof that a certain thing is broken or not broken.
Zumarai 03-26-07, 11:19 AM	Totally – my group think LA's are fine, in fact, great, but apparently (if you look on the races forum) a lot of people despise them. …Among many other things – fighters etc.
Eruenno 03-26-07, 11:43 AM	I absolutely agree... my friends even though of banning some "useless" spells, feats etc.... Thank the lords they gave up... and they didn't touch monks(grrrrrr... no one messes with my fav. class) hehe
Noblehawk33 03-26-07, 11:47 AM	Perhaps I missed it but what then is the guide line to determine when something is broken? I agree with the statement and personally have always used a loose interpretation of the "rules" and treat each game as a story more then a game to me that is the essence of RPG and think that all this rule lawyering ruins the fun of the game. Balance if there is such a thing should and can be addressed on a game by game basis by cooperation between players and DM.
WayneTheGame 03-26-07, 11:48 AM	The guide line is that everyone should try the thing out for themselves. This fallacy is to be used against the folks who say "Well I tried it and it was broken for me, so that means that it's totally broken for everyone". Basically using their own experience as proof that it's broken for everyone instead of basically saying "Well, it didn't work for me, but it might work for you"
Bruunwald 03-26-07, 12:19 PM	A human being can only relate through the experience he has. If a person has had a bad experience with something, he has every right to offer that experience when a relevant topic is put forth to him. On the one hand, it would be naive at best for somebody to think that his experience is the only possible outcome for trying or using something. On the other hand, I doubt that this happens so often on the board that this thread is called for. More likely, a person offers his experience and others here take the opportunity to jump on him, attack him, and accuse him of acting as though he is somehow nerfing the game for them by relating what he has seen. This speaks to a bigger problem on the board, which is that there are many here who probably know what a poster is saying, what he means, that he is joking, etc., but who intentionally take everything someone says either in the most literal, or negative way possible, just to be able to, in their minds, legitimize the bad treatment they are about to give that poster. Probably, it would be a better course of discussion to clarify that most of everything everyone says is "in their personal experience," that a simple "well, that may be true in your experience" is all that is necessary as a reply, and not start threads devoted to standardizing attacks to be made against those we pretend are somehow insulting us by not completely clarifying to our satisfaction.
Zumarai 03-26-07, 12:32 PM	This speaks to a bigger problem on the board, which is that there are many here who probably know what a poster is saying, what he means, that he is joking, etc., but who intentionally take everything someone says either in the most literal, or negative way possible, just to be able to, in their minds, legitimize the bad treatment they are about to give that poster. Probably, it would be a better course of discussion to clarify that most of everything everyone says is "in their personal experience," that a simple "well, that may be true in your experience" is all that is necessary as a reply, and not start threads devoted to standardizing attacks to be made against those we pretend are somehow insulting us by not completely clarifying to our satisfaction. Very well said.