Quote from: yosemitemike;868693I didn't misunderstand or ignore them.  I just think they are wrong.  I didn't ignore them.  I repudiated them.



That's why I used phrases like "part of why" instead of "the only reason why" or "lots of people" instead of "everyone ever".

Since you are going on what seems to be technicalities to me (i.e. the "game" you earlier claimed to not play, or something similar as I see it), which I actually find fair, because I do that a lot as well, then i'd like to hear your impression on what the other parts are of why.
Do remember that "People simply like to play it" is already mentioned and that to me, that goes without saying.

Also, the reason why I agreed with you on the major first part of what I quoted, was because you actually said some of the things I said (some of the things you claim to repudiate), you just said them in your own words.
The difference in phrasing seem to be due to our different viewpoints:
You are happy or at least ok with D&D being the hub of roleplaying games.
I am not.

You makes assumptions and analyses founded in that there is no problems.
I make assumptions and analyses based on that there is problems, because I have experienced them.
I assume we both try to analyse from a neutral stance though, but our experiences undoubtedly shines through.

Quote from: Catelf;868686How about that I have seen it with my own two eyes?

* BZZZZZT! * No, but thank you for playing.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;868843* BZZZZZT! * No, but thank you for playing.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Too bad, I do not have "Data" then, I have "Experience".
I'm sure you do too, it just seem that mine are different from yours.

Quote from: Catelf;868720Do remember that "People simply like to play it" is already mentioned and that to me, that goes without saying.

So you agree that D&D is popular because a lot of people like it?

Quote from: Catelf;868720The difference in phrasing seem to be due to our different viewpoints:
You are happy or at least ok with D&D being the hub of roleplaying games.
I am not.

What you are or are not happy or okay with is not important.  Everything isn't about you and your feels.  D&D is the hub of RPGs whether you like it or not.  Whether I am happy with it or not is just as unimportant.  Things are what they are not what you want them to be.  

Quote from: Catelf;868720You makes assumptions and analyses founded in that there is no problems.
I make assumptions and analyses based on that there is problems, because I have experienced them.

You seem to think that lots of people liking and enjoying D&D is somehow a problem.  It might be a problem for you but everything isn't about you and your feels.  For all of the people playing and enjoying D&D, there is no problem.  There never has been.  Can't get some other system you like better going?  That's unfortunate for you but you can't always get what you want in a social hobby like this.

Quote from: Catelf;868874Too bad, I do not have "Data" then, I have "Experience".

In other words, you have nothing at all.  Your assertions are just as baseless and unsupported as they appeared at first glance.

Quote from: yosemitemike;868880So you agree that D&D is popular because a lot of people like it?

What you are or are not happy or okay with is not important.  Everything isn't about you and your feels.  D&D is the hub of RPGs whether you like it or not.  Whether I am happy with it or not is just as unimportant.  Things are what they are not what you want them to be.  

You seem to think that lots of people liking and enjoying D&D is somehow a problem.  It might be a problem for you but everything isn't about you and your feels.  For all of the people playing and enjoying D&D, there is no problem.  There never has been.  Can't get some other system you like better going?  That's unfortunate for you but you can't always get what you want in a social hobby like this.

In other words, you have nothing at all.  Your assertions are just as baseless and unsupported as they appeared at first glance.

1:
As said, it goes without saying.
The question is why no other game comes near, despite being just as good, and just as enjoyed as it.
And your answer is simply "Because it is". No real explanation, or even attempt at it, just "It is".
As you may have noticed, that is not much of an answer to me.

2:
"What you are or are not happy or okay with is not important.  Everything isn't about you and your feels.  D&D is the hub of RPGs whether you like it or not.  Whether I am happy with it or not is just as unimportant.  Things are what they are not what you want them to be."
That is something I can return to you without problem.
Do anything say that what makes YOU happy or ok with is more important than what I am happy or ok with?
No, and if I claimed that you just did, you would point out that that is not what you said.
So, essentially, this conversation, in extension, is obviously completely unimportant, because what I feel is not important, what You feel is not important, what Anyone feels is not important, because it is not about that individual either.

Nice try.
It doesn't work that way.
If things weren't close enough to how you wanted or liked them to be, it is very possible we would not have this argument now.

3:
"You seem to think that lots of people liking and enjoying D&D is somehow a problem."
No, that is not my problem.
At least not nowadays, but I admit that it used to be.
My "problem" is that too many thinks that D&D is the Only rpg that is playable, or even exist.
But, as the resident old codger just pointed out, I have no numbers to back up my impression, so I might be wrong.
And yet, D&D is still the most known.
Also:
"That's unfortunate for you but you can't always get what you want in a social hobby like this."
So, you are happy, and i'm not, and you are fine with that.
That is a very good message, y'know.
It really shows how you are as a person.

In other words, this specific part of the discussion started because you obviously did not understand why people tried to explain D&D's popularity, and as I have tried to explain, your main response has been "It works for me, If it doesn't work for you, then it is your problem, and not mine."
Sure, you did not say it with those words, but that is the end result.
I did what I could to explain, it is not my problem now if you keep ignoring how it may be for non-D&D-players out there.

Quote from: Catelf;868885The question is why no other game comes near, despite being just as good, and just as enjoyed as it.

This is the sort of thing that gives the passive voice a bad name.  Just "as enjoyed"?  Just "as enjoyed" by how many people relative to the number that just enjoyment D&D?  Obviously, far fewer.

Quote from: Catelf;868885That is something I can return to you without problem.

I am talking about observed reality, not my feels.  

Quote from: Catelf;868885Nice try.
It doesn't work that way.
If things weren't close enough to how you wanted or liked them to be, it is very possible we would not have this argument now.

It actually does.  Things are what they are.  Reality is not optional despite what you might think.  We are having this argument because you are asserting absurdly implausible things with no basis at all to avoid the simple reality that is right there for everyone to see.  

Quote from: Catelf;868885My "problem" is that too many thinks that D&D is the Only rpg that is playable, or even exist.

No one actually thinks that.  No one anywhere.  No one.  We have this thing called Google now.  Other RPGs have been out there for decades.  They aren't hard to find.  They are easier to find now than ever.      
 

Quote from: Catelf;868885So, you are happy, and i'm not, and you are fine with that.
That is a very good message, y'know.
It really shows how you are as a person.

One who is not delusional or trying to deny reality?

Quote from: Catelf;868885In other words, this specific part of the discussion started because you obviously did not understand why people tried to explain D&D's popularity, and as I have tried to explain, your main response has been "It works for me, If it doesn't work for you, then it is your problem, and not mine."
Sure, you did not say it with those words, but that is the end result.
I did what I could to explain, it is not my problem now if you keep ignoring how it may be for non-D&D-players out there.

As I have said several times already, I understand you fine.  I just think you are full of shit.  I'm not ignoring you.  I'm disagreeing with you.  What you say is baseless and nonsensical.  I disagree with you because I understand what you are contending and consider it bullshit.  

My response has been that lots of people like it even if you don't.  This is self-evident fact.

Quote from: yosemitemike;868888This is the sort of thing that gives the passive voice a bad name.  Just "as enjoyed"?  Just "as enjoyed" by how many people relative to the number that just enjoyment D&D?  Obviously, far fewer.

I am talking about observed reality, not my feels.  

It actually does.  Things are what they are.  Reality is not optional despite what you might think.  We are having this argument because you are asserting absurdly implausible things with no basis at all to avoid the simple reality that is right there for everyone to see.  

No one actually thinks that.  No one anywhere.  No one.  We have this thing called Google now.  Other RPGs have been out there for decades.  They aren't hard to find.  They are easier to find now than ever.      
 
One who is not delusional or trying to deny reality?

As I have said several times already, I understand you fine.  I just think you are full of shit.  I'm not ignoring you.  I'm disagreeing with you.  What you say is baseless and nonsensical.  I disagree with you because I understand what you are contending and consider it bullshit.  

My response has been that lots of people like it even if you don't.  This is self-evident fact.

Let's see ....
1:
So, again, you claim that D&D is enjoyed by far more for no other reason than that it is enjoyed far more, claiming that it is the essential hub because .... it is.
Why, Is D&D better than any other game?
Nah, you can't claim that.
Sooo... is it because it is more well known?
Circular reasoning.

2:
Observed reality.
Yeah, right, while my observed reality is how I feel.
Great.
Any more wisdom?

3:
Taking it out of context is what you are doing here:
You invalidated your own viewpoints at the same time that you invalidated mine in #2 above.

4:
Again, perceived reality, you do not go looking for game x if you don't know or don't care that it exists.

5:
Yeah, keep on thinking that, if it gives you peace of mind.

6:
Of course you aren't ignoring me. Did I say that?
You are ignoring my points though, although you claim to simply disagree.
Essentially, you are saying that you disagree that my experience is just as valid as yours, and by now you claim that your reason for doing so, is that i'm talking shit.

7:
Do I have to repeat myself once again?
It doesn't matter.
You'll ignore what I have been saying all along anyway, even though i'm actually in agreement with you on that small part, but somehow, you don't think I am.

I am done with you.

Quote from: Catelf;868896Let's see ....
 claiming that it is the essential hub

The word you are looking for here is observing.  I am not claiming.  I am observing.

Quote from: Catelf;868896Yeah, right, while my observed reality is how I feel.
Great.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with reality.  It's all your feels.

Quote from: Catelf;868896You invalidated your own viewpoints at the same time that you invalidated mine in #2 above.

Case in point.

Quote from: Catelf;868896Again, perceived reality, you do not go looking for game x if you don't know or don't care that it exists.

This information is not secret.  This is not some deep, dark thing.  People know and pretending they don't is silly.  I knew about Tekumel and Glorantha and Star Frontiers and Boot Hill and so on as a teenager living in a farm town in the Central Valley in the 80s with no internet.  Assuming that people don't know is just narcissistic delusion.  People know.  They may not care but if they don't care, why is that the case?  They already have something that they enjoy and that does what they want.  They are fine with what they already have even if you would rather they think differently.

Quote from: Catelf;868896Yeah, keep on thinking that, if it gives you peace of mind.

I will.

Quote from: Catelf;868896You are ignoring my points though, although you claim to simply disagree.
Essentially, you are saying that you disagree that my experience is just as valid as yours, and by now you claim that your reason for doing so, is that i'm talking shit.

Once, again, I'm not ignoring your points.  I'm refuting them.  I'm refuting them because they are unsupported bullshit.  You are the one spouting this "lived experience" bullshit.  I am talking about simple, observable fact and basic logic.  Despite what you seem to think, reality is not optional.  

Quote from: Catelf;868896You'll ignore what I have been saying all along anyway, even though i'm actually in agreement with you on that small part, but somehow, you don't think I am.

No, I will refute it.  I have refuted it.  

Quote from: Catelf;868896I am done with you.

Bye

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;868665Citation from actual valid research (and not "some self appointed expert on the Internet") needed.

Or, in other words, what a fucking load of bullshit.

To be fair, this applies to every statement on this thread starting with the OP.

Quote from: TristramEvans;869342To be fair, this applies to every statement on this thread starting with the OP.

Thanks for letting me know I didn't miss anything by ignoring most of it.

In fairness, a self-evident statement does not require citation nor study. That's what makes it self-evident. Some statements, by their nature, do require studies or citations or rigorous proof. Others do not. I actually CAN provide citations to works of epistemology that back what I'm saying. I'm just not convinced that doing so would change anyone's mind.

If the point of the thread is to lay down ideas that are self-evident then making a statement that would require citations is off-topic. Asking to provide citations is besides the point, because even if the person then provided citations and it turns out their statement is true, that still doesn't make it self evident.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869903If the point of the thread is to lay down ideas that are self-evident then making a statement that would require citations is off-topic.

That has not kept people from making them.

Quote from: yosemitemike;869975That has not kept people from making them.

Tristam was characterizing EVERY statement on this thread as needing citations. While it's true not every statement made is self-evident, it's also true that not every statement made requires citations.

At least half of what the OP covers is self-evident. Maybe they're not made in the way I would word them. I would begin with a self-evident statement that people choose to do what they believe will result in more happiness.

If an RPG is observed to be the most popular, it self-evidently follows that it's the one the most people believe with be the most fun. If an RPG is observed to be the most popular over a substantial amount of time, it's not just that the most people believe it to be fun (due to good marketing), they actually do have fun while playing it.

And if that's true, it also self-evidently follows that there is a problem with a theory that classifies an RPG as "incoherent" or somehow bad or unfun when in fact it is observed to be so popular over such a long period of time.

Said theory in fact would be falsified by such an observation. This follows from self-evident deduction from self-evident premises, and so this statement is itself self-evident.

What's not self-evident is that D&D IS such a game. If anything, that's what would require a citation. But IF its popularity is verified true (does anyone dispute it?), it does falsify GNS theory.

Quote from: Lunamancer;870015Tristam was characterizing EVERY statement on this thread as needing citations.

I took that as meaning he thinks it's all a  fucking load of bullshit.

Quote from: Lunamancer;870015Tristam was characterizing EVERY statement on this thread as needing citations. While it's true not every statement made is self-evident, it's also true that not every statement made requires citations.

More I was saying the whole thread was a load of bullshit. Pundit's Landmarks are far from self-evident, but the result of specious, at best, reasoning and half-baked conclusions.

I'm not sure citations would help.