The Arguments for Character Respec

[Tanka]

You misunderstood, the Oxymoron you keep using isn't that it's

"In your opinion. Which is wrong"

I can't help it that I'm right.

[FluffyCalico]

I can't help it that I'm right.

Sadly I still think you don't get it.

[Angelus_dead]

Either way, there's an extra 'm' in there that was throwing me off in my drunken state. ('Tanka', you ask, 'why are you posting drunk?' 'Well, because I can,' I respond.)

Drunken players are another good reason to allow respecs.

I can't help it that I'm right.

Maybe if you work harder at being drunk.

[bobbryan2]

You misunderstood, the Oxymoron you keep using isn't that it's

"In your opinion. Which is wrong"

Please don't start that whole "opinions can't be wrong" nonsense.

[Tanka]

Drunken players are another good reason to allow respecs.

Cheers.

[Borror0]

Let me know if I am wrong but it seems the best arguments anti-respec people haveso far is this discussion.

#1 -You are lying!

While your arguments make sense, you are lying and thus should not be listened to.

Irrelevant. Whether ones intentions are good or evil, in the end all that matters is if the arguments he put forward make sense. Simply because you think one is not honestly making his argument does not make them false. While that person may personally want respec for reasons not stated in the OP, it does not mean his idea is a bad one.

#2 - Against PnP

While the PHB2 makes mention of respec, I will keep on arguing that a respec is against PnP as if it was a compelling argument

As pointed multiple times throughout this thread, D&D books make several mentions to character respecs. The logic used behind is that it would be poor DMing to not allow the player to adapt to a rule you changed or misunderstood. Gameplay may trump RP in that situation.

You may disagree, personally, but it's there as a possibility.

Furthermore, this argument is a weak one in its core. Even if it was true that this would represent a huge change that would get us further away from PnP, this does not prove this idea to be bad. Assuming that this deviation will cost Turbine a few players, it would be a huge stretch to argue that this would cost them more players than it could allow them to save/gain and arguing that is should not be done simply because it is not perfect is a nirvana fallacy.

All that matters is: would this lead to greater profits or not?

#3 - Flavor of the Month

I will keep on mentioning that this will ridiculously reduce diversity as if it was convincing enough on its own..

I direct you to post #2 where I refuted this argument. Refute these counterarguments, then make that argument once again.

[Borror0]

Please don't start that whole "opinions can't be wrong" nonsense.

And if you are going to regardless, then do it in another thread.

[Quanefel]

Let me know if I am wrong but it seems the best arguments anti-respec people haveso far is this discussion.

#1 -You are lying!

Irrelevant. Whether ones intentions are good or evil, in the end all that matters is if the arguments he put forward make sense. Simply because you think one is not honestly making his argument does not make them false. While that person may personally want respec for reasons not stated in the OP, it does not mean his idea is a bad one.

#2 - Against PnP

As pointed multiple times throughout this thread, D&D books make several mentions to character respecs. The logic used behind is that it would be poor DMing to not allow the player to adapt to a rule you changed or misunderstood. Gameplay may trump RP in that situation.

You may disagree, personally, but it's there as a possibility.

Furthermore, this argument is a weak one in its core. Even if it was true that this would represent a huge change that would get us further away from PnP, this does not prove this idea to be bad. Assuming that this deviation will cost Turbine a few players, it would be a huge stretch to argue that this would cost them more players than it could allow them to save/gain and arguing that is should not be done simply because it is not perfect is a nirvana fallacy.

All that matters is: would this lead to greater profits or not?

#3 - Flavor of the Month

I direct you to post #2 where I refuted this argument. Refute these counterarguments, then make that argument once again.

What is the word to describe making up the arguements for the opposing side to later attack that made up arguement yourself? Hmmmmm....

[Borror0]

What is the word to describe making up the arguements for the opposing side to later attack that made up arguement yourself? Hmmmmm....

If I'm getting you right, you're talk about straw man but for that you'd have to mention I am misrepresenting the arguments.

[FluffyCalico]

What is the word to describe making up the arguements for the opposing side to later attack that made up arguement yourself? Hmmmmm....

Defense attorney trying to keep a guilty person out fo jail?

[Ughh]

Right for the game? Wrong for the game? Not my place to say, personally, I WILL ( and have) reroll if i don't like a toon. I will not respec if offered (and i have some gimps LOL). Just me..not meant to dig on anyone's opinion. HOWEVER, I have been playing PnP DnD since the 70s, paperback at that LOL..I have played in numerous tournaments and have seen some crazy builds. I have NEVER seen a DM in a tourney OR out of one allow a full respec. I have, however, seen a DM in both tourney play and out of, allow reappropriation of certain feats etc to allow the player to have a more enjoyable game experience. But, these changes have NEVER been game or toon changing, simply fixes for the "noob that didn't know" or the build that just can't function as built without a few "fixes". I just plain love playing this game and to me, the most important fixes ATM are Lag, server downtime and time between mods. Let's get these issues fixed first. It really doesn't matter if you can "fix" your toon if the lag at ole Harry kills you anyway..or the server goes down just as you were looting the Crippling Chain Shirt. Just my 2 cp

thanks
Ughh

[Quanefel]

If I'm getting you right, you're talk about straw man but for that you'd have to mention I am misrepresenting the arguments.

What I wrote is called a question, not an assertion. So no, I do not need to mention what you are misrepresenting in an asking a question.

[FluffyCalico]

If I'm getting you right, you're talk about straw man but for that you'd have to mention I am misrepresenting the arguments.

Prepicking the arguments is like a defence attorney standing up in court and saying let the prosecutor prove my client did it without mentioning the witness or the finger prints. He can only talk about points 1-5 not any others. I believe that is what he was getting at. You can't prepick only the topics you know you can defend and then go see I was right.

[Borror0]

What I wrote is called a question, not an assertion. So no, I do not need to mention what you are misrepresenting in an asking a question.

I answered your question:

"If I am getting you right, you're talking about straw man [...]"

And then, I added a condition for my post above to actually contain straw men:

"[...] but for that you'd have to mention I am misrepresenting the arguments."

In other words, it means that I think you're trying to accuse my post to contain straw man (that is, made-up argument that do no represent the real arguments being made and are easier to refute than the real ones) but for that accusation to be true you'll have to point out why they are straw men.

[Mhykke]

Prepicking the arguments is like a defence attorney standing up in court and saying let the prosecutor prove my client did it without mentioning the witness or the finger prints. He can only talk about points 1-5 not any others. I believe that is what he was getting at.

Well, technically, Borr posted a summary of arguments made in the thread, as he saw them, asked to be corrected if he was misrepresenting, and refuted the arguments in the summary:

Let me know if I am wrong but it seems the best arguments anti-respec people haveso far is this discussion.

So if we want to use the courtroom example, it'd be like the defense attorney saying something like "the prosection's argument is a, b, and c (after the prosecution presented a case)"...then arguing against a, then b, then c...
If the prosecutor thinks the summation of his argument is incorrect, then he can argue why it is incorrect.

[Ughh]

Oregon inmate loses sex-change lawsuit.......

An Oregon prison inmate (TOON WANTING RESPEC known here to fore as toon) has lost a lawsuit to force the state (SEE TURBINE known heretofore as ...well turbine) to pay for a sex-change operation (RESPEC) and transfer him to a women's prison. U U.S. Magistrate...

By The Associated Press

PORTLAND — An Oregon prison inmate (toon) has lost a lawsuit to force the state (turbine) to pay for a sex-change operation (RESPEC) and transfer him to a women's prison.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart ruled that inmate Anny May Stevens (toon) could not pursue his federal lawsuit (request for respec) because he had previously lost the same suit (been discussed in past and decided it was too much work) in state court.

Stewart also ruled that it was reasonable for the Oregon Department of Corrections (turbine) to assign inmates to a men's or a women's prison (race, class or build) based on their anatomical sex (original build choice)— not their preferred gender identity ( possible respec).

Otherwise, the judge (turbine)said, inmates could request the opposite sex prison (new build) based on personal preference.(REROLL IRL)


THIS IS MEANT TO BE IN FUN

[Quanefel]

Let me know if I am wrong but it seems the best arguments anti-respec people haveso far is this discussion.

#1 -You are lying!

Irrelevant. Whether ones intentions are good or evil, in the end all that matters is if the arguments he put forward make sense. Simply because you think one is not honestly making his argument does not make them false. While that person may personally want respec for reasons not stated in the OP, it does not mean his idea is a bad one.

#2 - Against PnP

As pointed multiple times throughout this thread, D&D books make several mentions to character respecs. The logic used behind is that it would be poor DMing to not allow the player to adapt to a rule you changed or misunderstood. Gameplay may trump RP in that situation.

You may disagree, personally, but it's there as a possibility.

Furthermore, this argument is a weak one in its core. Even if it was true that this would represent a huge change that would get us further away from PnP, this does not prove this idea to be bad. Assuming that this deviation will cost Turbine a few players, it would be a huge stretch to argue that this would cost them more players than it could allow them to save/gain and arguing that is should not be done simply because it is not perfect is a nirvana fallacy.

All that matters is: would this lead to greater profits or not?

#3 - Flavor of the Month

I direct you to post #2 where I refuted this argument. Refute these counterarguments, then make that argument once again.

1. Lies
To you maybe lies are irrelevant to a debate but to others, it is. If a person can not be trusted to tell the truth with true facts instead of lies then their arguements hold no weight. If a person is asked what are his reasons behind his arguement and he lies, how is that person presenting logic or fact? Any lie can make sense but it does not mean it is allowed in an arguement nor will it just be accepted simply because the person liar wishes it so.

2. Against P&P
It is one thing to say if it is in the rules it should be allowed. It is another to say even if it isn't, it still should be allowed. The rules of D&D only seem to matter if helps make the full respec idea come into DDO. I have seen it before in discussing this issue and it does not hold water. To have so little respect for the rules of D&D just so some people can remake their characters is absurd. You can not wrap the rules around the issue but then dismiss them the moment they do not work in your favor.

All that matters if it leads to greater profits? I will let Turbine decide what will lead them to greater profit.

3. Flavor of the Month
Yes, you refuted it with the wave of a hand. As normal. Good for you.

[Quanefel]

I answered your question:

"If I am getting you right, you're talking about straw man [...]"

And then, I added a condition for my post above to actually contain straw men:

"[...] but for that you'd have to mention I am misrepresenting the arguments."

In other words, it means that I think you're trying to accuse my post to contain straw man (that is, made-up argument that do no represent the real arguments being made and are easier to refute than the real ones) but for that accusation to be true you'll have to point out why they are straw men.

I was not aware there was pre-conditons to asking a question. Why you think I asked a question does not make it an accusation simply because you say so. Where are you getting all this from?

[Borror0]

If a person can not be trusted to tell the truth with true facts instead of lies then their arguements hold no weight.

Quanefel, you are clever enough to know that is not true.

For example, if I was to say "The Earth is round because of the crushing empirical evidences supporting that theory" but that my actual argument was "The Earth is round because God told me", if I were to be totally honest, does it make the argument "The Earth is round because of the crushing empirical evidences supporting that theory" hold no weight?

Of course not.

Furthermore, debating my motivations is impossible. You may speculate about it but you cannot know of it. Trying to make my motivations part of the debate is simply an attempt at changing the topic to avoid better arguments, whether it is intentional or not.

My motivations cannot, and will not prove me wrong.

You can not wrap the rules around the issue but then dismiss them the moment they do not work in your favor.

I think you're misunderstanding how we are using the PnP references.

We are not using it to validate our position, ever. The consensus is that 'being against PnP' is not a compelling argument on its own to flat out prove that respecs are a bad idea. However, not only is that argument not strong enough on its own, it is also false because PnP rules support the claims for respec.

We are not using it to validate our claim, though, as that 'being like this in PnP' is not a valid argument.

Why you think I asked a question does not make it an accusation simply because you say so.

It is quite clear that your question was a rhetorical question, which is why I answered it in that manner.

Even if I am mistaken in that assumption, you've got your answer so please tell why are you making a fuss about this?

[FluffyCalico]

Of course not.




I think you're misunderstanding how we are using the PnP references.

We are not using it to validate our position, ever. The consensus is that 'being against PnP' is not a compelling argument on its own to flat out prove that respecs are a bad idea. However, not only is that argument not strong enough on its own, it is also false because PnP rules support the claims for respec to be given to anyone who wants it. .

Negative they do not support a full respec and are in fact against a full respec to any who want it. What they are for is a limited amount of change to your character to address an important issue without drasticly altering your existing character. Stop doing exactly what you accuse others of in the same post about the same topic.

Again just to be clear the PnP rules in no way, shape, or form, support a FULL repec. They support very limited change because it's needed not a full change because it's wanted. Those are in no way the same thing.