The DM imposes penalties on all charisma checks that involve logical fallacies

>The DM imposes penalties on all charisma checks that involve logical fallacies
>Party face gets triggered as fuck
>"You didn't make an argument"

How often to logical fallacies come up in dnd conversations about dragons and dwarves and shit?

You'd be surprised

Party face should just
>pic related
now.

Makes sense. If the most successful liar on the planet told me something and I said "Cite your source" and he told me to just look it up, he would fail that check instantly.

Let me rephrase for you.
>The guard stands before you. "I can't let you in, it's more than my job's worth."
>Player: "Aww c'mon man, can't we just get along?" Roll diplomacy, 35 total, in we go.
>...could I get an argument please?
>WAHWAHWAHWAHWAHWAH
or
>The guard stands before you. "Y-you're standing holding a bloody sword over a freshly-slaughtered corpse! You're under arrest!"
>Player: "A dragon did it." Roll bluff, 35 total, I head to the tavern for a drink.
>...guard is not obligated to believe logical fallacies.
>WAHWAHWAHWAHWAHWAH

>It's a fantasy world so its inhabitants don't have an established idea of logic.

That's not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is when you try to get a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. "A dragon did it" is a logical argument, because dragons are capable of killing people. Logical arguments can still be counter-factual.

but that is a logical fallacy, if they're referring to why his sword's all bloody and he's standing over the body trying to talk himself out of it.

That's not a "logical" fallacy. A dragon could very well have killed that corpse, and he could have gotten his sword bloody by scoring a lucky hit on the dragon. It's not fallacious, it's just wildly improbable.

Fantasy settings can still have an internal logic. The world still has rules.

But logical fallacies work on sheeple just fine. In fact, they work on intelligent people too, if they don't really think about them, why would they be penalized?

Fallacious arguments include...

>All dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs.

>Whenever you witness someone bleeding you see the colour red. Therefore, the colour red causes blood loss.

> The current president of the United States is male. Therefore, all presidents of the United States have been male.

Then there's the obviously wrong arguments, like "two means celery" or "paper is always a secret bee".

> "A dragon committed this murder. The fact that I'm standing over the body hding a bloody sword is irrelevant."

There's no fallacious logic there. Its just highly IMPROBABLE.

But all POTUSes have been male.

A fallacious argument can lead to a correct conclusion. A sound argument can lead to an incorrect conclusion. Logic is hard.

I think what OP is trying to say is "you can't make a bluff check without specifying what you're trying to get the target to believe."

Which makes sense, honestly. A peasant might be unfamiliar with formal logic, but if you try and get out of trouble by claiming "a sapient mushroom took your gold" while they're stuffing coins into their pockets...

I would say to drop massive penalties on bluff checks if the target believes you have no evidence to back up your claim.

Improbable doesn't mean fallacious. Also, the argument is not
>"A dragon committed this murder. The fact that I'm standing over the body holding a bloody sword is irrelevant."

The argument IS
>"A dragon did all of this. Both the corpse, and the bloody sword, because I cut it before it left."

>All Presidents of the United States have been male
>A fallacious statement.

Counting chickens a bit early, eh Hillary-fag? Alternatively, fuck off back to .

The actual argument he supplied IS fallacious, despite being true. Alternatively, go back to Breitbart.

Just because it happens to be true doesn't mean it's not still a logical fallacy, mate.

That's irrelevant. The following is logically invalid, even though the conclusion is true:
>The sky is orange and my hair is an emu. Therefore, Barack Obama is the current PotUS.

>A sound argument can lead to an incorrect conclusion.
No, it cannot. Sound arguments are valid arguments for which all premises are demonstrably true. Since they're valid and true, the conclusion must be true. It's literally impossible to have a sound conclusion with a false conclusion.

You fuck right off, too. "All Presidents of the United States have been male" is objectively true regardless of who will win any future election.

>Implying the most successful arguments aren't usually fallacious and based on emotion
Shit GM detected

But my argument was stupid and wrong.

>Someone wrote the numbers 2.50 on a piece of paper. Therefore the time is 2:50.

Ignoring that there's no reason to believe that 2.50 means time and not currency, or since it's written down it doesn't update to match the CURRENT time.

> The creature had a lot of gold, it must have been a dragon.

Or it could have been a bandit who got lucky, a rich wizard, an ancient lich profiting from compound interest...

>I'm bleeding. Knives cause bleeding, I must have been stabbed with a knife.

Or a screwdriver. Or blunt force trauma could have split the skin. Or you could have been cut with a knife, not stabbed.

Reminder that a bluff check can still succeed even if it's impossible, the guard would simply think you're mistaken.

>Guard: "Well, there's never been a dragon around here in a hundred years, but he seems earnest enough. Perhaps something else killed him and this man just thought it looked like a dragon."

Hmm. Maybe I fucked up my wording somewhere.

You're the "sound argument -> false conclusion" guy, right? You're probably thinking of "all premises are true" which unfortunately I don't think has a specific term.

Linking back to this, though...

OP, it's a stupid idea.

The point of social skills in game is to let a character have traits a player doesn't. Same way that your character can speak Gnome but you don't. Or that your character can survive decapitation, but you can't.

I dislike the idea of players just saying "I roll bluff" to resolve any issue like they're Sir fucking Bearington, but making the players RP a bluff AND THEN roll for it basically guarantees that nobody will bother.

>tl;dr Remove social skills from your game if you're doing this.

It can, here in non-autistic space, due to a single fact: often, in the real world, you are missing pieces of data, so your argument, while being sound, doesn't get the whole picture. Or, most commonly, there are 2 or more possible, equally valid option.

Example: guys comes in at the hospital, analysis give him liver damage, high white cell count and fever.
Based on this, you can make sound arguments for 40-50 different diseases, some forms of cancer, a shitload of parasites and various forms of addiction or poisoning.

So yes, you can have a sound argument leading to an incorrect conclusion

If you're missing some of the factors (which is always the case), I guess so.

It's like the classic physics thing. "Assume this takes place in a frictionless vacuum". That'd be a fucking dumb assumption anywhere in the real world, but it's used on paper a lot.

>example
You don't conclude "this guy has X disease," you conclude "this guy is very likely to have X disease." The first one isn't valid, the second is what's used all the time. The treatment is then made to deal with the most probable cause(s) of the symptoms.
If it's possible that the premises are true (all symptoms were measured properly) and the conclusion (he DEFINITELY has X disease) is false, it's invalid. That's not bad, it's just not perfect. Which is fine here. The conclusion is then modified (it is LIKELY for some high probability that he has disease X), and that forms a sound argument.

Since we are talking in pure hypothetical, what happens when two diseases are equally likely, and thus tied for most likely?
Or given that diagnosis is an inexact science given our lack of information?
An argument is treated as sound when all of its reasons are both true and relevant. Treating all arguments without all the information available becomes reductive quickly, especially when you apply statistics.

If possible to treat both, attempt to do so. Otherwise, pick an arbitrary decision. Yes, things get treated as sound often, but that doesn't make them by definition sound, any more than a tumblr user physically becomes a text post no matter how many times xey reblog one as "literally me."
Regardless, I'm fairly sure the original user meant "all premises can be true and the conclusion false" when taking about soundness.

well if that hypothetically happens, the doctor says 'we're going to have to run a few more tests' to find a better explanation. There must be some test that can differentiate between these two hypothetical diseases, otherwise why bother differentiating them at all?

I generally want the player to at least state what they're attempting to convince the npc to do when they roll social checks. Like "I roll Bluff to convince the Guard that I'm no responsible" or "I intimidate the Guard into looking the other way".

Just rolling dice irritates me cause I have no idea what the PC is attempting to do.

>Who is Plato?

A good way I've found is to feed more information to the higher skilled characters, like the social implant from DX:HR does. It doesn't do it for them, but instead allows the player to make more informed decisions.

If that happens (and talking like a grown adult doesn't work)

>"I roll to bluff! 16!"
>"You successfully convince the guard that you have your premature ejaculation problem under control, but he's still wondering why you're holding a bloody dagger."

>"The guard accepts your confession of love, and cries as he takes out his handcuffs to arrest you."

>"Your feigned surrender worked perfectly, and the guard has handcuffed you. What's next in your plan?"

Just ask your player "How are you attempting to do that to the Guard?" And then let them describe it. Examples for a non face:
>I'm telling him I was nowhere near that area when thing happened! Just ask my 3-5 friends who happen to also be player characters!

>I tell that guard "There's a mad druid leading a rat horde from that direction, I need to get to the local authority figure to mobilize the guard/militia/defense force! Go buy me some time!"

>The DM imposes penalties on all charisma checks that involve logical fallacies
That's wrong though.

Logical fallacies are parts of arguments made in bad faith. If the opposing individual is unable to voice why there's a logical fallacy or is actually swayed by the logical fallacy, it doesn't matter if it's a logical fallacy or not.

"Paladin! You guard this bridge to stop enemies of the state, but look at these poor children! They are dying of an illness only the clerics of Ilmaeter over the river can help! Please, let your heart dwell on this matter and let us pass immediately, before they perish!"

The paladin isn't going to turn around and say "That's an appeal to my emotions, I'm not giving you shit because that's a logical fallacy to do so!"

This is such an autistic thread, holy shit

>paper is always a secret bee
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Trying to haggle a better price:
"Look, merchant. These swords I'm trying to sell you are dwarven made and dwarfs are best weaponsmiths there are. Everybody knows that!"
"Well, that's just argumentum ad populum. My offer of 20gp stays."

I think this is really wrong and the roleplaying part is crucial as it informs what the roll is actually for. You still need the roll itself to determine success and failure.

"I roll bluff to get past the guard" is as meaningless as "I cast a spell to get past the guard." What spell exactly? The action is pointless without the information.

As a GM it means I can work out clear consequences for the success or failure of the roll as well and set the difficulty of the roll.

>Party is trying to enter a town that hates Orcs because if recent wars with them , they gave a half Orc in the party, they choose to tie him up and bluff that he's their captive.

I give this a good bonus as it's a clever idea. If they fail the roll however the guards will become hostile and try to arrest the Orc If they succeed they get through but have to keep the Orc under wraps still and bluff again if scrutinised further about him.

>Party are trying to enter a city suffering from plague. Guards are checking everybody for signs of infection. Party are hiding one member with early signs of infection. Party Cleric bluffs and tells the guards that he has inspected the party personally .

I'd give this a normal check with no bonuses or penalties. The authority of the Cleric balances the fear of the guards here. If he succeeds the party get through , if he fails the guards will become unfriendly and forcefully insist
On inspecting the party which then opens up another set of decisions for how they proceed.

Each of these examples changed how the game progressed going forwards and when you add lots and lots of these little RP moments together you get a fleshed out game that 'feels' alive.

Roleplaying also adds detail, character and flesh to the game which is hugely important to bring it to life otherwise you're just rolling dice at each other which can be fun but I feel misses the point.

We could turn it around on the GM.

"I don't like the way you look, 'heroes'."

"AH! Argument ad hominem! The way you do not enjoy our aesthetic look gives no credibility to the argument of whether we should enter the village or not!"

I think people on this thread are falling for the fallacy fallacy.

>" Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam),hodj fallacy, fallacy fallacy, fallacist's fallacy,and bad reasons fallacy.
Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance."

I would impose bonus on all charisma checks that involve logical fallacies.

They work. It's why they are used. Especially on charisma checks.

But they only work if people aren't familiar with the fallacy in question.

>The villain confronts the party
>Fighter rolls to intimidate, gets a 1
>Villain explains that he has relied on ad hominem, tone policing and violated the NAP, meaning that his arguments cannot be taken seriously

That's pretty great, you are supposed to role play your checks anyway. If you just wanna roll dice and say you convinced someone without mentioning how you aren't roleplaying and you are a shitty player.

it sounds like he's penalizing you because he wants you to ROLEplay and not ROLLplay.

in the first case if you roll a 35 on a bluff "ahh c'mon man" doesn't really match up.

in the second case your bluff is so improbable that it looks like an obvious outright lie (again it doesn't match up with your roll)

i don't see a problem with what the DM is doing because the player is playing like a twat.

>Player: "A dragon did it."
Look, that only works in a specific type of court, where people can agree that dragons are a blight on the planet, not when the police catches you red-handed.

>The current president of the United States is male. Therefore, all presidents of the United States have been male.

You could make the argument that at least one was a homosexual

No, the GM is imposing a penalty for giving spurious arguments. Presumably no malus would be given for a roll with NO argument.

That's stupid, people use logical fallacies all the time irl and win arguments with them all the time, turn on the TV and just watch a political meeting, just go to church, srly, your DM is dumb

>The guard stands before you. "I can't let you in, it's more than my job's worth."
>Instead of instantly jumping to rolling without the DM telling me to, I simply respond as my character would "Look at me, I couldn't hurt a fly. I'm a bard. I was told to head up here and play a song for some lovers, I wasn't given a password"
>Dm consults notes to see how likely given noble has consorts and entertainment often
>Then asks for bluff if the guard doesn't believe it
this is how it should go
I don't see whats wrong with a DM penalizing rolls if you just throw them out. its like if you spam perception rolls and finally nat 20 and all you see is a spider.

>my players never question any rule changes I make
>they never catch on when things change retroactively
>they just want to commit goblinoid genocide for the the 15th game in a row

It actually is a fallacy:
Y = a man was killed
X = a dragon killed a man

X->Y

If I say Y, therefore X then I am bullshitting you.

Stop trying to make Malus happen.

Or if you want to be a dick about it

Knowledge:
Killed(dragon,man) -> Died(man)
Died(man)

What can we then infer? Nothing since it's just a possible cause, you could say a dragon killed a man but if the agent you are trying to convince is purely logical it'll point that it is just one possible cause and will ask for further evidence.

Rather than "logical fallacies" which are something MANY PEOPLE FALL FOR ALL THE TIME (so hi there bluff)...

Instead you should be saying "flat, obvious fucking lies".

>The sky is purple and full of lightning
>Looks up since outside, it's blue, no storms on the horizon
>I roll a 41 diplomacy
>He believes that you actually think this, and considers calling the local hospice to have you committed as an act of friendly mercy

>NAT TWENTY! BOOYAH! I TOTALLY IDENTIFY ALL THE MAGIC ON THIS SACRED COW!
>Guys, I keep telling you, it's JUST a cow
>If that doesn't work? That means... that's a fucking artifact!!!

At the other end of the spectrum, with the Reid technique, the officers turn a mangled hooker's corpse that everyone saw get thrown out of the prince's room into "hard" "evidence" that you, local anyone that found the body or happened to pass by while they were staring at it, plotted this gruesome murder from the very beginning.

...One of the primary concetes of conning is that people don't think logicaly, or even if they do they can be distracted. Fuck, look at polotics. Logical failures are only pointed out long after the fact, and then only if people are looking for them. The issue is D&D social combat is horribly designed... so yeah there isn't a mechanic for parsing out the logic of an argument, along with a counter argument for abscuring the logic.

GOOD.

A,) More people need to know critical thinking.

B.) No more charm tests to get npcs to eat their own head.

Not really. They can be made subtly. Or you can forget about them. Or you can let your emotions dictate your mind for a brief moment.
Maybe later when you'll think about it cold headed you will now that it was stupid, but right here right know, maybe you don't.

I don't expect people to be masterpieces. If their idea of getting a guard to look the other way involves them saying "I tell the guard if he wants to go home tonight, he better go elsewhere", I'll allow that. Even if they stumble over the words or say something silly, the message is more important than how they say it.

Don't even argue with me over this, I'm autistic and I understand this concept, thus you have no excuse.

>"Your feigned surrender worked perfectly, and the guard has handcuffed you. What's next in your plan?"

Crashing this gate with no survivors!