### Analysis of Logical Fallacies in Drgwen's Response
I'll break this down by quoting the relevant sections of Drgwen's reply (which is structured as a point-by-point response to your post), identifying any logical fallacies present in each, and explaining why they qualify as such. Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that weaken an argument's validity, often by misrepresenting the original point, diverting attention, or relying on irrelevant factors. Not every part of Drgwen's response contains a fallacy—some are just opinions or dismissals—but I'll highlight where they occur. I'll also note if a section is fallacy-free but still problematic in context.
For context: Your post expressed a personal preference for original, meaningful characters in RPGs, distinguishing between novice players' "cool guy" copies (which you see as unengaging) and experienced players' thoughtful integrations (which you view as exploratory). Drgwen's reply challenges this by defending casual playstyles and accusing you of overly restrictive views.
#### 1. Drgwen's Response to Your First Quote:
>
Quote:
Less experienced players just want to play "a cool guy form a movie" and I see it as a waste of my time as a GM and as a fellow player.
> I take it you don't like playing licensed IPs then? Like, if you play a Star Wars game and someone shows up with a character that is basically, Han Solo but a girl! You'd veto that? Why? If they want to, and the other players don't mind, and it fits in the world, why not?
- **Straw Man Fallacy**: Drgwen misrepresents your position by extrapolating it to licensed IPs (e.g., Star Wars), where borrowing established characters is often the norm and fits the setting. You were specifically discussing generic copies from media in non-licensed or original campaigns, not vetoing all borrowed elements in fitting contexts. This creates a distorted version of your argument that's easier to attack, implying you're against fun or consensual play when you were expressing a personal preference for originality in certain scenarios.
- **Slippery Slope (Implied)**: The jump from your dislike of "generic Squarejaw Brickbrain" in general RPGs to assuming you'd "veto" a fitting character in a licensed game exaggerates the consequences of your view without evidence, suggesting it leads to overly restrictive GMing.
#### 2. Drgwen's Response to Your Second Quote:
>
Quote:
To me the whole point of a Role-Playing Game is to play through a role that is particularly important and personal to the player. A generic Squarejaw Brickbrain from a currently popular thing isn't that.
> Ah. OK this is weird. I saw another member here recently say something similar, and it is so strange to me. Since when is the point of an RPG to play through "a role that is particularly important and personal to the player"?? Sometimes I just wanna play a barbarian who jumps in and yells, She-Hulk, Smash! And I can even do it in a way that is fun, funny, other players enjoy, and even advances the plot in useful ways! What's wrong with that? It's ok to play a "beer and pretzels" kind of game, or kind of character. Not every character need be a deep emotional exploration of my past trauma, or my gender identity, or my sexual orientation (sapphics girls unite!), or whatever. (and I say this as someone who often plays such characters!!!)
- **Straw Man Fallacy**: This is a clear exaggeration of your statement. You described the "point" of RPGs as playing roles "important and personal" to the player, contrasting it with generic media copies. Drgwen reframes this as requiring "deep emotional exploration of my past trauma" or tying into personal identity issues, which you never mentioned. This makes your preference sound elitist or overly serious, ignoring your actual point about avoiding unoriginal "waste of time" characters.
- **False Dichotomy**: Drgwen presents RPG play as an either/or choice: either deep, therapeutic character exploration or casual "beer and pretzels" fun. This ignores the middle ground you implied—meaningful but not necessarily trauma-based roles—and suggests your view excludes lighthearted play entirely.
- **Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy)**: Mentioning "another member here recently say something similar" and calling it "weird" and "strange" implies your view is outlier or invalid because it's not universally held, rather than addressing its merits directly.
- **Red Herring**: The parenthetical "(sapphics girls unite!)" and self-reference to playing deep characters distract from the core argument, injecting irrelevant personal flair to shift focus.
#### 3. Drgwen's Response to Your Third Quote:
>
Quote:
But more experienced players tend to approach it from a completely different angle. They see a premise of a game and think that it would be nice to add to it. How would it look through the eyes of that particular character? How would this story change if a character like that was in it? Those aren't selfish reasons akin to the aforementioned desire to "feel cool". Those are attempts at exploration.
> Sure, that is ONE way to play, one way to approach. But let's not gatekeep, yes? Sometimes I just wanna join the party and go along for the ride, see the sights, add my own bit of chaos here and there, but otherwise just have some fun. Do I really need to sit down with my therapist beforehand?
- **Ad Hominem (or Ad Hominem-Like Accusation)**: Accusing you of "gatekeep[ing]" attacks your character or motives (implying you're elitist or exclusionary) rather than engaging with the substance of your distinction between novice and experienced approaches. This shifts the debate from preferences in playstyles to labeling you as a bad community member.
- **Straw Man Fallacy (Again)**: The rhetorical question "Do I really need to sit down with my therapist beforehand?" exaggerates your "exploration" idea into mandatory therapy sessions, misrepresenting your point about thoughtful integration as overly introspective or burdensome.
- **False Dichotomy**: Reiterates the binary of "exploratory/deep" vs. "just have fun," ignoring that you acknowledged both but preferred the former in certain contexts.
#### 4. Drgwen's Response to Your Fourth Quote:
>
Quote:
Let's make a deconstruction of Hobbit by adding Frieren to it, why not.
> OK first? That does
not sound like my jam, but you go on with your bad self and have fun.
- **No Clear Fallacy Here**: This is mostly a subjective dismissal ("not my jam") with a condescending tone ("you go on with your bad self"). It doesn't advance an argument but avoids engaging by expressing disinterest. While not a fallacy, it contributes to an overall pattern of evasion rather than direct rebuttal.
#### 5. Drgwen's Response to Your Fifth Quote:
>
Quote:
But it's important to understand that it shifts the game from pure role-playing to more of the literary fiction area...
> I have no idea what you're talking about here.
- **No Clear Fallacy Here**: This admits confusion, which could be genuine. However, it dodges addressing your point about how borrowed characters can alter the game's focus from immersive role-play to meta-literary analysis. In a debate context, feigning ignorance can function like an appeal to ignorance, but it's not strongly fallacious.
#### 6. Drgwen's Closing Statement:
> The big sin of your reply, however, is that it doesn't address the question.
- **Red Herring or Non Sequitur**: This accuses your entire post of irrelevance, but your response directly addressed the OP's questions: you shared feelings about stealing characters (negative for novices, positive for experienced), implied experience as a GM/player, and drew a line between "waste of time" emulation and exploratory inspiration. Drgwen's claim diverts attention from the content of your post to a meta-critique, without explaining why it supposedly misses the mark.
- **Hypocrisy or Tu Quoque (Implied)**: Drgwen's own reply is a critique of yours rather than a direct answer to the OP, making this accusation self-undermining—it's pointing out a "sin" that Drgwen is also committing.
### Overall Observations
- **Dominant Fallacies**: Straw man is the most prevalent, as Drgwen repeatedly caricatures your preferences (e.g., turning "personal roles" into "trauma therapy"). This makes it easier to dismiss your views without engaging them fairly.
- **Pattern of Evasion**: Much of the response uses rhetorical questions, personal anecdotes, and accusations (e.g., gatekeeping) to sidestep direct counterarguments, which aligns with red herring tactics.
- **No Fallacies in Every Line**: Some parts are just opinions, which is fine—debates include preferences. But the fallacies weaken the overall logic, making the reply more confrontational than constructive.
- **Potential Impact**: Showing this analysis might highlight how the response misinterprets you, but it depends on the person's receptiveness. If they're "following you around," it could escalate, so consider forum moderation tools instead.
If you provide more context or additional posts, I can refine this further.
