Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5865924" data-attributes="member: 54877">The problem you are going to run into is that the views of in-fiction fallacies are not consistent across any significant set of such people--and often not even consistent in the individual. They've rationalized some things and refused to rationalize other things--and that's that. You can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into in the first place.&nbsp;It is possible to develop some kind of &quot;fatigue&quot; system that will appeal to large swaths of them. You'll note how quickly they latch onto various hit points split into hp/wounds options. Can you make a version of D&amp;D that sticks to some of the traditional D&amp;D ease of play, more abstract mechanics, that appeals to them, while also accommodating the rest of us. I don't think so. People that demand* that options they don't like not even be present, lest these offend their delicate sensibilities, are not capable of any kind of meaningful compromise on these issues. (They may parrot the tone of compromise as a debating tactic.) You'll have to cut them out somehow from the conversation to discover reason from the remainder.&nbsp; (Nevermind the ones pissed at WotC for not continuing the OGL, and using such discussions as stalking horses.) Good luck with that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp;* Lest someone with logic issues be confused on the distinction being made here, &quot;demand&quot; is not a synomym for &quot;strongly advocate.&quot; For example, I strongly suggest (with certain possible exceptions) that rangers not have spells as core feature, and that rangers having spells is a symptom of wider issues in a system that should be addressed, not swept under the rug with a kludge from early D&amp;D giving Aragorn the &quot;hands of the healer.&quot; But I don't really care about the ranger spells, per se, but the larger issues behind them. I'm not emotionally invested in there being a class labeled &quot;ranger&quot; having some abilities labeled as &quot;spells&quot;--for or against. I'm all for focused, strong, forceful advocation of many things, including preferences. I'm not for incoherent babbling demands of essentially surface material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5865924, member: 54877"] The problem you are going to run into is that the views of in-fiction fallacies are not consistent across any significant set of such people--and often not even consistent in the individual. They've rationalized some things and refused to rationalize other things--and that's that. You can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into in the first place. It [B]is[/B] possible to develop some kind of "fatigue" system that will appeal to large swaths of them. You'll note how quickly they latch onto various hit points split into hp/wounds options. Can you make a version of D&D that sticks to some of the traditional D&D ease of play, more abstract mechanics, that appeals to them, while also accommodating the rest of us. I don't think so. People that [B]demand*[/B] that options they don't like not even be present, lest these offend their delicate sensibilities, are not capable of any kind of meaningful compromise on these issues. (They may parrot the tone of compromise as a debating tactic.) You'll have to cut them out somehow from the conversation to discover reason from the remainder. (Nevermind the ones pissed at WotC for not continuing the OGL, and using such discussions as stalking horses.) Good luck with that. :D * Lest someone with logic issues be confused on the distinction being made here, "demand" is not a synomym for "strongly advocate." For example, I strongly suggest (with certain possible exceptions) that rangers not have spells as core feature, and that rangers having spells is a symptom of wider issues in a system that should be addressed, not swept under the rug with a kludge from early D&D giving Aragorn the "hands of the healer." But I don't really care about the ranger spells, per se, but the larger issues behind them. I'm not emotionally invested in there being a class labeled "ranger" having some abilities labeled as "spells"--for or against. I'm all for focused, strong, forceful advocation of many things, [B]including preferences[/B]. I'm not for incoherent babbling demands of essentially surface material. [/QUOTE]

Verification