Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4047517" data-attributes="member: 32164">Perhaps I was unclear. I wasn't saying that people never "believed" the articles in question, although that's also fairly common.I was saying that people often focus on one part of the article that bugs them and then complain that we're not getting any real information. We're getting plenty of information - it's just not always to everyone's tastes. Or they have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.The article on magic items is a good example. People believed what it said, but many people read huge amounts into the two or three tidbits they disliked and basically ignored the rest of the article. There were even accusations that it was "self-contradictory."As another example, people read the Design & Developmnent article on "Death and Dying" and, based on the stats for one monster (the Pit Fiend), decide to totally disregard the statement in the article that it was possible for a 15th-level monster to deal 60 points of damage on a single hit.People's ability to ignore what they read, or to choose their own interpretation even when it directly contradicts what's actually been said, is amazing. Combine that with the tendency to make "worst case scenario" extrapolations, and I'm not at all surprised WotC hasn't given us more details.</blockquote>