Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7466201" data-attributes="member: 16814">That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts.&nbsp; It seems that he's still saying what he started with:&nbsp; everything is magical in D&amp;D land; there is no mundane.&nbsp; He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as &quot;it's magic.&quot;&nbsp; This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play.&nbsp; [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is on record as saying that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] stating Emerikol's preferences in play is really an attempt to say the those preferences are better than others in general and must therefore be countered.&nbsp; So, we end up with &quot;everthing is magic because there's a weave or a statement about magic permearing things.&quot;&nbsp; I really have no problem with a looser statement that magic is, by default, common in D&amp;D, or even a argument that mechanics can be explained as magic. It's the &quot;everything is magic&quot; bit that's silly, esoecially when then used as a rhetorical club against other arguments to say that those arguments are invalid &quot;because magic.&quot;&nbsp; But, then, I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7466201, member: 16814"] That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts. It seems that he's still saying what he started with: everything is magical in D&D land; there is no mundane. He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as "it's magic." This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play. [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is on record as saying that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] stating Emerikol's preferences in play is really an attempt to say the those preferences are better than others in general and must therefore be countered. So, we end up with "everthing is magic because there's a weave or a statement about magic permearing things." I really have no problem with a looser statement that magic is, by default, common in D&D, or even a argument that mechanics can be explained as magic. It's the "everything is magic" bit that's silly, esoecially when then used as a rhetorical club against other arguments to say that those arguments are invalid "because magic." But, then, I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme. [/QUOTE]

Verification