Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3438097" data-attributes="member: 18280">(1)  I never asked where it stated Rule 0 in the 3.5 DMG, or several other 3.X books.  That said information was offered to demonstrate that 3.X is the same as 1e in this respect doesn't mean I asked for it, nor that I had to be shown it.This would be similar to my stating that 1 + 1 = 2 in a number of responses to you, and then claiming that you had to be shown that 1 + 1 = 2. (2)  I was under the impression that Rule 0 wasn't in the 3.5 DMG, and I am happy to hear that I am wrong.  Some time back, I was in a discussion involving the rules and I stated that a DM call is within the rules due to Rule 0.  The response I received was "Point to Rule 0 in the 3.5 PHB" or words to that effect.  A subsequent poster pointed out that Rule 0 was in the 3.5 DMG.I'm sure I could locate the thread for you, if necessary.   <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    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> However, I was clear in stating earlier what my impression was, and that I am glad that I had the wrong impression.  I fail to see why either is a problem.Again, if you go back upthread (even to my last post, where I repeated it), you will see that DM-Rocco complained about (effectively) the way Rule 0 is presented.  Hussar responded "How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game?"  I answered.The "QFT" tag so often used in forums such as this is clear example of a way that repetition adds emphasis.  Font size, bold, and italics are also used for emphasis.  If you are arguing that "clarity" exists in terms of wording, then you are certainly correct.  The way something is worded determines how clear its message is.  However, if that wording appears within a given context, such as a small part of a larger work, the wording of that small section alone isn't enough to determine its importance related to the whole.If you are trying to emphasize that a point is important, you might consider repetition, font size, bolding, and italics.  For example, were I writing a murder mystery, I would have to refer to the clues often enough to "play fair" with the reader -- repetition indicates importance.  Indeed, the examples Hussar provided demonstrate that WotC agrees to some degree....Rule 0 is brought up in several instances, and, in at least one case, in bold.Earlier in the thread, my criticism was for the dismissal of the fact that changes have occured in the emphasis of "Rule 0" over editions.  This is not a criticism of any edition -- many have argued that the de-empahsis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing that prevents egotistical DMs from "forcing" them to play in bad games.  I certainly criticise the reasoning that says, "Emphasis of Rule 0 is the same in all editions" on one thread (because they might see de-emphasis of Rule 0 as a criticism of their favorite edition) and also "De-emphasis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing" on other threads (because it suits their agenda there).You simply cannot have it both ways.Is one monster enough?One class?One level?One race?"Enough" is not a weasel word, at least not as I define "weaseling".  I define "weaseling" as making mutually contradictory arguments based upon whatever seems to support you at the time (i.e., "Emphasis of Rule 0 is the same in all editions" but "De-emphasis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing"), or phrases designed to create an ever-shifting burden of proof.Given the question, "Is there enough emphasis on Rule 0 in 3.X?" the obvious question is, as I am sure you know. "What constitutes enough emphasis?"  Clearly "enough" is as subjective in this case as it is when examining whether an edition grants "enough" or "too much" rules emphasis.  In other words, it is clearly subjective.What is not subjective is that the emphasis has changed.  As I said before,There is a change to the way "Rule 0" is communicated in the editions. There is a change to both the degree to which it is stated, and to the degree to which its importance is emphasized. What this means may be open to debate, and what the effects (if any) are is certainly open to debate. That the change is real, however, is not open to reasonable debate.I don't know where I am being unclear here, or why you seem not to understand what I am saying.  In discussing the differences between editions, it is important, as far as possible, to at least be honest about what those differences are.  I am not saying that "1e is better than 3e" because of these changes; I am merely saying (as my initial response was intended to demonstrate, and which I have detailed in my previous post) that a statement to the effect that they are completely the same is wrong.Or, as I asked Hussar earlier, are you saying that there is the same degree of emphasis on what we now call "Rule 0" in 1e and 3.X?  Because, if you are not, I fail to see what you are arguing with me about.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> RC</blockquote>

Verification