"Of course it matters. For people who have multiple groups for which they DM. It's 100% reasonable to not want to track a whole set of houserules for every group/game. "
As a response to how much the broad applicabily of a ruke matters "when it comes to my table" this is a baffling response.
Since my response wasn't "when it comes to my table", this is a strawman. I don't mean exact wording, either. That isn't even vaguely in the spirit of my statement.
Yeah, but they are also the creators of the rules you all think are bad and need editing.
Best of luck hoping that Mike and Co. guess at your solutions just so you can say "the rules I use were written by professional game designers!"
Since neither I, nor anyone else, said anything to the effect that the rules are bad, nor any of the other nonsense presented here, this is a strawman.
By every time, I've seen it happen no times. Just because people aren't allowing you to pigeonhole them into a small box, doesn't mean that they are altering your argument and then responding to said alteration, which is what is required for a Strawman.
You are talking about broadly applicable rules changes, but the vast majority of games are single group/table games. That means that broadly applicable rules changes are only really appropriate if they affect a majority of these individual tables, which brings us right back to what people have been telling you in RESPONSE(not Strawman). Individual DMs are much better able to create a rule for their table than WotC is able to create a broadly applicable rule. Talking about individual tables is on topic and related to your posts, without being a Strawman.
And here, you have put up the straw man of a position that individual tables are what I've been refering to as straw man arguements, and then knocked that straw man down, pretending you've refuting my claim that straw men are being deployed in this thread. It's straw man inception!
I never claimed that the arguments based on individual tables are straw man arguments, max. I claimed that the posts I quoted here set up straw men to knock down.
By the way, directly altering an argument isn't a requirement of the straw man argument. Intentionally misunderstanding the point of an argument and arguing against that percieved point also qualifies, as does inventing an argument or position from whole cloth to pretend the other person is supporting, and then refuting that.
Any time you "refute" an argument or position not made or held by the person you're responding to, you are deploying a straw man for yourself to knock down.