Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6683964" data-attributes="member: 6787503">No. My problem, if you wish to define it as such, is that I try to educate those who are unreceptive to broadening their understanding. It's funny that you mention integration, however, because if I were to attempt to identify your problem, it's that you interpret specific rules, in this case Assassinate, in isolation from the rest of the rules. I think you're wrong in assuming the rules are not cohesive, that they are not meant to work together. How can that be the intent? Obviously, the work was carried out by a team that compared and refined their texts to be in agreement with one another, not by isolated translators fearful of being exposed to the worlds funniest joke. If there are any significant failures of cohesion I think they can be attributed to human error, rather than that being the intent, but honestly I haven't noticed any worth mentioning. It certainly doesn't constitute a problem for me as I find that the rules all work together just fine. This is different from the meaning being contained within the four corners. Of course you have to bring an understanding of natural language to the text to discern its meaning. Of course you have to have some understanding of real situations to adjudicate the outcomes of imaginary ones. You also, in my opinion, need to understand the context of any particular rule if you are going to understand how that rule is supposed to work within the game.Perhaps definition was the wrong word to use. What I meant is that those thing are defining of surprise in the same way voting is defining of adulthood. If I see someone voting I think I would be correct, at least in this country, in assuming they are an adult, just as I would be correct, if those things are happening to a creature, to say the creature is currently surprised.To my mind, there seem to be many who claim they understand the intent of the rules and use that as an excuse for ignoring what the rules actually say. It seems they don't understand how intent works. We can only assume that the designers wrote what they intended to write, unless they issue errata to the contrary. There is no intent to be found anywhere else.</blockquote>

Verification