Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9220884" data-attributes="member: 42582">In my professional fields - humanities and humanities-adjacent, non-empirical social science - it is taken for granted (i) that the fields will have ongoing disagreements among practitioners, and (ii) that it is acceptable and indeed obligatory to provide reasons for one's views.One upshot of (i) and (ii) is that people spend a lot of time explaining why they think others are wrong in their views.If someone tells me that the 4e rules are unrealistic, and says that one reason for that is that a miss can cause harm, and then - when it is pointed out that the game uses a technical definition of miss to mean a roll that falls short of a stipulated target number and explains that even a miss in this technical sense might still, in the fiction, be a glancing blow - continues to assert that it seems unrealistic to them, I think some version of [USER=7040765]@Red Castle[/USER]'s response is appropriate: if you can't play the game by the rules, play a different game. But that doesn't change what the rules are, and what they say.</blockquote>