Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 2928929" data-attributes="member: 177">Um, no.  I am dreadfully sorry.  It seems the language center of my brain went out for a night on the town without me.  There was no leap of reasoning there.  I was simply using the wrong damn word.  My sincerest apologies for what must now seem like a thoroughly irrational position.  That there is no other way does not imply that the one available way is useful <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=":)" />  If the only quantifiable way says nothing about what's actually important, then that quantification really doesn't measure what we need measured.Again, my apologies. Clearly, this has not been my best day in terms of language use.I was using "naive" in the way it is often used in mathematics and science - it is not meant as a slur.  It simply admits that the thing is a first pass and perhaps too simplistic.  This was to leave room for other schemes (for example, one that gave a weighting for how integral the rule was for operation of the system - game theory allows for such).  Also, please note that I was the one who wrote down that one would have to determine what counted as a rule, and enumerate each, and do a literal counting.  As far as I was concerned, since it appeared in my post, that definition of the measure was mine.  I was saying my construction was naive.  Not that you were naive.  So joe, please accept my apologies.  I wrote poorly, and what got across wasn't at all what I meant to say.</blockquote>

Verification