Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6269108" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>Let's leave aside for a moment that those 800 posts include people on both sides of this particular issue, which shoots down your theory that only the anti-DoaM crowd are "too strict." Instead, I'll simply offer that if you think that it's "too strict" to want one single word to not be used to indicate something that's exactly the opposite of its standard definition, then I suspect you'll just have to agree to disagree with most everyone else.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You were definitely mistaken: there are a lot of people who don't want it to be entirely consistent - those are the folks who are pro-DoaM. The OP provides a long example of a giant striking a character, and then says that's damage on a miss. That's pretty much the soul of inconsistency (unless the pro-DoaM crowd thinks that there'll always be damage on every single miss ever).</p><p></p><p>Others prefer that a "miss" actually be a miss, but that doesn't seem to be your thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not a question of accuracy, it's a question of tone. EN World is known for (trying to) maintain a friendly conversation among its posters; referring to the people who disagree with you as causing "a huge stink and fuss" is a not particularly respectful way of dismissing the legitimacy of other people's viewpoints. That's when we have the mods step in, something I hope won't become necessary here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're moving the goalposts here by trying to say that your comment was in regards to the entirety of the debate. Your previous post was in regards to (emphasis mine) "folks being a tad too strict in insisting that game mechanics language must hitch directly to narrative language always and without exception, and willing to make a huge stink and fuss over it." In other words, you were talking just about the anti-DoaM crowd. You weren't denigrating the debate, you were denigrating the people in it who happen to disagree with you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You can when you're a part of those results.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 6269108, member: 8461"] Let's leave aside for a moment that those 800 posts include people on both sides of this particular issue, which shoots down your theory that only the anti-DoaM crowd are "too strict." Instead, I'll simply offer that if you think that it's "too strict" to want one single word to not be used to indicate something that's exactly the opposite of its standard definition, then I suspect you'll just have to agree to disagree with most everyone else. You were definitely mistaken: there are a lot of people who don't want it to be entirely consistent - those are the folks who are pro-DoaM. The OP provides a long example of a giant striking a character, and then says that's damage on a miss. That's pretty much the soul of inconsistency (unless the pro-DoaM crowd thinks that there'll always be damage on every single miss ever). Others prefer that a "miss" actually be a miss, but that doesn't seem to be your thing. It's not a question of accuracy, it's a question of tone. EN World is known for (trying to) maintain a friendly conversation among its posters; referring to the people who disagree with you as causing "a huge stink and fuss" is a not particularly respectful way of dismissing the legitimacy of other people's viewpoints. That's when we have the mods step in, something I hope won't become necessary here. You're moving the goalposts here by trying to say that your comment was in regards to the entirety of the debate. Your previous post was in regards to (emphasis mine) "folks being a tad too strict in insisting that game mechanics language must hitch directly to narrative language always and without exception, and willing to make a huge stink and fuss over it." In other words, you were talking just about the anti-DoaM crowd. You weren't denigrating the debate, you were denigrating the people in it who happen to disagree with you. You can when you're a part of those results. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense
Top