Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Noctem" data-source="post: 6751589" data-attributes="member: 6801315">I see so you're taking my posts as being attacks against your person instead of replies to your arguments themselves.&nbsp; That explains why the conversation is going the way it is.&nbsp; Also btw, the what are you smoking comment was a tongue in cheek joke.&nbsp; It's a common teasing remark for someone being confused about what someone is saying or doing in my experience.&nbsp; Maybe that just didn't translate well online.As explained, calling someone defensive as soon as they reply to you does not serve to defuse anything.&nbsp; In fact it has the opposite effect!&nbsp; I explained this to you in my earlier post.&nbsp; You then apologize for me feeling &quot;defensive&quot;.&nbsp; How do you not understand why that would also not help in any situation?&nbsp; lol.&nbsp; Sorry not sorry anyone?The rules for 5e are not increasingly complex rules, they are by design less complex than previous editions of dnd.&nbsp; The problem is that in an effort to make them less complex the designers also made them less clear and more ambiguous.&nbsp; You're also merging 2 different things, rules complexity and rules being unambiguous.&nbsp; You can have both at the same time or even neither, that's the point that me and Imaculata are trying to make.Your RPG accomplishments and anecdotal evidence as to why you're right don't make it so.&nbsp; That's not an argument, that's at best commentary everyone should skip for the discussion to advance.&nbsp; And furthermore telling me that if I think I don't like the design, I should design 5e myself doesn't serve to advance the conversation either.&nbsp; I can already do that in my home game via houserules should I or anyone else want to do so.&nbsp; That's just more lashing out on your part.Anyway I don't see it as being productive to reply to you further, so have a good day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Noctem, post: 6751589, member: 6801315"] I see so you're taking my posts as being attacks against your person instead of replies to your arguments themselves. That explains why the conversation is going the way it is. Also btw, the what are you smoking comment was a tongue in cheek joke. It's a common teasing remark for someone being confused about what someone is saying or doing in my experience. Maybe that just didn't translate well online. As explained, calling someone defensive as soon as they reply to you does not serve to defuse anything. In fact it has the opposite effect! I explained this to you in my earlier post. You then apologize for me feeling "defensive". How do you not understand why that would also not help in any situation? lol. Sorry not sorry anyone? The rules for 5e are not increasingly complex rules, they are by design less complex than previous editions of dnd. The problem is that in an effort to make them less complex the designers also made them less clear and more ambiguous. You're also merging 2 different things, rules complexity and rules being unambiguous. You can have both at the same time or even neither, that's the point that me and Imaculata are trying to make. Your RPG accomplishments and anecdotal evidence as to why you're right don't make it so. That's not an argument, that's at best commentary everyone should skip for the discussion to advance. And furthermore telling me that if I think I don't like the design, I should design 5e myself doesn't serve to advance the conversation either. I can already do that in my home game via houserules should I or anyone else want to do so. That's just more lashing out on your part. Anyway I don't see it as being productive to reply to you further, so have a good day. [/QUOTE]

Verification