D&D General Dungeons & Dragons Encyclopedia - new product

[Parmandur]

I'm glad you can admit there's a level of exaggerating going on; now we need to build on that by admitting that reference encyclopedias are just one kind of official title, and that art books are another kind of official title.

See above. The important thing is not to grant the premise that "official title," with regard to WotC products, changes meanings depending on where you read it.

Why not? What do you have to lose...?

 

[Alzrius]

Why not? What do you have to lose...?

Because gaslighting is bad, and needs to be called out when it occurs; letting it go unchecked is a loss for us all.

 

[Parmandur]

At least they're still using references to Spelljammer

Yup, Spelljammer and Feywild stuff explicit in what they have shown, and Grehhawk mentioned explicitly in the blurb.

 

[Alzrius]

At least they're still using references to Spelljammer

It'll be interesting to see if Doomspace is listed there; I doubt it, but it'd be notable if it is.

 

[Parmandur]

Because gaslighting is bad, and needs to be called out when it occurs; letting it go unchecked is a loss for us all.

"gaslighting" is a strong word for a statement that is true when applied to reference encyclopedias, similar to the book in question.

 

[Alzrius]

"gaslighting" is a strong word for a statement that is true when applied to reference encyclopedias, similar to the book in question.

No, it's an accurate word when there's no justification for saying that "official title" means "reference encyclopedia" just because it's being used in the ad copy of a reference encyclopedia.

 

[Parmandur]

No, it's an accurate word when there's no justification for saying that "official title" means "reference encyclopedia" just because it's being used in the ad copy of a reference encyclopedia.

A slightly charitable reading makes it a true statement, as demonstrated by your not having come up with a similar such reference text. Can you provide any other example of a similar multi-setting reference text...?

 

[Alzrius]

A slightly charitable reading makes it a true statement, as demonstrated by your not having come up with a similar such reference text. Can you provide any other example of a similar multi-setting reference text...?

You keep insisting that I operate under your willful misinterpretation of the text, saying that it's "clear" and "charitable" despite it being neither of those things. Until and unless you can justify saying that only a reference encyclopedia counts as an official title, you don't have a basis for insisting that I operate under your unjustified reinterpretation of the statement in question.

 

[Parmandur]

You keep insisting that I operate under your willful misinterpretation of the text, saying that it's "clear" and "charitable" despite it being neither of those things. Until and unless you can justify saying that only a reference encyclopedia counts as an official title, you don't have a basis for insisting that I operate under your unjustified reinterpretation of the statement in question.

Rigidly insisting on ignoring the context and calling it "gaslighting" risks missing the point that is elgitimate: there has been no such similar reference text. If there were, and thst is wrong , can you provide it and prove your point ...?

 

[Alzrius]

Rigidly insisting on ignoring the context and calling it "gaslighting" risks missing the point that is elgitimate: there has been no such similar reference text. If there were, and thst is wrong , can you provide it and prove your point ...?

Repeatedly proclaiming that your point is legitimate doesn't make it so. The text says that it's the first time ever there's been an official title that does what this one does. If we grant that an art book is also an official title, which we self-evidently can, then that "first time ever" statement is necessarily untrue.

Q.E.D.