Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6873493">Do you really need an explanation for why this is neither sound logic nor persuasive argument?But you haven't addressed the point that those &quot;few DMs&quot; are also making a house rule, because the description of Fireball does not say this sort of fire doesn't light combustibles.&nbsp; You're the one saying that the language around Int is totally clear by using blanket definitions of &quot;recall&quot;, &quot;reason&quot;, to cover lots of things that aren't actually listed.&nbsp; (Such as the bizarre notion that estimation is the same as reason.)&nbsp; Well the common meaning of &quot;fire&quot; is the red flickery stuff that lights combustibles.&nbsp; So those DMs are house-ruling, by your definition, by insisting that *this* fire doesn't light anything.&nbsp; That's not a whole lot different from me using a non-linear definition of &quot;measures&quot; in the sentence &quot;measures ability to reason&quot;.Huh.&nbsp; I stand corrected.&nbsp; I can't find what I remember reading, in this thread or other ones.However, I still see the sentiment.&nbsp; This idea that everything in the PHB &amp; DMG that tries to illustrate or clarify or add color is a &quot;rule&quot; I find very weird, and quasi-religious.</blockquote>At first I was going to write that of course all rules are mechanical.&nbsp; But on further thought that's not quite accurate.&nbsp; You certainly could have a rule that dictated non-mechanical things, such as &quot;All Devotion Paladins must put angelic wings on their shield or helm.&quot;&nbsp; And that would not be mechanical unless it interacted with mechanics, e.g., the existence of a spell that only affected targets with angelic wings on their helm or shield.But the worthlessness of such &quot;rules&quot;, in the sense that they don't interact with any mechanics, leads me to conclude that those things aren't rules; they are fluff.Clearly your opinion differs.&nbsp; And maybe it's because you don't think they're worthless.&nbsp; If, for example, somebody thought that it was really important to the integrity of the game and the aesthetic of the storytelling to insist that Devotion Paladins put angelic wings on their helms and shields, then I could see such a person saying, &quot;That's a rule!&quot;Likewise, if a hypothetical person thought that playing a Low Int Genius is contrary to the intended aesthetic of the game, then the explanation for Int itself might be perceived as a &quot;Rule&quot;.And you are still stubbornly conflating narration and mechanics.&nbsp; Mechanically she is not lying because mechanically she does not know the answer.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mechanically she doesn't think she knows the answer.&nbsp; Mechanically in the box on the character sheet that says &quot;Answer to Riddle&quot; there is a blank.&nbsp; By insisting that she either knows the answer or even thinks she knows the answer...by writing something in that box...you are changing the mechanics of the first Int check.&nbsp; It doesn't matter what I narrate: she failed her Int check; she doesn't have an answer.And that is the last time I try to explain this trivially simple bit of symbolic logic.&nbsp; (I suspect this bit about &quot;thinks she knows the answer&quot; is an attempt to turn my narration into self-delusion, but now you are changing my RP choices.&nbsp; Thanks for the suggestion&nbsp; but no thanks.)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6873493"] Do you really need an explanation for why this is neither sound logic nor persuasive argument? But you haven't addressed the point that those "few DMs" are also making a house rule, because the description of Fireball does not say this sort of fire doesn't light combustibles. You're the one saying that the language around Int is totally clear by using blanket definitions of "recall", "reason", to cover lots of things that aren't actually listed. (Such as the bizarre notion that estimation is the same as reason.) Well the common meaning of "fire" is the red flickery stuff that lights combustibles. So those DMs are house-ruling, by your definition, by insisting that *this* fire doesn't light anything. That's not a whole lot different from me using a non-linear definition of "measures" in the sentence "measures ability to reason". Huh. I stand corrected. I can't find what I remember reading, in this thread or other ones. However, I still see the sentiment. This idea that everything in the PHB & DMG that tries to illustrate or clarify or add color is a "rule" I find very weird, and quasi-religious.[/quote] At first I was going to write that of course all rules are mechanical. But on further thought that's not quite accurate. You certainly could have a rule that dictated non-mechanical things, such as "All Devotion Paladins must put angelic wings on their shield or helm." And that would not be mechanical unless it interacted with mechanics, e.g., the existence of a spell that only affected targets with angelic wings on their helm or shield. But the worthlessness of such "rules", in the sense that they don't interact with any mechanics, leads me to conclude that those things aren't rules; they are fluff. Clearly your opinion differs. And maybe it's because you don't think they're worthless. If, for example, somebody thought that it was really important to the integrity of the game and the aesthetic of the storytelling to insist that Devotion Paladins put angelic wings on their helms and shields, then I could see such a person saying, "That's a rule!" Likewise, if a hypothetical person thought that playing a Low Int Genius is contrary to the intended aesthetic of the game, then the explanation for Int itself might be perceived as a "Rule". And you are still stubbornly conflating narration and mechanics. Mechanically she is not lying because mechanically she does not know the answer. Mechanically she doesn't think she knows the answer. Mechanically in the box on the character sheet that says "Answer to Riddle" there is a blank. By insisting that she either knows the answer or even thinks she knows the answer...by writing something in that box...you are changing the mechanics of the first Int check. It doesn't matter what I narrate: she failed her Int check; she doesn't have an answer. And that is the last time I try to explain this trivially simple bit of symbolic logic. (I suspect this bit about "thinks she knows the answer" is an attempt to turn my narration into self-delusion, but now you are changing my RP choices. Thanks for the suggestion but no thanks.) [/QUOTE]

Verification