Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5630278" data-attributes="member: 54877">A few clairifications:  Pemerton expressed those parameters as he understood in them in the essay, when he first produced his examples. No one has yet disputed his characterization of the parameters, as well as I remember. (I didn't go back and reread the entire thread. So I might have missed something.) In any case, I was not accusing TA of obscuring the parameters, but the definition. It is precisely the premise that he wants obscured, and that BotE wants obscured. Really, it is nothing more than the magicians misdirection trick so often applied to argument. Quick, let's get over this tautology of a definition, which we'll express several different ways so that you don't notice when we assume it as true and then start deriving from that assumption. If you grant me that "hit points are a stupid mechanic," I can logically show all kinds of negative things about any version of D&D. That very "argument" has been tried many times, using the same misdirection tactic. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> You'll note, by way of supporting evidence, that Jameson's version of the definition doesn't have this problem. Now, I think that's because Jameson just wants a useful definition to use in the discussion for something he sees, and importantly, doesn't feel any pressing need to preserve some preselected insulting conclusions. But whether you agree with that hunch or not, there is no doubt that Jameson's definition is far more concrete and is provoking less insult among some of us. We still don't agree with it, but we aren't insulted by it. It's an important distinction. As for Innerdude, I'm not speaking for anyone else when I say that I've been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the "No True Roleplayer" slant of some of his remarks, because he is, as near as I can tell, simply responding to the essay from his own perspective. I give you the same courtesy. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to demand that my experiences be respected as my experiences and not extend the same to those who appeared to be otherwise arguing in good faith, even if I don't credit their experiences as being appropriately generalized to mine. That is, I don't expect people to agree with me. I don't even expect people to understand me. I know as well as anyone that my expression can often be dense and tangential. (A very bad combination. Pity my poor wife and kids!) I do expect people that don't understand what I'm saying to engage with it fairly, or if doing so isn't worth it, to leave it alone.  To the degree that I have animosity for TA and some of his adherents, it is because I see them as having worked hard to prevent this kind of discussion.  And they started before 4E was even launched, and have never let up.  If some of us on the receiving end of this barrage have sometimes high-fived when we survived or got off a good shot back--well, being in a fox hole with someone long enough will produce that kind of reaction.  And if the "backslapping" itself is the annoyance, then I encourage you to fully review the kind of comments made early in this topic, and any time it arises. Some people just like what they hear as it applies to them, but some are actively cheering the guy pulling the trigger, for pulling the trigger. "Opinion piece" works for me as a neutral description.</blockquote>

Verification