Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3137686" data-attributes="member: 18549">Two questions:1. Do you think your definition of fiat, as expressed in the context of the above quote, is the only definition present among the participants of this thread?&nbsp; I've provided other definitions above, some of which are incommensurable with each other.2. Since the original question was essentially &quot;Fiat: Y/N&quot;, doesn't that undermine the value of discussing the degree of fiat that would be acceptable, assuming that some is okay but too much isn't?As far as both of these questions are concerned, if the original post had been &quot;Is injecting morphine okay? Y/N&quot;, my response would have been something like &quot;well, that depends.&nbsp; Do I need it to solve my problems with terrible pain, and is it being administered in the proper dose?&quot;&nbsp; In other words, I would answer &quot;no&quot; to the first question, and &quot;yes&quot; to the second.&nbsp; We haven't yet decided what we mean by fiat, and different people are obviously using different definitions.&nbsp; The degree of fiat acceptable, once we have a fixed definition, is not something that is taken into account by the yes/no question.It's just not something that lends itself to a yes or no answer without further clarification.&nbsp; I might, for the sake of argument, be concerned that perhaps DM fiat may be used to make the game less fun rather than more fun, and is therefore something I can't lend unqualified support.&nbsp; (the original question demands unqualified support or rejection)&nbsp; You're suggesting that this position represents a total disdain for arbitrary rulings, in favour of a completely rule-determined game, equating that with the &quot;no&quot; option, and then delaring the &quot;no&quot; option to be nonsensical.&nbsp; I'd say that's a straw man.&nbsp; Of course, the format of the original question framed the discussion in this way, which is the problem I had with it from the beginning.&nbsp; You can't boil a complicated issue down into a binary choice, nor should you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 3137686, member: 18549"] Two questions: 1. Do you think your definition of fiat, as expressed in the context of the above quote, is the only definition present among the participants of this thread? I've provided other definitions above, some of which are incommensurable with each other. 2. Since the original question was essentially "Fiat: Y/N", doesn't that undermine the value of discussing the degree of fiat that would be acceptable, assuming that some is okay but too much isn't? As far as both of these questions are concerned, if the original post had been "Is injecting morphine okay? Y/N", my response would have been something like "well, that depends. Do I need it to solve my problems with terrible pain, and is it being administered in the proper dose?" In other words, I would answer "no" to the first question, and "yes" to the second. We haven't yet decided what we mean by fiat, and different people are obviously using different definitions. The degree of fiat acceptable, once we have a fixed definition, is not something that is taken into account by the yes/no question. It's just not something that lends itself to a yes or no answer without further clarification. I might, for the sake of argument, be concerned that perhaps DM fiat may be used to make the game less fun rather than more fun, and is therefore something I can't lend unqualified support. (the original question demands unqualified support or rejection) You're suggesting that this position represents a total disdain for arbitrary rulings, in favour of a completely rule-determined game, equating that with the "no" option, and then delaring the "no" option to be nonsensical. I'd say that's a straw man. Of course, the format of the original question framed the discussion in this way, which is the problem I had with it from the beginning. You can't boil a complicated issue down into a binary choice, nor should you. [/QUOTE]

Verification