Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7841390" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, no, that's not what abstraction means.  You cannot logically argue from the specific to the general, only from the general to the specific.  To take your example, the abstract category of "all balls" allows for soccer balls to exist in the category.  The abstract category of "soccer balls" does not allow for tennis balls to exist in the category.  So, when I pointed out that you've created a narrower set of abstraction for hitpoints, specifically that hitpoints are abstract representations of meat, this is not the same set of things that hitpoints generally represents -- you cannot logically equate the two, they are different things.And, now you're misusing abstract.  Hitpoints are definitely purely abstract in that the do not represent anything specific, they lack factual meaning.  There are traits of abstractions, though, and D&D in general uses a wider set of traits for the abstraction of hitpoints that you use in your argument.  The point I'm making here that that you claiming that "all meat" is an equal abstraction to the definition you quoted above is logically flawed -- they are different things.Sure, and, if such misrepresentations bother you I'd suggest discussing it with the people that made those claims.  I did not, so this is utterly irrelevant in response to me.  You conflate arguments between posters.  You should work to improve this as it makes discussion difficult when you just revert to attacking a different argument that's easily defeated (as the above) and use that to imply you've defeated the argument quoted.If the difference wasn't ridiculous to you, you'd not have bothered discussing it.  There are many such differences in D&D that are often elided over because the disruption they cause to our imaginings of the fiction are not large enough.  When it gets large enough, it seems ridiculous to us.  You've engaged in a semantic argument here over the word ridiculous while ignoring the thrust of the argument -- that your appreciation of the difference in hitpoints is due to what assumptions you've brought in, not a fundamental requirement of the RAW.If you want my opinion about your choice of interpretation, I think it's far too limiting on the kinds of stories that can be told.  If my characters must have supernatural ability to absorb damage with meat, then I can only have games that feature themes compatible with that, so no swashbuckling, or highly skilled martial artists, etc.  I only have bricks that soak massive damage as a trope.  It's too limiting.If you use hitpoints as a broader abstraction, then you can use a broader set of tropes.  This is the fundamental reason I disagree with your argument -- such a limit on usable tropes is entirely absent from the materials out for the game.</blockquote>

Verification