Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 7525636" data-attributes="member: 957">Well, your departure is noted.&nbsp; You leave behind a few inconsistencies.&nbsp; You took exception to what I said, now you are partly conceding the point.&nbsp;&nbsp; If that was your position, then why did you challenge me instead of agreeing with me?You also say &quot;what they clearly meant&quot; (conveniently changing the subject first, of course).&nbsp; But that is inconsistent with the fact that page 42 is *completely* clear.&nbsp; There was no lack of editorial control ro single voice there.&nbsp; It flat out said &quot;do it this way&quot;.&nbsp; Now, I am willing to defer to you that the references to &quot;inferred&quot; statements and comments in future books can be used to retcon the original text.&nbsp; (Did they ever flat out say &quot;and you should do this instead of what we said on page 42&quot;?&nbsp; If yes, where and when?&nbsp; If no, why not?)&nbsp; But I don't accept that this clear text was anything less than exactly what they meant on the day the DMG hit the printers.&nbsp; &nbsp; They unambiguously meant that the DC for grabing and swinging from the chandelier was a direct function of the level of the singular character making the attempt.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a dumb rule and you have fixed it.&nbsp; Hurray.&nbsp; But it is simply beyond reasonably to suggest that they so clearly explained it and meant something different.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd also point out that when I first joined this conversation I was told that, for at least one 4E fan, burnt-out shacks DO have really strong doors if the characters are high enough level.&nbsp; I don't claim that is a perfect apples to apples thing.&nbsp; But it is in the same realm of gamist mechanics first approach.&nbsp; So, p42 really doesn't need any outside support to show what it says.&nbsp; But clearly this general approach does have a basis in some people embracing it.&nbsp; (and because you have to repeat this every time or else someone will proclaim the opposite: me stating my dislike of this approach is not a claim of truth or even remotely an implied slam against people who love this approach and the glorious fun they have at their tables.&nbsp; It is to point out that there is a difference.&nbsp; And 4E's failure to account for the difference made it a HUGE hit for a tiny portion of the fanbase.&nbsp; And thus, it is not the 4E that could have been)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 7525636, member: 957"] Well, your departure is noted. You leave behind a few inconsistencies. You took exception to what I said, now you are partly conceding the point. If that was your position, then why did you challenge me instead of agreeing with me? You also say "what they clearly meant" (conveniently changing the subject first, of course). But that is inconsistent with the fact that page 42 is *completely* clear. There was no lack of editorial control ro single voice there. It flat out said "do it this way". Now, I am willing to defer to you that the references to "inferred" statements and comments in future books can be used to retcon the original text. (Did they ever flat out say "and you should do this instead of what we said on page 42"? If yes, where and when? If no, why not?) But I don't accept that this clear text was anything less than exactly what they meant on the day the DMG hit the printers. They unambiguously meant that the DC for grabing and swinging from the chandelier was a direct function of the level of the singular character making the attempt. It is a dumb rule and you have fixed it. Hurray. But it is simply beyond reasonably to suggest that they so clearly explained it and meant something different. I'd also point out that when I first joined this conversation I was told that, for at least one 4E fan, burnt-out shacks DO have really strong doors if the characters are high enough level. I don't claim that is a perfect apples to apples thing. But it is in the same realm of gamist mechanics first approach. So, p42 really doesn't need any outside support to show what it says. But clearly this general approach does have a basis in some people embracing it. (and because you have to repeat this every time or else someone will proclaim the opposite: me stating my dislike of this approach is not a claim of truth or even remotely an implied slam against people who love this approach and the glorious fun they have at their tables. It is to point out that there is a difference. And 4E's failure to account for the difference made it a HUGE hit for a tiny portion of the fanbase. And thus, it is not the 4E that could have been) [/QUOTE]

Verification