Menu
Home
Post new thread
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Community
Post new thread
Create wiki page
Community supporters
All threads
Latest threads
Hot threads
New posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Chat/Discord
Podcast
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Post new thread
Create wiki page
Community supporters
All threads
Latest threads
Hot threads
New posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE FOR 14 DAYS ONLY! --
Archetype Anthology: A Dozen Archetypes for D&D 5th Edition
on Kickstarter! From dual-wielding tempests to planar explorers -- a softcover collection of new archetypes for your 5th Edition game!
log in
or
register
to remove this ad
Home
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Nerfing Wizards the Old Fashioned Way: Magic User in 1e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8083223" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>That's great! I always give rebates pro rata based on how far you read, so it's a good thing you bailed early!</p><p></p><p>But as an aside- this is something that I really dislike about a lot of internet conversations. Even if you had <u>only</u> read this post, you'd know that I had a some familiarity with OD&D and AD&D. And you happen to know, in addition to that, that I also have had 5,803 posts (number is approximate) about OD&D and pre-1983 AD&D recently, some of which have cited the Monster Manual. So ... it would seem unlikely that I haven't looked at the Monster Manual in a while. </p><p></p><p>Which leads to the question ... why even frame a comment like this? Do you think someone is likely to respond in a productive manner? Is it more, or less, likely that I would read this and say, "Hey, this guy is making his comment in a totally reasonable way. I think he seems exactly like the type of person I should engage in conversation with!"</p><p></p><p>At best, insulting people is likely to lead to them ignoring you; at worst, they are likely to insult you back. </p><p></p><p>Now, in general, there are three types of errors. </p><p>1. A factual error that requires correction. </p><p>2. An error in explaining things correctly.</p><p>3. An error in understanding things correctly.</p><p></p><p>The first type of error is usually quickly rectified- "You said that thieves were one of the initial classes in <em>Men & Magic</em>. Didn't you mean that they were one of the first classes added in the <em>Greyhawk</em> supplement with the Paladin after the initial three of Fighting Man, Cleric, and Magic User?"</p><p></p><p>The other two are more simple- usually, because we are writing, there is imprecision in what we write. Or, because people like to argue, they immediately leap to dispute what is being said without understanding what, exactly, was asserted. Often times, a mixture of the two.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, please feel free to continue not reading what I post. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8083223, member: 7023840"] That's great! I always give rebates pro rata based on how far you read, so it's a good thing you bailed early! But as an aside- this is something that I really dislike about a lot of internet conversations. Even if you had [U]only[/U] read this post, you'd know that I had a some familiarity with OD&D and AD&D. And you happen to know, in addition to that, that I also have had 5,803 posts (number is approximate) about OD&D and pre-1983 AD&D recently, some of which have cited the Monster Manual. So ... it would seem unlikely that I haven't looked at the Monster Manual in a while. Which leads to the question ... why even frame a comment like this? Do you think someone is likely to respond in a productive manner? Is it more, or less, likely that I would read this and say, "Hey, this guy is making his comment in a totally reasonable way. I think he seems exactly like the type of person I should engage in conversation with!" At best, insulting people is likely to lead to them ignoring you; at worst, they are likely to insult you back. Now, in general, there are three types of errors. 1. A factual error that requires correction. 2. An error in explaining things correctly. 3. An error in understanding things correctly. The first type of error is usually quickly rectified- "You said that thieves were one of the initial classes in [I]Men & Magic[/I]. Didn't you mean that they were one of the first classes added in the [I]Greyhawk[/I] supplement with the Paladin after the initial three of Fighting Man, Cleric, and Magic User?" The other two are more simple- usually, because we are writing, there is imprecision in what we write. Or, because people like to argue, they immediately leap to dispute what is being said without understanding what, exactly, was asserted. Often times, a mixture of the two. Anyway, please feel free to continue not reading what I post. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Nerfing Wizards the Old Fashioned Way: Magic User in 1e
Top