NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8940453" data-attributes="member: 71699">I felt they were very clear. The paradigm is the poster's personal taste within play of D&D. Once we accept that within their paradigm their approach may have no tradeofs, the question here seems to be asking them to speculate what the tradeoffs might be in some other or modified paradigm? I do not see why [USER=48965]@Imaro[/USER] should be responsible for taking on that work for the benefit of anyone who wants it done. They might, of course, but to say they were not clear about their lense - to me - is to ignore what they did say.Of course, [USER=48965]@Imaro[/USER] is best placed to say what their intent was with those statements.To be clear here, I am not moralising. I'm not offering any judgement and I don't ascribe any position to you. Although it strikes me to ask what your purpose is in pursuing the question to [USER=48965]@Imaro[/USER]? (EDIT Only for the sake of understanding more about that. Not to in some way stitch you up! I am genuinely trying to understand what justifies an intuition that there should be tradeoffs.)Primarily I am attempting explanation. In debates I see some folk insist that it must be possible to evaluate X to come at some cost, while some other folk insist that X comes at no cost to them. Within the context of talking about RPG, I want to figure out what justifies those contrasting positions. I've mooted (and will not doubt go on mooting) that it is to do with evaluation of RPG features being something that only makes sense within paradigms.</blockquote>

Verification