Odd but legal?

[hong]

But none of the relevant rules distinguish melee from ranged.

-Hyp.

But the underlying abstraction does.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But the underlying abstraction does.

Then your underlying abstraction has failed in its attempt to model the reality described by the rules.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Then your underlying abstraction has failed in its attempt to model the reality described by the rules.

-Hyp.

No, then the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, then the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

-Hyp.

Exactly. So, you do not disagree then that the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Exactly. So, you do not disagree then that the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction?

I feel that the reality is determined by the rules, so the rules cannot fail to model it. A disconnect between the reality and the underlying abstraction illustrates a misconception in the abstraction.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I feel that the reality is determined by the rules, so the rules cannot fail to model it. A disconnect between the reality and the underlying abstraction illustrates a misconception in the abstraction.

No, the abstraction determines what reality should be, and the rules are the best attempt to translate that objective into an operational basis. A disconnect between the rules and the abstraction indicates a failure in reality. Whether or not the rules "fail to model" reality is a moot question.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

what came first, the rules, or the idea that the rules represent?

I think this question shows that the rules are built on top of the abstraction. They allow us to fulfill the abstraction in a methodical way. I think changing the abstraction to fit the rules is odd as the diden't come up with the rules before the idea that the rules mimic. So instead it is the rules that must change to fulfill the abstraction, as the abstraction is the core of the idea.

if I make a typo witch i do alot, you are still able to understand my underlining idea. we can fill in the gaps. I feel that the rules and abstraction work in a similar way.

Saying that the reality is formed by the rules presented removes any type of logical reasoning that we have to understand the game. By reading the rules, its flavor text and the title, it quickly becomes apparent what the underlying abstraction is. We also have flavor text to help us fill in the gaps. if we use the rules in much the way a computer reads computer code, its very likely we will not be able to play the game considering how many typos and mistakes are printed in the game.

while i do think its important to carefully read the rules, I think both sides can become too extreme. On one side we have the dm who thinks rogues and cant sneak attack with spells or flasks because of its underlying abstraction and on the other side we have games that make no sense be they can be so far removed at times through poor game mechanics and their inability to represent anything of substance. Other times the game can fall apart using karmatic because of impossibility to use without because of its recursive loop created in its actions.

ultimately both sides have thier faults

 

[James McMurray]

If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal (and if it's possible to get the longsword into the other hand in the middle of a full attack action, whether that involves the Quick Draw feat or not), then I think the same logic means the longsword-switch-longsword is legal.

Not at all. The logic being applied to create that house rule is not "other hilts count for TWF." It's "the TWF rules don't validly fulfill my idea of thrown weapons." The logic of thrown weapons has no bearing on the illogic of sword juggling.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not at all. The logic being applied to create that house rule is not "other hilts count for TWF." It's "the TWF rules don't validly fulfill my idea of thrown weapons." The logic of thrown weapons has no bearing on the illogic of sword juggling.

But if you're required to create a house rule to permit multiple off-hand thrown weapons, then you don't fall into the category of "someone who considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal". You fall into the other category, and you're making a change to the rules to permit it.

That was the distinction I was drawing. If they think the rules as they stand permit the second off-hand throw, then those same rules should permit longsword-switch-longsword. If they think the rules as they stand don't, then those same rules shouldn't.

If they think the rules as they stand don't but they want them to and make a change, then the altered throwing rules no longer have the same relationship with the longsword scenario, so the if-then no longer applies. It sounds like that's the position you're coming from.

-Hyp.