Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3792246" data-attributes="member: 30001">I don't really see the logical difference here.&nbsp; The &quot;final result will be something like it&quot; in the event that all other possible rules won't contradict it.&nbsp; And this is an inference that the &quot;supporter&quot; makes that I don't see as being logically more sound than what the &quot;detractor&quot; says.&nbsp; (Of course it depends on the specifics.)&nbsp; I do see what you're saying, but it hasn't been my experience so far.&nbsp; Based on what I've been reading a large part of objections to 4E are based on pretty specific statements from the designers that one has to assume are fairly complete (by both supports and detractors).&nbsp; Then again, if the premise of what I'm saying isn't true and that &quot;detractors&quot; in this case are being overly speculative then I don't object to the argument being made.&nbsp; However - I will point out that the statement of &quot;you don't know anything about 4E&quot; is overly non-specific and it would be more informative to say &quot;you don't know if ninja-turtles will be part of the game, and here's why that 'design notes' article didn't tell the full story...&quot;.&nbsp; Were it the case that the rebuttals are based on the objection you described, I would expect the rebuttal to be framed in such a way.I'm not familiar with this specific issue but AFAICT what you're saying here seems mostly logical.&nbsp; However, isn't it somewhat reasonable to conclude that most people playing 4E will feel compelled to use the rules?&nbsp; And wouldn't it be easier to challenge the person on why they think the Ice Wizard would have to be part of the Emerald Frost?&nbsp; IME a somewhat startling characteristic of 3E was how tightly coupled the various subsystems were to each other - if I didn't like something about 3E it was often very hard to remove it.&nbsp; If you could make the case that removing the Emerald Frost would be easy, or at least challenge me to explain why it might not be, that might be more specific and useful than making a more blanket statement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3792246, member: 30001"] I don't really see the logical difference here. The "final result will be something like it" in the event that all other possible rules won't contradict it. And this is an inference that the "supporter" makes that I don't see as being logically more sound than what the "detractor" says. (Of course it depends on the specifics.) I do see what you're saying, but it hasn't been my experience so far. Based on what I've been reading a large part of objections to 4E are based on pretty specific statements from the designers that one has to assume are fairly complete (by both supports and detractors). Then again, if the premise of what I'm saying isn't true and that "detractors" in this case are being overly speculative then I don't object to the argument being made. However - I will point out that the statement of "you don't know anything about 4E" is overly non-specific and it would be more informative to say "you don't know if ninja-turtles will be part of the game, and here's why that 'design notes' article didn't tell the full story...". Were it the case that the rebuttals are based on the objection you described, I would expect the rebuttal to be framed in such a way. I'm not familiar with this specific issue but AFAICT what you're saying here seems mostly logical. However, isn't it somewhat reasonable to conclude that most people playing 4E will feel compelled to use the rules? And wouldn't it be easier to challenge the person on why they think the Ice Wizard would have to be part of the Emerald Frost? IME a somewhat startling characteristic of 3E was how tightly coupled the various subsystems were to each other - if I didn't like something about 3E it was often very hard to remove it. If you could make the case that removing the Emerald Frost would be easy, or at least challenge me to explain why it might not be, that might be more specific and useful than making a more blanket statement. [/QUOTE]

Verification