D&D 5E On FAQs and Twitter

[Joe Liker]

Guys, let me suggest that 5e is not, in fact, an engineering book. If you have to start debating the *exact* definition of a word in order to interpret the rules, you are probably barking up the wrong methodological tree.

That's actually what I wanted to say in the first place, pages ago, but I keep getting sucked into these side arguments because people on the Internet keep being wrong about stuff!

 

[Astrosicebear]

Guys, let me suggest that 5e is not, in fact, an engineering book. If you have to start debating the *exact* definition of a word in order to interpret the rules, you are probably barking up the wrong methodological tree.

Glad you clarified 5E.

 

[Mistwell]

First, Google is not a dictionary.

It's better than a dictionary, as it takes internationally recognized dictionaries and runs an algorithm to try and give a big picture of consensus of definitions.

Second, the second half of that Google "definition" is a list of synonyms and related words from a thesaurus, which is not remotely the same as a definition.

A synonym is "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase". If you think that is "not remotely the same" then do I need to look up the word "remotely" too? Looks like hyperbole to me.

"Following" means "coming after." Period.

Yes but it's not the word "following" it's a phrase. The phrase is "Following time, following order, following place". And those things DO mean "next". If I tell you "the following preview is rated PG 13" I do not mean a preview you're going to see at some other movie on some other day that simply comes at some random time after that message, I mean "the following preview, as in the preview that follows in time from this message, or follows in order from this message, or follows in place after this message". Which is what subsequent means.

So again, I completely agree that some clarifications would be helpful, and I also agree that Twitter is the last place that should happen. Mearls is batting well below .500 on the accuracy of his remarks there, and I'm confident many of his so-called "rulings" will be reversed in the official errata.

I think Mearls has done an excellent job in accuracy, and your claim that he's "well below .500 on the accuracy" just looks like yet more hyperbole.

 

[Mistwell]

Guys, let me suggest that 5e is not, in fact, an engineering book. If you have to start debating the *exact* definition of a word in order to interpret the rules, you are probably barking up the wrong methodological tree.

I tried the normal conversational "Hey, it's a curse, and you need a target for a curse you don't just walk around concentrating on cursing nobody" and he wanted to talk about the definitions anyway (and now the definition of the word "a"). So what can yah do?

If nobody wants to talk about hours walking around concentrating on hexing nobody...

 

[brehobit]

I tried the normal conversational "Hey, it's a curse, and you need a target for a curse you don't just walk around concentrating on cursing nobody" and he wanted to talk about the definitions anyway (and now the definition of the word "a").

Let's just agree that you read it one way and (I think) the rest of us read it another. Your way is consistent with the Twitter statement. I'd strongly argue ours is more consistent with normal (even proper) English usage, but you may be right and your reading may be what they intended. If so, I hope we get an errata to make things clear.

 

[Mistwell]

OK because so many disagreed with his prior Tweet on the topic, I asked Mike Mearls again and highlighted the "a subsequent turn" language for him and asked him to clarify.

His response(he changed his mind, had mis-read it):

Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls 2h
[MENTION=13310]Yeti[/MENTION]Moose Re-read - looks like it can be any subsequent turn during the duration

 

[Joe Liker]

Which, even though he got it right this time, proves that Twitter clarifications are a terrible idea.

(But it also illustrates how natural language and commonsense interpretations are generally the way to go.)

 

[77IM]

Which, even though he got it right this time, proves that Twitter clarifications are a terrible idea.

How does it prove that at all? With a little back-and-forth, opinions were expressed, nuance was explored, a satisfactory answer was obtained. The system is working as intended.

 

[Joe Liker]

How does it prove that at all? With a little back-and-forth, opinions were expressed, nuance was explored, a satisfactory answer was obtained. The system is working as intended.

Because if people had taken the first tweet as gospel (as they are wont to do), it would have left a bad ruling out in the wild to run rampant.

Even now, if a player or DM failed to follow up on the conversation, they may still be playing under the incorrect ruling, unaware that it has been amended.

It's far safer and more efficient to give a well-researched response the first time, and place it in a central repository that everyone understands to be official.

 

[77IM]

It's far safer and more efficient to give a well-researched response the first time, and place it in a central repository that everyone understands to be official.

I see your point about people assuming that these tweets carry some sort of authority.

But for myself, I'd much rather be able to converse with the developers (even over twitter) than query an "official central repository" that was handed down from on high.