Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tervin" data-source="post: 4429849" data-attributes="member: 66491">Sidetrekking, but can't help myself...If I have understood what that post says correctly, then I totally disagree with you. If we don't agree on definitions of terminology, we aren't even really debating the same thing. If we instead take it for granted that everybody understand what everybody else means with their use of language, then people will misunderstand each other, and think they are disagreeing when they are in fact not.I have seen that happen so many times over the years, on the Internet that I started to think it this the main reason behind messageboard flame wars. The trick with setting up definitions is that there is not a clear cut truth as to what words mean. But if we make sure that others understand what we mean when we use them, we avoid being misunderstood. To be exact, we don't need to agree on the definitions, but we need to make sure that others understand what we mean by the terms we use. (If the latter is what you meant, then I no longer disagree with you there... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)And back on the track...No. In fact more No to that in 4E than in every earlier version of D&D. The by now notorious page 42 in the DMG is my basis for that claim. That page gives the DM a system as support when players think outside of the rules in combat. What is new in 4E is that there is more that you can do inside the rules in combat. That doesn't mean that you can't do stuff outside of them.</blockquote>

Verification