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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9483153" data-attributes="member: 71699">I agree that seeing as "drag" is in effect a key word for a mechanic, there is a motive for elaborating on it in terms of the game abstraction. Where I disagree is with any contention that not so defining it inevitably produces an OP mechanic. I find the OPness in this case trivially evitable.(Bolding mine.) The three bullet points contradict the conjecture that I bolded. They show that what I describe is exactly how D&D works, which is that groups proceed on the basis of shared norms and that where there are ambiguities or an exact meaning is crucial, they settle that between them. You picture that players will prefer an interpretation that I have until now understood you as characterising as undesirable. If you are right that the strategy interpreting "drag" as drag-beside would be OP, and if to say that it is OP is to say that it is undesirable, then your imagined players appear to desire the undesirable. But the RAW does not say "drag-beside"... it says "drag": what precisely is envisioned is down to norms at the table.It's plausible that some players will take a constructive approach to which norms they endorse (constructive toward the result they want). If they prevail, that normalizes the meaning for the group. If that jars with notions of play considered desirable, an official pronouncement could be beneficial; because recognised authorities and institutions have a powerful role to play in settling norms. If they say that "drag" means "drag-behind" then for many groups that will settle the norm.One possible reason I don't share your concerns is that while I find your pictured players plausible, they don't match my actual players. Nor does Alice's supposed helplessness match the actual social negotiations that I experience.When I use a term like "natural language" I'm referring to where words have their meanings from a reader's context rather than a formal definition in the game text serving the game abstraction. One reason for comfort with that (or in a sense, a reason for discomfort all through) is that technical definitions of words in a game text will themselves be composed of words... resulting in the obvious regress.The word "drag" appears within such a technical definition - of the word "grappled". Suppose the web of technical definitions included a sub-definition for "drag" that included the word "beside". What does "beside" mean? The problem is not necessarily the lack of technical definition, but rather the unelaborated use of a word that doesn't pin it down sharply. But for many in this thread, "drag" pins it down well enough: they're able to picture a plausible, consistent, non-OP result without requiring a further definitional regress.So here we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems fair to say that the group you describe may benefit from an errata. I don't feel any need for it - at least on this score - myself.</blockquote>

Verification