Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 3220863" data-attributes="member: 32740">quod erat demonstratum.&nbsp; A high-falutin' Latin phrase meaning &quot;which was to be proved.&quot;&nbsp; Put another way in English, it is a response that says, &quot;...and this just goes to prove my point.&quot;To explain my unwritten subtext even further, by that post of a warning about the priority of errata over the FAQ I saw it as proof of the fact that people take the FAQ/errata/RAW too freakin seriously - as if it has some mysterious power to run your game and that care must then be exercised.&nbsp; &quot;Care&quot; be damned.&nbsp; It only proves my now long-founded contention that there is a too-well-established fixation (and it's still growing) upon RULES RULES RULES above all.&nbsp; People will argue the RULES till they get blue in the face, hurl insults, get their threads shut down, and themselves suspended or banned.&nbsp; All they need to do is tell themselves that the RULES are what you want them to be and if you don't like them change them.That has been encouraged in D&amp;D from day 1 in every edition, either by virtue of the rules being clearly inadequate to cover situations that then need the DM's arbitrary decision, or by simple statement of the rules themselves to NOT BE CONFINED BY THE RULES.Note well my response earlier in the thread which I'll repeat.&nbsp; I'm serious when I say that I do not dismiss the FAQ (which has it's uses in helping ME make MY rules decisions) - I simply disrespect it.&nbsp; It has been shown to be functionally incorrect at times, and it is given VASTLY too much &quot;authority&quot; above the decisions of ANYONE actually at the game table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 3220863, member: 32740"] quod erat demonstratum. A high-falutin' Latin phrase meaning "which was to be proved." Put another way in English, it is a response that says, "...and this just goes to prove my point." To explain my unwritten subtext even further, by that post of a warning about the priority of errata over the FAQ I saw it as proof of the fact that people take the FAQ/errata/RAW too freakin seriously - as if it has some mysterious power to run your game and that care must then be exercised. "Care" be damned. It only proves my now long-founded contention that there is a too-well-established fixation (and it's still growing) upon RULES RULES RULES above all. People will argue the RULES till they get blue in the face, hurl insults, get their threads shut down, and themselves suspended or banned. All they need to do is tell themselves that the RULES are what you want them to be and if you don't like them change them. That has been encouraged in D&D from day 1 in every edition, either by virtue of the rules being clearly inadequate to cover situations that then need the DM's arbitrary decision, or by simple statement of the rules themselves to NOT BE CONFINED BY THE RULES. Note well my response earlier in the thread which I'll repeat. I'm serious when I say that I do not dismiss the FAQ (which has it's uses in helping ME make MY rules decisions) - I simply disrespect it. It has been shown to be functionally incorrect at times, and it is given VASTLY too much "authority" above the decisions of ANYONE actually at the game table. [/QUOTE]

Verification