Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9674848" data-attributes="member: 6915329">I’m sorry, what made you think I was using the 5e DMG’s definition of the word encounter? Or that I was using only 5e’s definition of the word? I’m using the word as it means in RPGs as a whole, based on, well, every RPG I have ever read over the past 35~ years, as well as how it’s used in real life.And did I say you must use the term? No. And the same goes for you. You refuse to accept I view it differently than you, yet you’re insisting I change. Why can’t you agree to disagree?I don’t even like D&amp;D.&nbsp; I just don’t think the word is must be informed by it, like you do. So many games have used it since then—and it was used prior to D&amp;D’s creation—that it isn’t a D&amp;D term. Heck, just the other day I was reading a (non-gaming) webcomic and highly amused that the first panel had a guy saying “I was thinking about our encounter”.And you simply won’t accept it.Again: I explained the term ten or more times at that point, as did others. If he still can’t understand it after that, it’s not my explanation that’s confusing. It’s his willingness to learn that’s the problem. As I said before, he’s smart. It shouldn’t take him fifty explanations to get past the first step. It shouldn’t even take him more than two or three to say “ok, so she’s saying X to mean what I think of as Y.” I managed to do that with his insistent use of Ob without me even asking what he meant, because I was able to extrapolate from the context (difficult level) and thirty seconds of research (short for obstacle). You claiming the problem is our coherency means you think that he’s bad at abstract thought, extrapolating from context, or looking up what terms mean.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 9674848, member: 6915329"] I’m sorry, what made you think I was using the 5e DMG’s definition of the word encounter? Or that I was using [I]only[/I] 5e’s definition of the word? I’m using the word as it means in RPGs as a whole, based on, well, every RPG I have ever read over the past 35~ years, as well as how it’s used in real life. And did I say [I]you[/I] [I]must[/I] use the term? No. And the same goes for you. You refuse to accept I view it differently than you, yet you’re insisting [I]I[/I] change. Why can’t [I]you[/I] agree to disagree? I don’t even like D&D. I just don’t think the word is must be informed by it, like you do. So many games have used it since then—and it was used prior to D&D’s creation—that it isn’t a D&D term. Heck, just the other day I was reading a (non-gaming) webcomic and highly amused that the first panel had a guy saying “I was thinking about our encounter”. And you simply won’t accept it. Again: I explained the term ten or more times at that point, as did others. If he still can’t understand it after that, it’s not [I]my[/I] explanation that’s confusing. It’s his willingness to learn that’s the problem. As I said before, he’s smart. It shouldn’t take him fifty explanations to get past the first step. It shouldn’t even take him more than two or three to say “ok, so she’s saying X to mean what I think of as Y.” I managed to do that with his insistent use of [I]Ob[/I] without me even asking what he meant, because I was able to extrapolate from the context (difficult level) and thirty seconds of research (short for obstacle). [I]You[/I] claiming the problem is [I]our[/I] coherency means [I]you[/I] think that he’s bad at abstract thought, extrapolating from context, or looking up what terms mean. [/QUOTE]

Verification