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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Composer99" data-source="post: 8805294" data-attributes="member: 7030042">The extreme counterpart is a strawman, and I will not indulge that absurdity.This comes across as equivalent to arguing that, say, a reference manual for gardening shouldn't include any discussion (or examples) about how different plants want different amounts of sunlight because "There's a point where if you [have the recommended level of gardening competency or experience] I am going to assume you can grasp certain concepts without examples or in-depth explanation [edits made by me to fit the example]". That would be nonsensical: including content about things like sun and soil is precisely the point of having a reference manual about gardening.Or how about a user manual for a piece of software - say, the <a href="https://wpmedia.makemusic.com/kb/pdf_manuals/F2K9_PrintedDoc_Win.pdf" target="_blank">user manual</a> for the 2009 version of music writing software Finale. (I pick that year because that's the one I own.) Without actually teaching the user step-by-step how to use the software (much less how to read or write music), it comprehensively describes how each element of the software works, from dialogue boxes to plug-ins, because that is what it, as a user manual for software, is literally supposed to do, and it would be ridiculous to leave out any arbitrary number of dialogue boxes or menus because "There's a point where if you [have the recommended level of experience using this software] I am going to assume you can grasp certain concepts without examples or in-depth explanation [edits made by me to fit the example]".Or another example: My university reference manual on orchestration, which I can assure you already presumes a great deal of background knowledge and competence - more, I am sure, than the DMG presumes of DMs - includes a concrete discussion on writing passages for violin - including, for instance, examples of passages written for violins on different strings, chord passages (including chords that would be awkward or impossible to finger!) - as well as discussions and concrete examples of bowing and harmonics. None of this content is an insult to the reader's intelligence, nor is it a constraint on the reader's creativity.As a counterpoint, would you think it was acceptable for, say, the PHB to excise the entirety of chapter 10 because "There's a point where if you are of the recommended age I am going to assume you can grasp certain concepts without examples or in-depth explanation", and therefore if you can look up words such as "area", "time", "range", or "self" in the dictionary, there's no need to discuss the context in which such terms are used with respect to casting spells in the game, or even have concrete rules for how concentration works?I mean, you're basically trying to tell me thatoror (and this last one is, I admit, a bit cheeky, being an actual quote from the DMG pg. 242)are somehow inappropriate or insulting the intelligence of DMs because 12-year-olds can look up the word "setback" in the dictionary?I'm not buying it in the slightest.</blockquote>

Verification