Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5889517" data-attributes="member: 70707">Why is it confusing that he might mean exactly what he said?&nbsp; He might not, of course.&nbsp; That's why I said &quot;If&quot; and gave feedback on both conditions.If we're always going to assume that they can't possibly have meant what they said whenever they say something we don't like, and instead always assume they're doing the right thing that we like to think they're doing, then what the hell is the point of feedback?Also, the statement started with: &quot;As of right now, we have a system that states...&quot;&nbsp; That certainly doesn't sound like &quot;conversational&quot; or &quot;casual&quot;.&nbsp; It sounds like a statement of what the system is currently written as.&nbsp; At the very least, consider this feedback that when relaying specific rules, it's important to be clear and unambiguous.A conversation is fundamentally different than a written article, because in a conversation, ambiguities can be resolved immediately.&nbsp; If I were having a conversation with Rodney, and he said that, I'd say, &quot;oh, we can move, then attack too, right&quot;?&nbsp; Absent that, the best I can do is respond conditionally.&nbsp; Which is exactly what I did.You are aware that sometimes people make mistakes, and don't always succeed at doing what they say they want to do, right?&nbsp; And that the best way to prevent those mistakes is to have others look at it and give feedback?&nbsp; If everyone that looks at it says &quot;they can't possibly have meant that, I'm sure it's fine&quot;, well, guess, what?&nbsp; It's entirely possible that they did mean that, that it slipped through the cracks, and now they have useless feedback.&quot;Add salt to taste&quot; is a rule based on subjectivity of the cook. It's essentially analogous to &quot;DM chooses a reasonable DC&quot;.&quot;Attack, then move&quot; but not allowing &quot;Move, then attack&quot; is an objective, precise rule that has huge gameplay implications.Now, is that the actual rule they're currently using?&nbsp; Perhaps not.&nbsp; But it's hardly impossible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5889517, member: 70707"] Why is it confusing that he [i]might[/i] mean exactly what he said? He might not, of course. That's why I said "If" and gave feedback on both conditions. If we're always going to assume that they can't possibly have meant what they said whenever they say something we don't like, and instead always assume they're doing the right thing that we like to think they're doing, then [i]what the hell is the point of feedback[/i]? Also, the statement started with: "As of right now, we have a system that states..." That certainly doesn't sound like "conversational" or "casual". It sounds like a statement of what the system is currently written as. At the very least, consider this feedback that when relaying specific rules, it's important to be clear and unambiguous. A conversation is fundamentally different than a written article, because in a conversation, ambiguities can be resolved immediately. If I were having a conversation with Rodney, and he said that, I'd say, "oh, we can move, then attack too, right"? Absent that, the best I can do is respond conditionally. Which is exactly what I did. You are aware that sometimes people make mistakes, and don't always succeed at doing what they say they want to do, right? And that the best way to prevent those mistakes is to have others look at it and give feedback? If everyone that looks at it says "they can't possibly have meant that, I'm sure it's fine", well, guess, what? It's entirely possible that they [i]did[/i] mean that, that it slipped through the cracks, and now they have useless feedback. "Add salt to taste" is a rule based on subjectivity of the cook. It's essentially analogous to "DM chooses a reasonable DC". "Attack, then move" but not allowing "Move, then attack" is an objective, precise rule that has huge gameplay implications. Now, [i]is[/i] that the actual rule they're currently using? Perhaps not. But it's hardly impossible. [/QUOTE]

Verification