Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5774348" data-attributes="member: 27160">Not consciously, I assure you - I simply react to what I read in what you write. I am very happy to accept clarification and correction, though.OK, in this we completely agree. The nub, then, is how this knowledge is communicated between the players (including the DM).And, perhaps, this illuminates a difference between us; I see numbers as a natural and supremely efficient medium for communicating a huge array of knowledge - perhaps you do not? Or do you just associate them with precision, and wish to keep the players in a position of some vagueness of knowledge?If the second is the case, why do you not simply give number ranges? Again, maybe this is a case of difference between groups of players; if I gave verbal descriptions, (1) they would actually be ciphers for numerical values, because that is generally how the information is stored in my head, and (2) several of my players would be re-converting those ciphers to numerical values, because they actually understand them, that way. My conclusion has just been &quot;why fiddle about with the redundant conversions?&quot; - so I just give the data out as numbers. This vastly predates the coming of 4E for our group - in the (almost totally homebrew) &quot;D&amp;D&quot; we used to play some years ago, we spoke of &quot;Levels of Difficulty&quot; (&quot;LoDs&quot;) that were, functionally, the equivalent of DCs. The numbers simply give clear communication without obfuscation or needless doublespeak. Uncertainty is what the dice are there to provide; there is no need for deliberately vague or confusing communication. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the bandwidth is so very restricted compared to that available to real characters perceiving a real world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5774348, member: 27160"] Not consciously, I assure you - I simply react to what I read in what you write. I am very happy to accept clarification and correction, though. OK, in this we completely agree. The nub, then, is how this knowledge is communicated between the players (including the DM). And, perhaps, this illuminates a difference between us; I see numbers as a natural and supremely efficient medium for communicating a huge array of knowledge - perhaps you do not? Or do you just associate them with precision, and wish to keep the players in a position of some vagueness of knowledge? If the second is the case, why do you not simply give number ranges? Again, maybe this is a case of difference between groups of players; if I gave verbal descriptions, (1) they would actually be ciphers for numerical values, because that is generally how the information is stored in my head, and (2) several of my players would be re-converting those ciphers to numerical values, because they actually understand them, that way. My conclusion has just been "why fiddle about with the redundant conversions?" - so I just give the data out as numbers. This vastly predates the coming of 4E for our group - in the (almost totally homebrew) "D&D" we used to play some years ago, we spoke of "Levels of Difficulty" ("LoDs") that were, functionally, the equivalent of DCs. The numbers simply give clear communication without obfuscation or needless doublespeak. Uncertainty is what the dice are there to provide; there is no need for deliberately vague or confusing communication. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the bandwidth is so very restricted compared to that available to real characters perceiving a real world. [/QUOTE]

Verification