Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8741144" data-attributes="member: 71699">To get perhaps overly technical and legalistic, I dislike that argument on the following principle<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">where game text can be read in one way to sustain meaning in all parts, and another way to empty some parts of meaning, we ought to prefer the former</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">this is true except where there the principle of specific beats general applies</li>
</ul>I believe the game text on advantages in SCs based on their complexity would be strictly meaningless, if the intent of the DMG text is to confer an identical benefit. Construing the DMG text as you suggest isn't literally necessitated, and it breaches both principles above (the advantages text would be emptied of meaning, even while the advantages test is the more specific).Perhaps the better thing to say is something like this: I queried a poster's description of an adjudication based on their words as I read them compared with words in the game text. It's okay to say that one feels the intention of the game text is vague and make a different interpretation, but one can't say that the game text I compared with doesn't exist. Nor does it really seem right to me, to put vagueness in one place on the same footing as clarity in another.Agreed. As I said up thread, for me it is right to understand from the DMG that investing resources can earn successes. What they don't do (outside advantages) is increase the number of successes from ongoing checks. (Or maybe they do, there's a lot of text scattered through the books, but no one has shown where yet!)This is how the SC was categorised</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8741144, member: 71699"] To get perhaps overly technical and legalistic, I dislike that argument on the following principle [LIST] [*]where game text can be read in one way to sustain meaning in all parts, and another way to empty some parts of meaning, we ought to prefer the former [*]this is true except where there the principle of specific beats general applies [/LIST] I believe the game text on advantages in SCs based on their complexity would be strictly meaningless, if the intent of the DMG text is to confer an identical benefit. Construing the DMG text as you suggest isn't literally necessitated, and it breaches both principles above (the advantages text would be emptied of meaning, even while the advantages test is the more specific). Perhaps the better thing to say is something like this: I queried a poster's description of an adjudication based on their words as I read them compared with words in the game text. It's okay to say that one feels the intention of the game text is vague and make a different interpretation, but one can't say that the game text I compared with doesn't exist. Nor does it really seem right to me, to put vagueness in one place on the same footing as clarity in another. Agreed. As I said up thread, for me it is right to understand from the DMG that investing resources can earn successes. What they don't do (outside advantages) is increase the number of successes from ongoing checks. (Or maybe they do, there's a lot of text scattered through the books, but no one has shown where yet!) This is how the SC was categorised [/QUOTE]

Verification