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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9241404" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Again: no, it does not. Simply not getting in the way cannot possibly be "support," whether passive or active. It's simply permitting.Sure! That's what we call opposing.Opposing, permitting, passive support, and active support are all different things. Opposing means the rules actually interfere with or impede, as 3e's (and 5e's) spells interfere with the "survival" campaign concept. Permitting is the default state of being, neither getting in the way nor aiding in any way; the absence of content. Passive support is actual content which is helpful for, but not constitutive of, the task in question: as noted, having prices for goods and services is passive support for a game focused on economics and crafting, but by itself isn't enough to actually do that; it provides the (metaphorical) raw materials for someone to then go through and create the active design. Active support is that design, rules, guidelines, tools, etc. which directly achieve the intended goal, e.g. the many random tables (particularly monster and treasure tables) which help in the creation of random dungeons as one is exploring the world, which are direct and active support for such exploration.Correct: it is not in itself a system. Unlike choice, where you are embarked (the absence of a choice certainly is still a choice), the absence of a system is not a system. It's simply existing. There are plenty of things that work like that. The absence of nutrients is not itself a nutrient. The absence of a pattern is not itself a pattern (a truth the entire field of statistics depends upon). The absence of a meal is not itself a meal.It's the "embarked" bit that matters for this distinction. Things where participation (representation, etc.) is truly obligate require that the absence of an X is still an X, e.g. when you are already participating in a conversation, the absence of spoken expression is still expression--whatever you do, it will be understood within the light of that conversation. Conversely, if it isn't actually obligate, then the absence is simply that, an absence. "I didn't eat dinner" does not mean you somehow ate a meal comprised of void; it means you didn't eat any meal. Or, for a more scientific example, the absence of light is not, itself, a color (though "black," being a pigment rather than a frequency of light, is a color in that sense.)</blockquote>

Verification