Taking a Break

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, the basic idea is the same.

Despite claims of some to the contrary.

I did want to put that second sentence in there because that's where all the confusion on my part was coming from.

It is important, when we are talking about how things "feel" that the feeling players get might not be due to actual constraints, but rather due to perception of restraints due to presentation. For example, some people felt that 3e was less DM- and Rule 0-friendly than previous editions. Rule 0 was still there, but it wasn't presented nearly as strongly.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Crap, reply got eaten.

RC, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. You seem to feel that it is incumbant upon the reader to parse your meaning, regardless of the language you use. I feel the opposite. It is incumbent upon the writer to make his meaning as clearly as possible. Using vague language is poor writing. Full stop. I think that using certain terms, loaded language that is typically meant to provoke negative reactions, is poor writing.

What you call censorship, I call effective communication. If you cannot make your point without using this language, then perhaps your point isn't as strong as you think it is. You should be able to communicate in plain English, without relying on neologisms. And you here is meant in the universal, not you specifically.

In other words, if you have two choices - one to use vague short forms that confuse the issue, or two, to use clear, concise language that makes your meaning plain, choosing the second is ALWAYS the better choice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Agreed. But disagree with what I am saying, not what you would like me to be saying.

You seem to feel that it is incumbant upon the reader to parse your meaning, regardless of the language you use.

No. I feel that, in the particular cases we are herein discussing, that the language is more than clear enough, and that if you are determined to "not get it" then you will not get it no matter what language is used.

I think "I understand this enough to be insulted, and feel I have to respond, but it has no meaning and I don't understand it" is an intellectual fraud.

I think that, in the case of any language, what is meant might not be understood, and it is always okay to ask for clarification. If, however, once it is clarified, the response is "Well, that isn't what X, Y, and Z mean by it" then you are no longer responding to meaning, but attempting to hide meaning in a battle over terminology. Once more, I believe this is an intellectual fraud.

I believe that the purpose of both types of (closely related) intellectual fraud is to censor content.

Clear?


RC

 

[Eridanis]

This thread seems to have served its purpose, and I'm closing it by request of the OP.