Tell me that D&D 3.0/3.5 isn't really like this

[Henry]

Got quotes? How about some page reference numbers for this claim? You're stating opinion as fact, and that's never good.

Also, remember that Gary is nowadays in favor of much "rules-lighter" systems, where the DM has more control over the outcomes and rules-grey areas. Much as I have respect for him, he's not a proponent of 3E, and would not be the best source to go to for an in-depth analysis of its strengths. Monte on the other hand, I've never seen quoted as such, but depending on the context of the quote, it could be possible.

 

[Psion]

I think having control over rules-grey areas (or for that matter, rules-white-but-stupid-so-we're-gonna-chuck-it areas) are a matter of group social contract.

Like so many areas of life, when you bring multiple people to the table with different expectations, the key is resolving differences before they become a problem.

Other games are not necessarily a solution. In a parallel universe (i.e., messageboard) addressing C&C, the other side of this argument is going on: C&C GMs complaining because their players don't want to play C&C. When the problem is a mismatch of expectations, changing rules system is skirting around the problem, not addressing it.

 

[diaglo]

Monte on the other hand, I've never seen quoted as such, but depending on the context of the quote, it could be possible.

read my sig.

 

[WizarDru]

Actually, the saying is 'the proof is in the putting'. It's a saying made famous by Aristotle, and refers to the 'putting forward of evidence/argument', not a desert.

Actually, it depends. Most folks aren't referencing Aristotle, they're incorrectly referencing the proverb: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." which goes back at least as far as 1615, when it appeared in Don Quixote. However, just like "Eat your cake and have it too" is usually messed up (by reversing the order, making it make less sense).

A lot of idioms don't make much sense until you investigate them...we've used them so long that we no longer understand the references, like why we wish people to 'Sleep Tight', why a 'Red Herring' is considered a false lead, why a private-eye is called a "gumshoe" or the Gipper actually was (and I don't mean a former president ).

 

[Jim Hague]

Also, remember that Gary is nowadays in favor of much "rules-lighter" systems, where the DM has more control over the outcomes and rules-grey areas. Much as I have respect for him, he's not a proponent of 3E, and would not be the best source to go to for an in-depth analysis of its strengths. Monte on the other hand, I've never seen quoted as such, but depending on the context of the quote, it could be possible.

Sure! And while I've got the highest respect for Gary (except for Cyborg Commando...but we've teased him enough about it ), I wouldn't go to him on 3.0/3.5, simply because he's said that he's not an authority on it. I'd like to see his comments in context though.

 

[Akrasia]

Actually, it depends. Most folks aren't referencing Aristotle, they're incorrectly referencing the proverb: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." which goes back at least as far as 1615, when it appeared in Don Quixote. However, just like "Eat your cake and have it too" is usually messed up (by reversing the order, making it make less sense).
....

I didn't know about that proverb, and had always assumed that people were misquoting Aristotle. Thanks for that nugget of info.

 

[Crothian]

That's a rather novel definition of 'many'. :\

And what does many mean to you then? More then 5?

 

[Akrasia]

And what does many mean to you then? More then 5?

It is not a matter of what the word means to me. It is a matter of what the word means in the English language.

What the word 'many' means obviously depends on the context in which it is used -- however, it is not synonymous with the word 'most'. You seem to be confusing the words 'many' and 'most'.

E.g. It is a perfectly correct use of the word 'many' to say: 'Many people in Ireland prefer Beamish stout over Guinness --500,000 of them do!' Assuming that a million people in Ireland prefer Guinness, most people here do not prefer Beamish -- but is still seems entirely correct to say that many people prefer Beamish.

E.g. You are on a committee of 12. A vote needs to be taken. Five people vote for option x. It seems perfectly legitimate to say 'many people on the committee prefer option x', even though a majority do not.

The words 'many', 'few', 'some', and so forth are vague terms. Despite being vague, though, you are the first person I have ever met who equated the word 'many' with 'most'.

 

[Jim Hague]

Hey, just a suggestion, but could we get back on topic instead of arguing over academic minutae?

 

[Akrasia]

Hey, just a suggestion, but could we get back on topic instead of arguing over academic minutae?

The topic has been covered. There are two views: (a.) 3e games are not always like the original poster's description, and this has nothing to do with the system; and (b.) while 3e games are not always like the original poster's description, the rules tend to promote such a style of play.

I'm willing to wager 100 Euro that there will be no convergence between these two views.

Back to the academic minutiae! You forgot to include the 'i' when spelling 'minutiae'...