Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3624089" data-attributes="member: 30001">In this case my language is a little stronger because there's actually a lack of anything to interpret.&nbsp; Just because people argue a connection between the rules and magic wallmarts doesn't mean that their logic is sound.&nbsp; It's one thing to filter what you're reading, it's another thing to mistakenly ascribe a belief to something that you read - though granted, it's a continuum.&nbsp; Were the RAW to be vague about how governments in a fantasy world are constructed, I might be willing to construe the use of the word &quot;government&quot; to mean &quot;representative democracy&quot; in the same way that I would assume &quot;market price&quot; mean &quot;wallmart&quot;.&nbsp; But IMO that's not even a filter of what's written - it is a virtually complete fabrication on the part of the reader.I agree completely.&nbsp; However, I've often used &quot;video game&quot; in not an entirely unkind way but yet got really negative reactions.&nbsp; I think it's a natural part of language that words have certain connotations.&nbsp; My goal generally is to be more precise about what I'm saying and avoid these words if I know they cause problems (because they're not all that well-defined either).&nbsp;Actually, I think the most literal interpretation is &quot;is it really necessary to claim that lack of magic marts are 'low magic' when it's probably just 'average magic'&nbsp; Here is my evidence for why the absence of magic marts are a campaign norm...&quot;&nbsp; That this issue is a core issue in the edition wars, and that &quot;3E RAW leads to magic marts&quot; is more of a context that exists outside of the OP itself, but is probably the context for many people participating in the thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3624089, member: 30001"] In this case my language is a little stronger because there's actually a lack of anything to interpret. Just because people argue a connection between the rules and magic wallmarts doesn't mean that their logic is sound. It's one thing to filter what you're reading, it's another thing to mistakenly ascribe a belief to something that you read - though granted, it's a continuum. Were the RAW to be vague about how governments in a fantasy world are constructed, I might be willing to construe the use of the word "government" to mean "representative democracy" in the same way that I would assume "market price" mean "wallmart". But IMO that's not even a filter of what's written - it is a virtually complete fabrication on the part of the reader. I agree completely. However, I've often used "video game" in not an entirely unkind way but yet got really negative reactions. I think it's a natural part of language that words have certain connotations. My goal generally is to be more precise about what I'm saying and avoid these words if I know they cause problems (because they're not all that well-defined either). Actually, I think the most literal interpretation is "is it really necessary to claim that lack of magic marts are 'low magic' when it's probably just 'average magic' Here is my evidence for why the absence of magic marts are a campaign norm..." That this issue is a core issue in the edition wars, and that "3E RAW leads to magic marts" is more of a context that exists outside of the OP itself, but is probably the context for many people participating in the thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification