Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2107549" data-attributes="member: 7240">Okay Doug. Congratulations! This thread has won the award. If you believe that the current terminology should be chosen over any more precise or descriptive term on the ground that we're already using it, what was the point of starting the thread?Also, for that matter, if people thought this way, how could we have got to the world of 3E. We'd still be saying things like the 1E Player's Handbook (paraphrase follows): "Of course, a high armor class like -10 is always preferable to a high armor class like 10."I'm not opposing the term "fluff" on the grounds that it is "negative"; I'm opposing it on the grounds that it's non-descriptive. It's not that I think that being insubstantial and unattached is always bad; I just think that the things you call "fluff" are mistakenly viewed as such by some RPG players and that this terminology reinforces this incorrect view.So let's develop category boundaries that help us understand these interrelations better instead of category boundaries that make it harder to have a rational discussion.Yes but in your schema here, the crunch is conditional upon the fluff so how is the substantial contingent upon the insubstantial?</blockquote>