Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7167975" data-attributes="member: 996">Facilitate the PH's development (really, 5e's development) the Pillars were dreamed up during the development and playtesting of Next/5e as part of their efforts to divine/define what exactly made D&amp;D, well, D&amp;D.&nbsp;The Role vs Roll 'debate' (really, much like the edition war of its day) on UseNet ate up a chunk of the 90s, and was taken up in a more thoughtful way and re-imagined as the Threefold Theory, which, in turn, was one of the ideas the Forge worked from in hammering out GNS. The end result is just as wrong-headed and divisive as the original, IMHO.&nbsp;You mean, it's suggested by taking part of that natural-language definition out of context.&nbsp; 5e is not written in jargon and it's not meant to be parsed.&nbsp; Read it for comprehension, in the context of the other two pillars, and it's clearly /not/ talking about social interactions with NPCs nor violent altercations with monsters, but the PC's interaction with the rest of the environment.And, yeah, that makes it kinda a catch-all, since that environment might be a devious trap-filled dungeon, natural cavern, trackless desert, storm-shrouded mountaintop, or pocket dimension among myriad other things. But, no, that it sorta re-itterates the basic resolution process doesn't imply that it's all things that vaguely use that same process... ...since prettymuch everything in 5e /does/ use that process, it's not useful in differentiating.Now, if you want to say that explanation isn't a wonder of clarity, go ahead.&nbsp; It's not like it's unusual in that.&nbsp; But it's not impenetrable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7167975, member: 996"] Facilitate the PH's development (really, 5e's development) the Pillars were dreamed up during the development and playtesting of Next/5e as part of their efforts to divine/define what exactly made D&D, well, D&D. The Role vs Roll 'debate' (really, much like the edition war of its day) on UseNet ate up a chunk of the 90s, and was taken up in a more thoughtful way and re-imagined as the Threefold Theory, which, in turn, was one of the ideas the Forge worked from in hammering out GNS. The end result is just as wrong-headed and divisive as the original, IMHO. You mean, it's suggested by taking part of that natural-language definition out of context. 5e is not written in jargon and it's not meant to be parsed. Read it for comprehension, in the context of the other two pillars, and it's clearly /not/ talking about social interactions with NPCs nor violent altercations with monsters, but the PC's interaction with the rest of the environment. And, yeah, that makes it kinda a catch-all, since that environment might be a devious trap-filled dungeon, natural cavern, trackless desert, storm-shrouded mountaintop, or pocket dimension among myriad other things. But, no, that it sorta re-itterates the basic resolution process doesn't imply that it's all things that vaguely use that same process... ...since prettymuch everything in 5e /does/ use that process, it's not useful in differentiating. Now, if you want to say that explanation isn't a wonder of clarity, go ahead. It's not like it's unusual in that. But it's not impenetrable. [/QUOTE]

Verification