Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 104417" data-attributes="member: 111">My document is titled &quot;ambiguous and problem rules.&quot;Frankly, any rule than generates a huge amount of discussion pretty much qualfies, with the exception of rules like Harm where the question is not how it works, but how it should work.&nbsp; I may even include a few of those - currently a few are listed at the bottom of my web page with no discussion.KD's statements where he considers a rule non-ambiguous are particularly interesting because, in most, if not all,&nbsp; of those cases&nbsp; the opposing side of the argument ALSO claims the rule is non-ambiguous.&nbsp; Those two claims together are pretty much the definition of ambiguous.&nbsp;&nbsp; Anyway, that's pretty much my working definition - if both sides really think they are correct and that the rules support their position and NOT the other side, that's ambiguity that can only be &quot;officially&quot; corrected with errata.&nbsp; Sage Advice for those items is just that, &quot;advice.&quot;&nbsp; For items where no one can really figure out how something works, the Sage &quot;offically&quot; clarifies, and I don't include those kind of items in my document.&nbsp; Quite a few of those can be found in WotC's FAQ.So I'll march on, including everything I think is helpful for folks to decide between the two positions for themselves.&nbsp; My biggest concern is that the argument for both sides is accurately and fairly presented.So my plea for help is:Help me ensure that I've identified everythingHelp me accurately and fairly present both sides of the argument.Help me identify Sage Advice and any advice from Monte Cook and other from the original ot current WotC team.And yes, I know I included one or two items that are clearly not ambiguous, but I still felt like I wanted to include them, so they are included.&nbsp; That's why the title is &quot;Ambiguous and Problem Rules&quot;I care not about identifying a rule as ambiguous or not, or, in point of fact, about categorizing them in any way at all, except perhaps by topic.&nbsp; I care only about gving some good advice and presenting sound arguments as to whether my advice should or should not be followed.&nbsp; The rest is up to my readers, who I hope will appreciate my efforts and find in it some value.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Artoomis, post: 104417, member: 111"] My document is titled "ambiguous and problem rules." Frankly, any rule than generates a huge amount of discussion pretty much qualfies, with the exception of rules like Harm where the question is not how it works, but how it should work. I may even include a few of those - currently a few are listed at the bottom of my web page with no discussion. KD's statements where he considers a rule non-ambiguous are particularly interesting because, in most, if not all, of those cases the opposing side of the argument ALSO claims the rule is non-ambiguous. Those two claims together are pretty much the definition of ambiguous. Anyway, that's pretty much my working definition - if both sides really think they are correct and that the rules support their position and NOT the other side, that's ambiguity that can only be "officially" corrected with errata. Sage Advice for those items is just that, "advice." For items where no one can really figure out how something works, the Sage "offically" clarifies, and I don't include those kind of items in my document. Quite a few of those can be found in WotC's FAQ. So I'll march on, including everything I think is helpful for folks to decide between the two positions for themselves. My biggest concern is that the argument for both sides is accurately and fairly presented. So my plea for help is: Help me ensure that I've identified everything Help me accurately and fairly present both sides of the argument. Help me identify Sage Advice and any advice from Monte Cook and other from the original ot current WotC team. And yes, I know I included one or two items that are clearly not ambiguous, but I still felt like I wanted to include them, so they are included. That's why the title is "Ambiguous [b]and[/b] Problem Rules" I care not about identifying a rule as ambiguous or not, or, in point of fact, about categorizing them in any way at all, except perhaps by topic. I care only about gving some good advice and presenting sound arguments as to whether my advice should or should not be followed. The rest is up to my readers, who I hope will appreciate my efforts and find in it some value. [/QUOTE]

Verification