Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ywain" data-source="post: 155614" data-attributes="member: 1420">&quot;If you have a set of inconsistent premeses - but still hold them to be true - there is nothing I can do except point this out. &quot;Actually, they aren't premises.&nbsp; They are rules.&nbsp; As such they were not written by philosophers (and would gain nothing substantial from being vetted by philosophers) they were written by game designers.&nbsp; The language might be less than air-tight in some cases, but it is more than adequately functional.I shudder to think of what other abuses might be cultivated by an overly close textual analysis of the the Core Books.Now, unlike a religious text we have living authorities who can clarify what they meant when they or their colleagues wrote certain rules.&nbsp; We can appeal to them (not just their examples, which are pretty clear on their own) to settle disputes such as this.&nbsp; In many ways it is more like a legal text than a philosophical one -- there is a higher court of appeal.&nbsp; If you say that a rule *means* this and I say a rule *means* that we can actually get a definitive answer (even if that answer is based on errata/new legislation).Unlike a religious text or legal system, if you want to *change* something there will be no smiting nor incarceration for doing so.&nbsp; Houserules are fair game.&nbsp; But they are still house-rules.&nbsp; And there is no shame in enjoying a houserule.Cheers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ywain, post: 155614, member: 1420"] "If you have a set of inconsistent premeses - but still hold them to be true - there is nothing I can do except point this out. " Actually, they aren't premises. They are rules. As such they were not written by philosophers (and would gain nothing substantial from being vetted by philosophers) they were written by game designers. The language might be less than air-tight in some cases, but it is more than adequately functional. I shudder to think of what other abuses might be cultivated by an overly close textual analysis of the the Core Books. Now, unlike a religious text we have living authorities who can clarify what they meant when they or their colleagues wrote certain rules. We can appeal to them (not just their examples, which are pretty clear on their own) to settle disputes such as this. In many ways it is more like a legal text than a philosophical one -- there is a higher court of appeal. If you say that a rule *means* this and I say a rule *means* that we can actually get a definitive answer (even if that answer is based on errata/new legislation). Unlike a religious text or legal system, if you want to *change* something there will be no smiting nor incarceration for doing so. Houserules are fair game. But they are still house-rules. And there is no shame in enjoying a houserule. Cheers. [/QUOTE]

Verification