Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9107637" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Alright, but if we grant that, doesn't that mean we just have to treat the Good Idea, Bad Idea thing as a wash? Just seems like the whole argument boils down to &quot;whoever has a good idea has an advantage,&quot; but good ideas come and go. The underlying mechanics remain. Just because they can't completely overwhelm someone choosing a faulty approach doesn't mean there's no bias. It's just a bias that isn't absolutely determinative.Believe it or not, I don't want to nerf casters really. I think skills should be powerful and diverse, containing multitudes, and that spells should be a little bit more limited and much more focused. Those do not entail nerfing casters into the ground, but they do pretty much require that casters lose some amount of power and flexibility that they possess, even in 5e.And I couldn't disagree more. We can expect that they will have similarities, no one is doubting that. Visually, at the very least! But insisting that everything must be precisely the same unless and until we are explicitly told otherwise is wildly unwarranted. Further, as stated, this assumption that what people THINK are IRL human limits absolutely must apply to fictional humans leads to both design and adjudication that is heavily biased against specific archetypes and toward other archetypes.It's fundamentally unfair and unfounded, rewarding one archetype and punishing another, but because it has truthiness, it survives. Because that's what &quot;verisimilitude&quot; and &quot;realism&quot; often stand for. Truthiness. Intuitively feeling like truth, regardless of what is actually true.Nope. This is talking about what the game itself should be designed for. That martial characters should not be allowed to do certain things, because martials doing those things lacks &quot;verisimilitude&quot; (but similarity to what truth, exactly?) or &quot;realism&quot; (but we are talking about chokeslamming dragons, none of this is like reality anyway.) Hence: truthiness.Per Dictionary.com:&quot;Realism&quot; does, in fact, mean &quot;correspondence to actuality or to ordinary...experience&quot; or depicting things &quot;as they are experienced or might be experienced in everyday life.&quot; Every definition listed here except the first points to this idea. I left out the fifth because it's the technical term from philosophy, which goes in a completely unrelated direction (talking about the independent existence of things, separate from observation by individuals.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9107637, member: 6790260"] Alright, but if we grant that, doesn't that mean we just have to treat the Good Idea, Bad Idea thing as a wash? Just seems like the whole argument boils down to "whoever has a good idea has an advantage," but good ideas come and go. The underlying mechanics remain. Just because they can't completely overwhelm someone choosing a faulty approach doesn't mean there's no bias. It's just a bias that isn't absolutely determinative. Believe it or not, I don't want to nerf casters really. I think skills should be powerful and diverse, containing multitudes, and that spells should be a little bit more limited and [I]much[/I] more focused. Those do not entail nerfing casters into the ground, but they do pretty much require that casters lose [I]some[/I] amount of power and flexibility that they possess, even in 5e. And I couldn't disagree more. We can expect that they will have similarities, no one is doubting that. Visually, at the very least! But insisting that everything must be precisely the same unless and until we are explicitly told otherwise is wildly unwarranted. Further, as stated, this assumption that what people THINK are IRL human limits [I]absolutely must[/I] apply to fictional humans leads to both design and adjudication that is heavily biased against specific archetypes and toward other archetypes. It's fundamentally unfair and unfounded, rewarding one archetype and punishing another, but because it has truthiness, it survives. Because that's what "verisimilitude" and "realism" often stand for. Truthiness. Intuitively feeling like truth, regardless of what is actually true. Nope. This is talking about what the game itself should be designed for. That martial characters [I]should not be allowed[/I] to do certain things, because martials doing those things lacks "verisimilitude" (but similarity to [I]what truth[/I], exactly?) or "realism" (but we are talking about chokeslamming dragons, [I]none of this is like reality anyway[/I].) Hence: truthiness. Per Dictionary.com: "Realism" does, in fact, mean "correspondence to actuality or to ordinary...experience" or depicting things "as they are experienced or might be experienced in everyday life." Every definition listed here except the first points to this idea. I left out the fifth because it's the technical term from philosophy, which goes in a completely unrelated direction (talking about the independent existence of things, separate from observation by individuals.) [/QUOTE]

Verification