Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7602823" data-attributes="member: 996">There's definite differences among, say, a crunchy mechanic, a clearly stated but vague rule, an a section explicitly labeled 'advice.'&nbsp; Since such distinctions exist, labeling them isn't unreasonable.If you want to use 'rule' in every label, why not.&nbsp; Maybe:&nbsp; 'rule mechanic', 'procedural rule,' 'rule of thumb,' respectively, for the above instances.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or, we could call none of them rules:&nbsp; resolution mechanic, sequence of play, advice.It shouldn't make a difference.&nbsp;They're closer to self-help books than technical manuals.&nbsp; Again, intentionally so, other WotC eds were more manual-like, heavier on the jargon and all, less conversational, etc, and 5e design explicitly moved away from that.&nbsp;It's a good thing you clarified, because the bolded bit, sounds like exactly that (and stated none too gently, at that).&nbsp; Language is ambiguous, that way.&nbsp; By the same token, absent Mike Mearls sitting at your table, clarifying every word of the books, interpretation is called for, and different interpretations may well be equally valid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7602823, member: 996"] There's definite differences among, say, a crunchy mechanic, a clearly stated but vague rule, an a section explicitly labeled 'advice.' Since such distinctions exist, labeling them isn't unreasonable. If you want to use 'rule' in every label, why not. Maybe: 'rule mechanic', 'procedural rule,' 'rule of thumb,' respectively, for the above instances. Or, we could call none of them rules: resolution mechanic, sequence of play, advice. It shouldn't make a difference. They're closer to self-help books than technical manuals. Again, intentionally so, other WotC eds were more manual-like, heavier on the jargon and all, less conversational, etc, and 5e design explicitly moved away from that. It's a good thing you clarified, because the bolded bit, sounds like exactly that (and stated none too gently, at that). Language is ambiguous, that way. By the same token, absent Mike Mearls sitting at your table, clarifying every word of the books, interpretation is called for, and different interpretations may well be equally valid. [/QUOTE]

Verification