Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9613758" data-attributes="member: 6790260">&quot;Being poor at&quot; a thing at least very strongly implies that whatever design is in question was intended to do that thing.I am not bad at being an artist, because I am not trying to be an artist. I just don't do art. Likewise, I am not a poor small business owner, because I literally don't own a small business and do not wish to. It is silly to call me &quot;bad at being a small business owner&quot; when that's literally not a thing I'm trying to do. Conversely, if I am rude to the host of a hypothetical social gathering, that is me being a poor guest, because &quot;being a guest&quot; is clearly a thing hypothetical-me is trying to do.Likewise, I dispute the idea that D&amp;D is &quot;bad at&quot; fog of war. I think it isn't even trying to produce nor emulate &quot;fog of war&quot;, and I'm not even convinced that it has ever tried to produce nor emulate that thing. It seems patently silly to get mad at Sorry! because it's &quot;bad&quot; with bluffing mechanics, for example, when...you don't hold any cards, there would be no point to holding cards, and In order to get to &quot;D&amp;D is bad at X&quot;, I think there needs to be reason to believe that D&amp;D is trying to do X at all. D&amp;D isn't trying to be a collectible card game, for example, so is it &quot;bad&quot; at being that, or is it just...not serving that function? It isn't trying to be a toaster, for a more ridiculously extreme example. Should we then take D&amp;D to task for being a poor toaster? Or should we recognize that asking D&amp;D to be a good toaster is ridiculous?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9613758, member: 6790260"] "Being poor at" a thing at least very strongly implies that whatever design is in question was [I]intended[/I] to do that thing. I am not bad at being an artist, because I am not [I]trying to be[/I] an artist. I just don't [I]do[/I] art. Likewise, I am not a poor small business owner, because I literally don't own a small business and do not wish to. It is silly to call me "bad at being a small business owner" when that's literally not a thing I'm trying to do. Conversely, if I am rude to the host of a hypothetical social gathering, that [I]is[/I] me being a poor guest, because "being a guest" is clearly a thing hypothetical-me is trying to do. Likewise, I dispute the idea that D&D is "bad at" fog of war. I think it isn't even [I]trying[/I] to produce nor emulate "fog of war", and I'm not even convinced that it has [I]ever[/I] tried to produce nor emulate that thing. It seems patently silly to get mad at Sorry! because it's "bad" with bluffing mechanics, for example, when...you don't hold any cards, there would be no [I]point[/I] to holding cards, and In order to get to "D&D is bad at X", I think there needs to be reason to believe that D&D is trying to [I]do[/I] X at all. D&D isn't trying to be a collectible card game, for example, so is it "bad" at being that, or is it just...not serving that function? It isn't trying to be a toaster, for a more ridiculously extreme example. Should we then take D&D to task for being a poor toaster? Or should we recognize that asking D&D to be a good toaster is ridiculous? [/QUOTE]

Verification