Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 732500" data-attributes="member: 537">Nah, Hyp is just trolling again. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />See, Hyp is one of those players for whom the game world is defined solely by reference to the rules. The rules constitute an abstract system within which agents take actions, and the consequences of those actions are decided by application of the rules. Other examples of abstract systems can be found in areas such as pure mathematics, formal logic and statute law. It's from the last example that we obtain the common epithet &quot;rules lawyer&quot;, although I prefer the term &quot;logically correct&quot;.Note that an abstract system exists in isolation of things that it might be applied to (once it's applied, it ceases to be abstract). Therefore, concepts such as &quot;verisimilitude&quot;, &quot;common sense&quot; and &quot;realism&quot; are foreign to the logically correct gamer, because these concepts rely on comparing the outcome of the rules to an outside world. The logically correct gamer refuses to rely on this intrinsically vague and unsatisfying strategy, preferring the clarity and formality of a purely abstract system. Algebra, in other words.In fact, the logically correct gamer can do without such things as fluff and flavour text entirely, because these are irrelevant to the abstract system (remember that it's only the rules themselves that count). Recall that in algebra, the truth value of a statement like &quot;x = 5&quot; is independent of what particular symbol we use on the left-hand side of the equals sign. We could use &quot;y = 5&quot; or &quot;papa_smurf = 5&quot; and the statement would still stand. Similarly, the logically correct gamer knows that the utility and meaning of a ruleset is independent of such fluffy labels as &quot;fighter&quot;, &quot;weapon&quot;, &quot;spell&quot;, &quot;level&quot; or any of the other English words that mar the elegance of the D&amp;D rules.Here are some example passages from the PHB, translated into logically correct algebra:5f | &gt;= 5f == NULLAoO: thr &amp; {&lt;-&gt;, ! thr} &amp; &gt;= 5f -&gt; AoOStrW : MeA | Sl, Bl, AW &gt;= DW-11. AoO2. R = Atk x Atk3a. R &gt; 0 : Dmg - Hd3b. R &lt;= 0 : ENDArm : It[Arm] != NULLMnk &amp; Arm -&gt; WisAC &lt;- 0, MnkAC &lt;- 0, All Atk[MnkA] | MnkA &lt;= RegA &lt;- Atk[RegA], Atk[MnkA] | MnkA &gt; RegA &lt;- NULL, Mov &lt;- Mov[Base, Enc], ASF% &lt;- ASF[Arm]As you can see, this system has unlimited potential to clear up the nasty ambiguities and irregularities that continue to plague Dungeons and Dragons.HTH!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 732500, member: 537"] Nah, Hyp is just trolling again. :cool: See, Hyp is one of those players for whom the game world is defined solely by reference to the rules. The rules constitute an abstract system within which agents take actions, and the consequences of those actions are decided by application of the rules. Other examples of abstract systems can be found in areas such as pure mathematics, formal logic and statute law. It's from the last example that we obtain the common epithet "rules lawyer", although I prefer the term "logically correct". Note that an abstract system exists in isolation of things that it might be applied to (once it's applied, it ceases to be abstract). Therefore, concepts such as "verisimilitude", "common sense" and "realism" are foreign to the logically correct gamer, because these concepts rely on comparing the outcome of the rules to an outside world. The logically correct gamer refuses to rely on this intrinsically vague and unsatisfying strategy, preferring the clarity and formality of a purely abstract system. Algebra, in other words. In fact, the logically correct gamer can do without such things as fluff and flavour text entirely, because these are irrelevant to the abstract system (remember that it's only the rules themselves that count). Recall that in algebra, the truth value of a statement like "x = 5" is independent of what particular symbol we use on the left-hand side of the equals sign. We could use "y = 5" or "papa_smurf = 5" and the statement would still stand. Similarly, the logically correct gamer knows that the utility and meaning of a ruleset is independent of such fluffy labels as "fighter", "weapon", "spell", "level" or any of the other English words that mar the elegance of the D&D rules. Here are some example passages from the PHB, translated into logically correct algebra: 5f | >= 5f == NULL AoO: thr & {<->, ! thr} & >= 5f -> AoO StrW : MeA | Sl, Bl, AW >= DW-1 1. AoO 2. R = Atk x Atk 3a. R > 0 : Dmg - Hd 3b. R <= 0 : END Arm : It[Arm] != NULL Mnk & Arm -> WisAC <- 0, MnkAC <- 0, All Atk[MnkA] | MnkA <= RegA <- Atk[RegA], Atk[MnkA] | MnkA > RegA <- NULL, Mov <- Mov[Base, Enc], ASF% <- ASF[Arm] As you can see, this system has unlimited potential to clear up the nasty ambiguities and irregularities that continue to plague Dungeons and Dragons. HTH! [/QUOTE]

Verification