Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 5406589" data-attributes="member: 91777">I fall into the 'people are not computers' category on this argument.  As delightful as it is to have pre-defined turns like 'burst' and 'close' that have specific technical meanings within the rules, it is confusing to many non-DMs.  Is it elegant?  Yes.  But clarity trumps elegance.  If a rule confuses people, no matter how elegant it is, it needs to be expanded on and clarified.  We can argue in circles where the line is, but I take a practical view - does 'close burst single target in burst' suggest a ranged attack that does not provoke OA to people who haven't memorized the burst section?  No.  So it could be clearer, and should be written that way.I'm not saying that every possible implication of every rule needs to be written into every power.  Obviously you need the pre-defined technical terms to keep each At-Will power block from turning into a ten-page explanation.  But there are many, many instances where the 'intended effect' of a power is buried in technical, rules-specific terms.  I think it wouldn't kill them to write out the main point of a power: "This power is a ranged attack that does not provoke OAs."  Is that so bad?When I'm writing code in a computer language, every statement has one and only one possible meaning.  If a statement is ambiguous, even a little, the code will not compile.  There's something to be said for writing a statement as concisely as possible, since it will always be unambiguous to the computer.Natural language does not work like this.In natural language, every sentence, every phrase, every word is loaded with conceptual baggage and possible alternative meanings.  As noted philosopher Bill Clinton once pondered, "That depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is."  Treating natural language like a computer language (or vice versa) is, IMHO, a mistake, since they are intended for fundamentally different purposes.Although it would appear that there are plenty of people on these forums that think otherwise, the truth is that you cannot write a sentence in English that is completely unambiguous, i.e. it has one and only one possible meaning.  Everything you read, you interpret, at some level or other.  You see the term RAW, Rules As Written, bandied about as if there were some way to parse the rules free of bias and interpretation.  I'm sorry, but you can't, because you're a human and you're reading rules written by other humans.That doesn't means we should throw our hands up and start making up rules willy nilly.  My life depends every day on my ability to correctly interpret natural language instructions like 'STOP' and 'DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE'.  There are general, common sense understandings of these statements that most people will agree on most of the time.  They have a certain clarity and simplicity about them which helps.Game rules should work the same way: Simplicity and clarity should be favored over technical and obtuse; When possible be explicit, don't imply things; Remember that humans are not computers and that natural language is inherently ambiguous; Don't try to be elegant or clever, just say what you mean.We'll never get away from having arguments over 'corner cases' like lines going around corners.  That just stems from our use of natural language.  But I think the focus of a rule should be on making clear the most common application of the rule (ie to not provoke OAs).  That's entirely feasible.  4e could certainly do it better.</blockquote>

Verification