D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[pemerton]

Yeah, try that again without trying to show off with the obfuscation of a misapplied academic vocabulary.

You should join in Mistwell's thread on that other site.

Any way, next time I'll use "obfuscate" - that piece of everyday conversational English - rather than "extrapolate".

 

[Mistwell]

You should join in Mistwell's thread on that other site.

Any way, next time I'll use "obfuscate" - that piece of everyday conversational English - rather than "extrapolate".

You're failing to communicate with your audience. It's important criticism. He didn't mean one word, he meant the whole thing.

For example, this entire paragraph, "By "ingame causation" I mean extropalting consequences from known fictional states via application of the causal reasoning that operates within the fiction."

If you want to communicate whatever that was supposed to mean, you should translate it into ordinary conversational English. I could try and figure it out, but I have no good reason to want to work that hard to try and understand what you're saying.

It's not anti-intellectualism to make this criticism. There is a duty on you to read your audience and communicate in a manner most likely to persuade or inform them. You're failing to do that. That's on you, not anyone else. We're just trying to let you know it's happening. If you choose to keep doing it, that's fine, just understand you're not communicating well with a sizable chunk of your audience, and there is nothing impressive about that. You could be writing in, to borrow a phrase from Blazing Saddles, "Authentic Frontier Gibberish," and accomplish the same thing.

 

[Manbearcat]

You're failing to communicate with your audience. It's important criticism. He didn't mean one word, he meant the whole thing.

For example, this entire paragraph, "By "ingame causation" I mean extropalting consequences from known fictional states via application of the causal reasoning that operates within the fiction."

Is that sentence really that (I was going to say opaque but I thought on it a bit and I guess I'll just say >) "out there?"

All he is saying is that if this happens:

Player: I have 100 HP. I jump down the 50 foot cliff.
GM: You take 5d10 damage. 28.

(ingame causation)

Player: Cool. 5d10 maxed is 50. I cannot die and will always live if I have more than 50 HP. If I have less than 50, I may die. If I had less than 27 there is a good chance I would have died. Got it. (extrapolating consequences from known fictional states - at top of cliff and alive to jumped to ground and still alive with greater than 50 HP but likely dead with less than 27 - via application of the causal reasoning that operates within the fiction - falling rules interacting with HP and what that means in play).

I don't know why billd91 attacked him for that. It was a cheap shot and it wasn't warranted and certainly deserved the response it got. I doubt it would have been done in real life.

 

[Mistwell]

Is that sentence really that (I was going to say opaque but I thought on it a bit and I guess I'll just say >) "out there?"

Yes. And frankly, if that's not bloody obvious to you, then I think you and I are failing to communicate well also.

Say that sentence to someone you know at work. Ask them if they have any idea what it means. I suspect they will answer "no, no clue." Unless of course you work at a University, or some game companies.

All he is saying is that if this happens:[cut explanation]"

Thank you for that explanation. I genuinely appreciate it. I am sure I could have gotten there if I had tried to parse it all and slowly break it down, but it would have felt like digging a ditch.

You were able to explain it in conversational English. All I am asking is that he does the same.

I don't know why billd91 attacked him for that.

I did not view it as an attack. He expressed my sentiments exactly, though I'd have left off the show-off part. And it's not like billd91 and I know each other and spoke about it at all. I think it's no coincidence that both of use felt exactly the same way about what he'd said. You will note, if you look at my reputation comments, that others also felt the same way.

It was a cheap shot and it wasn't warranted and certainly deserved the response it got. I doubt it would have been done in real life.

I think it was warranted, I do not think it was cheap, and I cannot speak for billd91 but I can speak for myself and say I'd definitely have said that in real life, except for the show-off part.

My brother is a professor. My sister-in-law is a professor. My two best friends are professors. A third friend was a professor and is now a Chancellor. I have a doctorate, and I now run a business that sells Doctoral Regalia to professors. Most of those people slip into Academia-Speak occasionally. So I have a lot of experience with Academia-Speak.

And when I run into someone from Academia that starts to talk like that, I let them know what they're doing. Sometimes they don't realize they're even speaking Academia instead of Conversational English, but more often they are aware of it and doing it for tactical reasons which are best countered by simply calling it out for what it is.

I have no idea what Pemerton's motivations were, and I am not assuming they were negative (I suspect they were not in fact, which is why I'd have left off the show-off part). But, billd91's description of how it came across to him, is similar to how it comes across to me, and based on some rep I got it's how it came across to others. I thought his reaction was entirely appropriate given the circumstances, and I am glad he said it. People should hear how they sound to others, particularly if they seem unaware.

 

[Marshall]

Yes. And frankly, if that's not bloody obvious to you, then I think you and I are failing to communicate well also.

Say that sentence to someone you know at work. Ask them if they have any idea what it means. I suspect they will answer "no, no clue." Unless of course you work at a University, or some game companies.



Thank you for that explanation. I genuinely appreciate it. I am sure I could have gotten there if I had tried to parse it all and slowly break it down, but it would have felt like digging a ditch.

You were able to explain it in conversational English. All I am asking is that he does the same.



I did not view it as an attack. He expressed my sentiments exactly, though I'd have left off the show-off part. And it's not like billd91 and I know each other and spoke about it at all. I think it's no coincidence that both of use felt exactly the same way about what he'd said. You will note, if you look at my reputation comments, that others also felt the same way.



I think it was warranted, I do not think it was cheap, and I cannot speak for billd91 but I can speak for myself and say I'd definitely have said that in real life, except for the show-off part.

My brother is a professor. My sister-in-law is a professor. My two best friends are professors. A third friend was a professor and is now a Chancellor. I have a doctorate, and I now run a business that sells Doctoral Regalia to professors. Most of those people slip into Academia-Speak occasionally. So I have a lot of experience with Academia-Speak.

And when I run into someone from Academia that starts to talk like that, I let them know what they're doing. Sometimes they don't realize they're even speaking Academia instead of Conversational English, but more often they are aware of it and doing it for tactical reasons which are best countered by simply calling it out for what it is.

I have no idea what Pemerton's motivations were, and I am not assuming they were negative (I suspect they were not in fact, which is why I'd have left off the show-off part). But, billd91's description of how it came across to him, is similar to how it comes across to me, and based on some rep I got it's how it came across to others. I thought his reaction was entirely appropriate given the circumstances, and I am glad he said it. People should hear how they sound to others, particularly if they seem unaware.

All that would have been true if pemerton had just left that one sentence to stand by itself. When he spent the next several paragraphs explaining what it meant it turns billd91's comment into pure snark.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Cut

 

[Guest 85555]

Cut since the quoted poster cut his post.

 

[ImperatorK]

Balance isn't bad. Balance is Art.

 

[Mistwell]

All that would have been true if pemerton had just left that one sentence to stand by itself. When he spent the next several paragraphs explaining what it meant it turns billd91's comment into pure snark.

I disagree. The rest of his post was filled with Academia-Speak as well. For example he spends a long paragraph talking about "action resolution" and "adjudicative roles" in "health states". What he means, in Conversational English, is we don't know how wounded PCs are when they lose hit points. But that's not how he says it - he says it in a very obscure, wordy, and jargon-laden manner.

I don't think it's at all snark to say to someone "cut out the obfuscation and academic vocabulary, if you want to communicate with me". It's a statement of fact - his choice of language is failing to communicate with a notable portion of his audience. If he wants to communicate, he's going to have to adapt his language to one his audience can more easily understand - it's not this audience's job to adapt to try and understand him. If he doesn't care about communicating well with his audience, that's fine. But, then it's also fine to point it out.

 

[billd91]

Is that sentence really that (I was going to say opaque but I thought on it a bit and I guess I'll just say >) "out there?"

All he is saying is that if this happens:

Player: I have 100 HP. I jump down the 50 foot cliff.
GM: You take 5d10 damage. 28.

(ingame causation)

Player: Cool. 5d10 maxed is 50. I cannot die and will always live if I have more than 50 HP. If I have less than 50, I may die. If I had less than 27 there is a good chance I would have died. Got it. (extrapolating consequences from known fictional states - at top of cliff and alive to jumped to ground and still alive with greater than 50 HP but likely dead with less than 27 - via application of the causal reasoning that operates within the fiction - falling rules interacting with HP and what that means in play).

What do you mean by "in-game causation". Your example is just metagame decision-making since it's out of character perspective and entirely player perspective. What causal mechanism are you trying to identify? Did the rules cause the player to make a jump decision in this fashion? Did the GM make a consequences decision based on in-game causal effects? What do either you or Pemerton mean in terms designed to communicate rather than block communication?