| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| BY the character creation rules, can you put more than 1 of the 3 "pips" into the same specialty, giving you 2D over skill? |
| Yes |
|
23% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
57% |
[ 12 ] |
| Other |
|
19% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Uh... I don't know. |
"Well you posted close enough to when I edited that you may have already started posting when I added to it, so I'll repost what I added and add some to see if that clears anything | Orion wrote: | | Another way to put it, is that it says "get 3", it doesn't say "go through the selection process 3 times". Getting 3 means you end up with 3, to end up with less, means you either didn't get 3 to begin with or you did something not prescribed to end up with fewer than the requirement. |
If you read the above then you posted after my edit, but let us continue. The author is giving us instructions to do something, so I'll put in those terms for you. I give you an instruction to get 3 balls and write a 1 on each ball. If you followed my instruction then you would have 3 balls in your possession each with a 1 on it, if you have fewer than 3 you haven't followed my instruction, because I asked you to get 3 of them, the same holds true for the rule, when it's all said and done if you don't have 3 specializations you haven't followed the rule.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | "Need to" is a strong phrase in this instance. How can you be certain there is no other way, that your way of looking at it is the only possible correct application, and mine is wrong? That strikes me as a rather whopping and insurmountable burden of proof... |
I don't have to be that certain I only have to be reasonably certain and put forth my arguments for why I am, but here's something I'm not sure you understand from your post. If I were to be proved wrong, which I don't believe I will, but if I were, that would not make you right, you must put forth your own arguments to support your position to try to prove that you're correct and keep in mind the person that has been putting forth the most arguments on the other side of this discussion, agrees with me on this point. In other words, it's not enough to prove me wrong, you must prove yourself right in order to settle it. The burden of proof does not lie solely with me.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | You see it one way. Most of the rest of them see it another. |
According to the poll, just over half the participants agree with me and Bren's vote probably isn't one of them as the poll is broader than the point we're discussing at the moment. He however just stated that he agrees with me on this point, so I'm not sure where your use of "most of the rest" comes from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I didn’t really think about that. Possibly because it’s been a long time since I was a teen or because as a young teen my friends and I were arguing about the rules for board games from Avalon Hill and SPI (which did tend to have precisely written rules) and we had to teach ourselves how to play the original version of D&D – also not the most precise rules ever written. |
Bookcase games! Those are some fond memory's and yes those rules were far more precise, which brings to mind a point that I was going to discuss with Crimson_red, before he decided to bow out of our discussion. Part of the problem of lack of precision comes from English not being a precise language. Now without launching into huge discussion on the subject, I just wanted to say that the lack of precision that is inherent in English is the main reason that I don't rely primarily on verbiage to interpret things. When you combine that inherent imprecision with people's general lack of attention to being precise, things get messy quickly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | In our games, and unused specialization dice revert to a proportionate number of pips for standard skills (i.e. a character can choose a single specialization, and then get two pips added back into his remaining 6D). |
In home games i house rule the same.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | In our games, and unused specialization dice revert to a proportionate number of pips for standard skills (i.e. a character can choose a single specialization, and then get two pips added back into his remaining 6D). |
A nice house rule, one I would even say follows the spirit of the RAW. As it appears your just joining us, let me bring you up to speed. For the last several pages we've been discussing our interpretations of the RAW, rather than how we play it. Your welcome to join us if you like, if go back a page or so you should be able to pick up enough to see where each of us stand on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | I don't have to be that certain I only have to be reasonably certain and put forth my arguments for why I am, but here's something I'm not sure you understand from your post. If I were to be proved wrong, which I don't believe I will, but if I were, that would not make you right, you must put forth your own arguments to support your position to try to prove that you're correct and keep in mind the person that has been putting forth the most arguments on the other side of this discussion, agrees with me on this point. In other words, it's not enough to prove me wrong, you must prove yourself right in order to settle it. The burden of proof does not lie solely with me. |
You're asking me to prove a negative.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon, just to be clear, ignoring my arguments for my interpretation of the RAW, is not disproving them.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | You're asking me to prove a negative. |
If you don't feel you can prove that the way your interpreting the RAW is correct, then why are you arguing it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
