>Talk about straw men! Please, point to the post where anyone
>suggested refering to a dictionary? If you're refering to my posts,
>I say perfectly explicitly that I advocate refering to the myths,
>and I'm on record many times over as to how I view myths, their
>meanings and interpretations. In fact I posted on this subject
>just a moment ago.
Simon, I meant it in a metaphorical sense (and I think that's pretty clear). What I object to is basing the effect on some limited meaning of the words used. As though one had gone to the dictionary. That is, often when people find problems with interpretation of a magical ability title, they say, "ah, you can just interpret it as this definition of the term, and the problem vanishes." My point is that altering in-game meanings just to avoid a percieved mechanical problem isn't a good idea. Especially when the "problems" that people are solving with the interpretations aren't really problems at all.
To say otherwise means that the people doing the "wrong" interpretations that cause the percieved mechanical problems must be doing the interpreting incorrectly. When it's patently true that we're all supposed to do the interpretations on our own and how we like. I posit that any reasonably interpretation of an ability can be made to work just fine, and that the problems that the "interpretation" method tries to fix does not exist in the first place. So there's no need for it.
If any particular person feels that they don't do what I'm saying here, then perhaps they don't, and we don't need to continue with the argument. The only thing that I'll argue with is if anyone has the continuing idea that there is some problem that's solved by limiting the scope of abilities in arbitrary ways in order to avoid particular mechanical problems. Consider any non-respondent to this post to be innocent of all charges (no need for anyone to come along and say, "Well I don't think that.").
Mike
Powered by hypermail