> > I'm not saying this. I'm not implying this. You seem really intent on
> > inferring it, which is your prerogative.
>
> Certainly seems that way to me -
>
> Your own words, from a message of July 27:
Don't make assumptions about the final published text based on off-the-cuff messages sent to a mailing list.
> My problem is that you are giving me a choice between "your way" and "a
> piece of crap that you don't like". While you may not see it that way, I'm
> reading it loud and clear.
I guess at the end of the day I have to assume that the vast majority of readers will not make the most tendentious possible inference possible from the text, but will instead look at the armor rules and say either, "Hey, I buy that argument," or, like Trotsky, "I don't care about reasons X and Y, I still like armor rules." I also have to assume that if I repeatedly write, "The only right way to play the game is the way you want to play it," that only a small number of readers will take that to mean, "Robin thinks the way I want to play is stupid!"
> You, as the author, have the option to leave out what you think isn't
> useful. But if you're going to include something, don't prejudice the reader
> against it.
As a gamer, when I see an optional rule, I need to know why it's optional, to figure out whether I want to use it or not. If there's an issue with it, I want to know about that, so I can decide whether the issue matters to me. To withhold information on what the issues might be is just plain irresponsible design. Not to mention incredibly patronizing, to assume that the readers are delicate flowers whose fragile sensibilities have to be shielded from any hint of the author's viewpoint. Knowing where the designer is coming from is a useful shortcut helping me to make my customization decisions faster, and in a more informed manner.
Take care >>> Robin
Powered by hypermail