David Dunham:
> Alex replies to another David
>
> > > Once again, David and the SFC provide us with opinions based
> > > on years of actual playtest data.
> >
> > Are you planning on agreeing with _everything_ David says now, due
> > to his antique campaign? That'd be a first... ;-)
>
> That'd be the Orlanthi Way: "Our ancestors have always rolled d20.
> We're not going to switch to d12, even if it is better and faster."
On the principle that every saying has an equal and opposite counterproverb: "No-one can make us roll d20's!", and indeed, "There is always another way (than rolling a d20)."
I must make a confession that I'd actually intended to send that privately to Dave C., and rolled a 20 (I mean, a series of 12's, that's it!) on my "use mailer" ability (or maybe I just got a _really stiff_ sit-mod...), and you see the results before you. So I'll try to take the counter-abuse with a measure of forebearance. (On the upside, maybe it indicates I'm only slightly ruder about you in (intended) private than in public? <gdr>)
> > This line of argument can easily be overused. And given I've seen
> > it half a dozen times in the couple of week I've resumed reading
> > this list, I'd say that time was long since passed.
>
> Surely I haven't used it that much recently...
No, you kicked the trend off, it seems, and others followed in your estimable example. *tugs forelock*
> Still, I think it's a
> legitimate counterargument against "this part of the rules is
> broken," since you'd expect that if it were broken, we might have
> noticed it by now.
To a degree, I concur. I just don't think such an argument should be over-used, and especially when it applies to debates about rules that _no-one_ has tested much/at all, or, as you say, overcome the "de gustibus" factor.
Powered by hypermail