And that is why I think writing fluff (in my own definition - world building for a game) is not easy.
Again, what makes what I wrote not qualify as this?
Still waiting on an answer to this pen.
English,
In your definition of fluff you did. I wholeheartedly accept it as fluff. But, please see my other three responses regarding my definition of fluff, one of which was directly to you.
I do not wish to argue over our semantical differences. I view fluff as different, and therefore, much more difficult to write.
Based on what I've read of your past definitions, you seem to be defining fluff in the same way. The only difference is one of quantity. EL's fluff is the equivalent of walking to the corner store, while yours is walking to the next state. It's the same dang thing, just a matter of quantity.
Again, what makes what I wrote not qualify as this?[/quote]Still waiting on an answer to this pen.[/quote]English,In your definition of fluff you did. I wholeheartedly accept it as fluff. But, please see my other three responses regarding my defini
@zago I agree. D&D math is rather easy. It's the same math used to play the game. The math issues complained about is usually: 1) Disagreement with what is perceived as the designers' design goals 2) Displeasure with the amount of oversight over the design goals. "Math errors" are often disagreements with the design teams' vision or confusion of how certain items got past their view. When either happens, it can create a disassociation between the gamer's vision and how gameplay occurs.
Yeah, its not the same math, see my others posts in this thread where I explain it...
Yeah, its not the same math, see my others posts in this thread where I explain it...
I don't see it. There's less math in the play test than the equivalent pages in the 3.0 handbook. Spells alone trimmed out half or more of the calculation involved thanks to the removal of spell caster level effects.
Furthermore, yes, the story is important to DnD, however the devs don't supply that. We do, the story is OUR job. It has always been OUR job. Do the mechanics influence the stories? Yes they define what a player can do in the game world, and how the players and DM interact, but the actual story is still primarily OUR responsibility.
The devs' job is to present a system and content that we can use to tell the stories, since the devs can't predict every single player, DM, and scenario anymore than I can tell you the personal history of every grain of sand on a beach they need to provide a solid balanced system that doesn't break easily and provides a lot of freedom.
They don't need to write tons of fluff.
Yeah, there is the math the players work with to have a fun time playing the game, and there is the math the developers do to make sure the math for the players works. Two different categories. Here's an example:
Developer Math Dwarf Fighter with great axe attack: 1d20(average 5.5) + 5 (str) + 5 (wab) + 1 (great axe +1) vs. AC 10 = 100 - (((10 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 55% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 55% Damage = 7.15; 5% Crit = 1.25; Total average damage over a round = 8.4 vs. AC 12 = 100 - (((12 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 35% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 35% damage = 4.55; Crit: 5% = 1.25; Total = 5.8 vs. AC 14 = 100 - (((14 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 15% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 15% damage: 1.95; 5% crit: 1.25; Total = 3.2 vs. AC 16 = 100 - (((16 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 5% Crit: 5% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 5% damage: 0.65; 5% crit: 1.25; total = 1.9 vs. AC 18 = 100 - (((18 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 0% Crit: 5% (minimum for a roll of 20) Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 5% crit: 1.25; total = 1.25; vs. AC 20 = 100 - (((18 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 0% Crit: 5% (minimum for a roll of 20) Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 5% crit: 1.25; total = 1.25;
Or something thereabouts. They look at that and decide what the AC of a given monster should be and how many hit points it should have etc...etc...
So they do very different math than we do...
I assume this is what your talking about. Definately not hard. The hardest set of mathematics I've seen a need for is calculating the curve for advantage and disadvantage rolls. This is much easier.
Math only gives you data. D&D Next Developers are trying solve for fun, which is not exactly defined the same away for everyone. Mathematics are really only a measuring tool. They can set an objective for a certain success rate and go about adjusting things to get the desired effect. Math is actually the least important part, or least I should say the easiest to assess. Its probably great for their interenal test groups where thet set up encounters with 65% hit rates, 50% hit rates, and 80% and asked them whcih they enjoyed the most.
Anyone who thinks they(developers) don't understand the core mathematics of the system is deluding themselves. They might have some wonky areas, like skill mastery, but they have made it very clear that they did that on purpose. i.e. pulling most of the rogues combat pillar away, and giving him ultra skill capability. This wan't a test of the system we did for them, it was a test of our reactions. Does godlike skill capability make the rogue intersting even if he is weak in combat? Our answer was no.... This was not a math problem, it was a people problem, and they got their answer.
Math problems in XP gain you say.... Hmmm could this be because they want us to level faster and test charachter at higher levels faster? Get a feel for progression, microwave style?
Math Problems in the Fighters XD, is that becasue they want to get us to higher number faster perhaps?
@Orzel: totally agree. @lokaire: Sure they calculate averages...and so do I. When you get to certain point of making calculatios like these as a designer, you already know basic effect before the calculation. (I've been doing calculations for tactical wargames for 15 years now, that math makes this math look like cave paintings.)
Yeah, there is the math the players work with to have a fun time playing the game, and there is the math the developers do to make sure the math for the players works. Two different categories. Here's an example:Player MathAttack: 1d20 + 5 (str) + 5
a circle is round regardless of what you think,it just IS. writing fluff that is good enough for a PHB IS easy, and even if you somehow manage to get it wrong its not a big deal. making mechanics good enough to function in a RPG IS hard, and if you do mess up it makes the game not function.
if the fluff of the palidan says that he is lawfull good,and must be of a lawfull good god,and must uphold a list of things that contradict each other or lose his power it is annoying but can easily be ignored. you can easily and just ignore the fluff or make up your own...
Normally, criticizing someone's grammar on the internet just makes one look like an ass. However, there is hilarious irony in a post declaring that writing at professionally acceptable level is "easy," in which the poster manages to drop every capitalization, ruin parallel structure, and can't even spell "paladin."
It really demonstrates how wrong that position is, much better than any rebuttal could.
Normally, criticizing someone's grammar on the internet just makes one look like an ass. However, there is hilarious irony in a post declaring that writing at professionally acceptable level is "easy," in which the poster manages to drop every capi
a circle is round regardless of what you think,it just IS. writing fluff that is good enough for a PHB IS easy, and even if you somehow manage to get it wrong its not a big deal. making mechanics good enough to function in a RPG IS hard, and if you do mess up it makes the game not function. if the fluff of the palidan says that he is lawfull good,and must be of a lawfull good god,and must uphold a list of things that contradict each other or lose his power it is annoying but can easily be ignored. you can easily and just ignore the fluff or make up your own...
Normally, criticizing someone's grammar on the internet just makes one look like an ass. However, there is hilarious irony in a post declaring that writing at professionally acceptable level is "easy," in which the poster manages to drop every capitalization, ruin parallel structure, and can't even spell "paladin." It really demonstrates how wrong that position is, much better than any rebuttal could.
I doubt that evaluation. Grammar is decidedly technical, and not a matter of creativity. Fluff is the opposite.
Normally, criticizing someone's grammar on the internet just makes one look like an ass. However, there is hilarious irony in a post declaring that writing at professionally acceptable level is "easy," in which the poster manages to drop every capita
I don't see it. There's less math in the play test than the equivalent pages in the 3.0 handbook. Spells alone trimmed out half or more of the calculation involved thanks to the removal of spell caster level effects.
Furthermore, yes, the story is important to DnD, however the devs don't supply that. We do, the story is OUR job. It has always been OUR job. Do the mechanics influence the stories? Yes they define what a player can do in the game world, and how the players and DM interact, but the actual story is still primarily OUR responsibility.
The devs' job is to present a system and content that we can use to tell the stories, since the devs can't predict every single player, DM, and scenario anymore than I can tell you the personal history of every grain of sand on a beach they need to provide a solid balanced system that doesn't break easily and provides a lot of freedom.
They don't need to write tons of fluff.
Yeah, there is the math the players work with to have a fun time playing the game, and there is the math the developers do to make sure the math for the players works. Two different categories. Here's an example:
Developer Math Dwarf Fighter with great axe attack: 1d20(average 5.5) + 5 (str) + 5 (wab) + 1 (great axe +1) vs. AC 10 = 100 - (((10 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 55% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 55% Damage = 7.15; 5% Crit = 1.25; Total average damage over a round = 8.4 vs. AC 12 = 100 - (((12 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 35% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 35% damage = 4.55; Crit: 5% = 1.25; Total = 5.8 vs. AC 14 = 100 - (((14 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 15% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 15% damage: 1.95; 5% crit: 1.25; Total = 3.2 vs. AC 16 = 100 - (((16 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 5% Crit: 5% Damage: 2d6 (3.5+3.5 average) + 5 + 1 = 13 Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 5% damage: 0.65; 5% crit: 1.25; total = 1.9 vs. AC 18 = 100 - (((18 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 0% Crit: 5% (minimum for a roll of 20) Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 5% crit: 1.25; total = 1.25; vs. AC 20 = 100 - (((18 - (5+5+1))-1) * 5) = 0% Crit: 5% (minimum for a roll of 20) Crit: 12 + 5 + 1 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 25; 5% crit: 1.25; total = 1.25;
Or something thereabouts. They look at that and decide what the AC of a given monster should be and how many hit points it should have etc...etc...
So they do very different math than we do...
I assume this is what your talking about. Definately not hard. The hardest set of mathematics I've seen a need for is calculating the curve for advantage and disadvantage rolls. This is much easier.
Math only gives you data. D&D Next Developers are trying solve for fun, which is not exactly defined the same away for everyone. Mathematics are really only a measuring tool. They can set an objective for a certain success rate and go about adjusting things to get the desired effect. Math is actually the least important part, or least I should say the easiest to assess. Its probably great for their interenal test groups where thet set up encounters with 65% hit rates, 50% hit rates, and 80% and asked them whcih they enjoyed the most.
Anyone who thinks they(developers) don't understand the core mathematics of the system is deluding themselves. They might have some wonky areas, like skill mastery, but they have made it very clear that they did that on purpose. i.e. pulling most of the rogues combat pillar away, and giving him ultra skill capability. This wan't a test of the system we did for them, it was a test of our reactions. Does godlike skill capability make the rogue intersting even if he is weak in combat? Our answer was no.... This was not a math problem, it was a people problem, and they got their answer.
Math problems in XP gain you say.... Hmmm could this be because they want us to level faster and test charachter at higher levels faster? Get a feel for progression, microwave style?
Math Problems in the Fighters XD, is that becasue they want to get us to higher number faster perhaps?
@Orzel: totally agree. @lokaire: Sure they calculate averages...and so do I. When you get to certain point of making calculatios like these as a designer, you already know basic effect before the calculation. (I've been doing calculations for tactical wargames for 15 years now, that math makes this math look like cave paintings.)
I call it difficult because I only see a small group of posters on these forums able to comprehend and produce it. You might be in that handful, however for the majority of people that math is difficult...
Yeah, there is the math the players work with to have a fun time playing the game, and there is the math the developers do to make sure the math for the players works. Two different categories. Here's an example:Player MathAttack: 1d20 + 5 (str) + 5
Ha ha this is the best line ever.1 + 1 = FUNHyup, 'nuff said.[/quote]Actually psychologists have quantified a mathematical equation for fun. You can find the explanation here.
I doubt that evaluation. Grammar is decidedly technical,and not a matter of creativity.
eecummings says you're wrong. Among others.
Fluff is the opposite.
You think professional writing sufficient to be published in a PHB doesn't have to follow technical rules? Good luck getting published.
eecummings says you're wrong. Among others.You think professional writing sufficient to be published in a PHB doesn't have to follow technical rules? Good luck getting published.
I doubt that evaluation. Grammar is decidedly technical,and not a matter of creativity.
eecummings says you're wrong. Among others.
Fluff is the opposite.
You think professional writing sufficient to be published in a PHB doesn't have to follow technical rules? Good luck getting published.
I think that you're being intentionally obtuse. If one lacks proper grammar, one can always revise for the sake of improving grammar. However, if one lacks creativity then all the perfect grammar in the world won't help them when it comes to writing fluff. Now there are certainly parts of the rulebooks that are more rules heavy, and could easily be the province of an uncreative grammar expert.
eecummings says you're wrong. Among others.You think professional writing sufficient to be published in a PHB doesn't have to follow technical rules? Good luck getting published.[/quote]I think that you're being intentionally obtuse. If one lacks pr
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
the very fact you have no good reasons to discount my point, only less then meaningless insults means either A) your objections are not founded on logic (and your therefor an idiot) or B) you have no objections, you just like to insult people.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but
Creative and fiction writers are generally hyper-concsious of all technical conventions of the language they use, because they have to know when to break it for creative reasons. Unintentional breaks in language correctness demonstrate lack of skill and knowledge. intentional and appropriate breaks are always designed to make a point. A great example of this is stream of consciousness-style writing which demonstrates the free-flowing thoughts of a character as they come with zero modification as they are experienced completely unfiltered and raw which can give insights into how a character thinks but this generally ends up looking like a large run-on sentence. See what I did there?
Character-specific dialect can also break grammar convention. Cajun dialect for example, might look something lke this; "Hey, saying nothing. Just going back to my drink me." Breaking grammar can absolutely be done in a creative way, but it can't be an excuse for lack of mastery of the language. In rhetoric and technical forms, lack of grammatical correctness is generally unacceptable.
Creative and fiction writers are generally hyper-concsious of all technical conventions of the language they use, because they have to know when to break it for creative reasons. Unintentional breaks in language correctness demonstrate lack of skill
I call it difficult because I only see a small group of posters on these forums able to comprehend and produce it. You might be in that handful, however for the majority of people that math is difficult...
The stuff in that post was elementary. Advantage/Disadvantage and take the highest/lowest of x dice is probably more complex for more people.
The issue I have with WotC is the carelessness of their math. In other words, I do believe that some of them can perform the math (or at least look it up); however, without a person dedicated to checking the math, you still get wonky stuff. The rogue skill mastery is just one example; I listed two others. There are more issues in the math department than those three. It's not an isolated incident; it has spanned across 3rd edition and 4th edition.
I guess it's too much to want it stop at 5th edition.
The stuff in that post was elementary. Advantage/Disadvantage and take the highest/lowest of x dice is probably more complex for more people. The issue I have with WotC is the carelessness of their math. In other words, I do believe that some of t
Creative and fiction writers are generally hyper-concsious of all technical conventions of the language they use, because they have to know when to break it for creative reasons. Unintentional breaks in language correctness demonstrate lack of skill and knowledge. intentional and appropriate breaks are always designed to make a point. A great example of this is stream of consciousness-style writing which demonstrates the free-flowing thoughts of a character as they come with zero modification as they are experienced completely unfiltered and raw which can give insights into how a character thinks but this generally ends up looking like a large run-on sentence. See what I did there?
Character-specific dialect can also break grammar convention. Cajun dialect for example, might look something lke this; "Hey, saying nothing. Just going back to my drink me." Breaking grammar can absolutely be done in a creative way, but it can't be an excuse for lack of mastery of the language. In rhetoric and technical forms, lack of grammatical correctness is generally unacceptable.
No one is saying that creative writers don't employ proper grammar. They often have to because of the nature of the publishing business.
No one is saying that creative writers don't employ proper grammar. They often have to because of the nature of the publishing business.
And that is why I think writing fluff (in my own definition - world building for a game) is not easy.
Again, what makes what I wrote not qualify as this?
Still waiting on an answer to this pen.
English,
In your definition of fluff you did. I wholeheartedly accept it as fluff. But, please see my other three responses regarding my definition of fluff, one of which was directly to you.
I do not wish to argue over our semantical differences. I view fluff as different, and therefore, much more difficult to write.
Based on what I've read of your past definitions, you seem to be defining fluff in the same way. The only difference is one of quantity. EL's fluff is the equivalent of walking to the corner store, while yours is walking to the next state. It's the same dang thing, just a matter of quantity.
So the trailer to a movie is the same thing as the movie? The summary of a book is the same thing as reading the book? Reading a pair of cliff notes from a class is the same thing as attending all the lectures?
My view of fluff is far different than simply being longer or having more quantity. Hence, why I explicitly state I am wrong here. I view it differently than apparently almost everyone. I accept that.
Again, what makes what I wrote not qualify as this?[/quote]Still waiting on an answer to this pen.[/quote]English,In your definition of fluff you did. I wholeheartedly accept it as fluff. But, please see my other three responses regarding my defini
And that is why I think writing fluff (in my own definition - world building for a game) is not easy.
Again, what makes what I wrote not qualify as this?
Still waiting on an answer to this pen.
English,
In your definition of fluff you did. I wholeheartedly accept it as fluff. But, please see my other three responses regarding my definition of fluff, one of which was directly to you.
I do not wish to argue over our semantical differences. I view fluff as different, and therefore, much more difficult to write.
Based on what I've read of your past definitions, you seem to be defining fluff in the same way. The only difference is one of quantity. EL's fluff is the equivalent of walking to the corner store, while yours is walking to the next state. It's the same dang thing, just a matter of quantity.
So the trailer to a movie is the same thing as the movie? The summary of a book is the same thing as reading the book? Reading a pair of cliff notes from a class is the same thing as attending all the lectures?
My view of fluff is far different than simply being longer or having more quantity. Hence, why I explicitly state I am wrong here. I view it differently than apparently almost everyone. I accept that.
Lately I've begun to think that the trailers for a movie are better than the movie...
Again, what makes what I wrote not qualify as this?[/quote]Still waiting on an answer to this pen.[/quote]English,In your definition of fluff you did. I wholeheartedly accept it as fluff. But, please see my other three responses regarding my defini
Based on what I've read of your past definitions, you seem to be defining fluff in the same way. The only difference is one of quantity. EL's fluff is the equivalent of walking to the corner store, while yours is walking to the next state. It's the same dang thing, just a matter of quantity.
So the trailer to a movie is the same thing as the movie? The summary of a book is the same thing as reading the book? Reading a pair of cliff notes from a class is the same thing as attending all the lectures?
You're comparing apples to oranges because the trailer is made up of disconnected bits of the movie whereas EL's smaller quantity of fluff is entirely separate from your longer quantity fluff. Instead of a movie and it's trailer, it would be more accurate to compare a movie and an episode of an unrelated tv show.
So the trailer to a movie is the same thing as the movie? The summary of a book is the same thing as reading the book? Reading a pair of cliff notes from a class is the same thing as attending all the lectures?[/quote]You're comparing apples to ora
So the trailer to a movie is the same thing as the movie? The summary of a book is the same thing as reading the book? Reading a pair of cliff notes from a class is the same thing as attending all the lectures?
My view of fluff is far different than simply being longer or having more quantity. Hence, why I explicitly state I am wrong here. I view it differently than apparently almost everyone. I accept that.
Yes. They're both film, writing, and a class, respectively. When other people use 'fluff', they're referring to a broad category, while you're thinking of it as a small subset.
Yes. They're both film, writing, and a class, respectively. When other people use 'fluff', they're referring to a broad category, while you're thinking of it as a small subset.
So the trailer to a movie is the same thing as the movie? The summary of a book is the same thing as reading the book? Reading a pair of cliff notes from a class is the same thing as attending all the lectures?
My view of fluff is far different than simply being longer or having more quantity. Hence, why I explicitly state I am wrong here. I view it differently than apparently almost everyone. I accept that.
Yes. They're both film, writing, and a class, respectively. When other people use 'fluff', they're referring to a broad category, while you're thinking of it as a small subset.
its like he is saying that only movies are fiction, while everyone else is saying that tv shows are as well.
Yes. They're both film, writing, and a class, respectively. When other people use 'fluff', they're referring to a broad category, while you're thinking of it as a small subset.[/quote]its like he is saying that only movies are fiction, while everyo
No one is saying that creative writers don't employ proper grammar.
Actually, someone did say that...in fact, went so far as to declare that "grammar is decidedly technical, and not a matter of creativity." That type of false dualism might be the source of the confusion. Certainly it would explain captpike's inability to understand the irony of his own post, even when it was pointed out to him.
You're trying to defend someone who has declared that writing professional, publishable writing is "easy," while unable to follow even the basic conventions of written English. Is that really the side you want to be on?
Actually, someone did say that...in fact, went so far as to declare that "grammar is decidedly technical, and not a matter of creativity." That type of false dualism might be the source of the confusion. Certainly it would explain captpike's inabil
Actually, someone did say that...in fact, went so far as to declare that "grammar is decidedly technical, and not a matter of creativity." That type of false dualism might be the source of the confusion. Certainly it would explain captpike's inability to understand the irony of his own post, even when it was pointed out to him. You're trying to defend someone who has declared that writing professional, publishable writing is "easy," while unable to follow even the basic conventions of written English. Is that really the side you want to be on?
Nice offensive BS there, but we're used to that by now, are we not?
Okay, let me tell you something: Creative people do not always have perfect or even good grammar skills. Nor is grammar a matter of creativity. It is extremely decidedly not part of creativity. It's technical, and nothing else. Grammar is a matter of applying to correct pattern to your idea. That is technical. Creativity is coming up with that idea, and is, well, creative effort.
Let's take a quick example here: I write a lot, and typically get a lot of good feedback from everyone I hand my stuff out to, be it friends or strangers I asked to cross-read. What I am not as good as is grammar, since I have an actual aversion to grammar (thanks to horribly bad teachers in school). Does that suddenly make me uncreative? Even though I can create you any number of worlds on the fly and typically draw my players into my worlds within a few minutes of storytelling?
Do you really want to tell me you see no difference between grammar and the actual creative process?
There is a reason lectors and editors exist, because writers make errors. No matter how much training they have, they make errors in sentence contruction all the time. That's normal. That's why you go over the thing one or two more times after you've amassed a large amount of story and let it be cross-checked by at least 2 people.
What you see as written down is not a first draft. Far from it. What you read in most books is the 4th, 5th or 9th version of the chapter / book in question, because it got changed around a little and the language reworked here and there.
Nice offensive BS there, but we're used to that by now, are we not?Okay, let me tell you something: Creative people do not always have perfect or even good grammar skills. Nor is grammar a matter of creativity. It is extremely decidedly not part of c
Okay, let me tell you something: Creative people do not always have perfect or even good grammar skills.
They certainly do if they want to be taken seriously. Please reread my post. CaptPike declared not only that creativity was easy, but that creative writing which was good enough to be published in a PHB - that is, which would at the very least follow the conventions of professional writing - was "easy." This is an insupportable position, and the irony lies in the fact that his own post disproved his thesis.
Nor is grammar a matter of creativity. It is extremely decidedly not part of creativity. It's technical, and nothing else.
Again, please let me urge you to read the work of ee cummings, or the concrete poetry movement, or Leslie Marmon Silko, Terry Pratchett, Neal Stephenson, or any of the thousands of other writers who regularly twist grammatical conventions specifically for creative purposes.
What you see as written down is not a first draft. Far from it. What you read in most books is the 4th, 5th or 9th version of the chapter / book in question, because it got changed around a little and the language reworked here and there.
Huh. It's almost as if you're declaring that CaptPike's position, that writing professionally publishable material is "easy," is pure BS. Thanks for agreeing with me.
They certainly do if they want to be taken seriously. Please reread my post. CaptPike declared not only that creativity was easy, but that creative writing which was good enough to be published in a PHB - that is, which would at the very least foll
Okay, let me tell you something: Creative people do not always have perfect or even good grammar skills.
They certainly do if they want to be taken seriously. Please reread my post. CaptPike declared not only that creativity was easy, but that creative writing which was good enough to be published in a PHB - that is, which would at the very least follow the conventions of professional writing - was "easy." This is an insupportable position, and the irony lies in the fact that his own post disproved his thesis.
I can do nothing but laugh intensively at your position. You are not being dismissed because you make a few grammatical errors. Again, have you ever heared of a lector / editor? Apparently not. Apparently no writer ever need for someone to proofread his works. The most common occurance in the writing business suddenly does not exist because... you claim that writers inevitably have perfect grammar.
I call utter BS to the point of ridicule.
Nor is grammar a matter of creativity. It is extremely decidedly not part of creativity. It's technical, and nothing else.
Again, please let me urge you to read the work of ee cummings, or the concrete poetry movement, or Leslie Marmon Silko, Terry Pratchett, Neal Stephenson, or any of the thousands of other writers who regularly twist grammatical conventions specifically for creative purposes.
No thanks, no interest.
Let me ask you a question... do you maybe think that "using grammar creatively" might not be the same as "GRAMMAR IS CREATIVE BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE CAN USE IT CREATIVELY!" ?
I'll let you think about that for a few minutes. Please take your time before answering. You'll really need to mull this one over.
What you see as written down is not a first draft. Far from it. What you read in most books is the 4th, 5th or 9th version of the chapter / book in question, because it got changed around a little and the language reworked here and there.
Huh. It's almost as if you're declaring that CaptPike's position, that writing professionally publishable material is "easy," is pure BS. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Fluff in the PHB has never been stellar, nor really all that good. Passable and fit for purpose, yes. But that's pretty easy in my opinion.
They certainly do if they want to be taken seriously. Please reread my post. CaptPike declared not only that creativity was easy, but that creative writing which was good enough to be published in a PHB - that is, which would at the very least foll
Here's my theory about why people with small reference pools or cognitive biases or who don't pay much attention or whatever think that people who are interested in the mechanical challenge of the game are bad roleplayers:
There are basically three types of people playing D&D (more or less; this is an abstraction and a simplification.)
1) People who care about the mechanical challenge of the game, but aren't very interested in roleplaying. 2) People who care about roleplaying, but aren't very interested in the mechanical challenges of the game. 3) People who are interested in both roleplaying and in the mechanical challenge of the game.
(Obviously people who are interested in neither exist - in fact they're the largest category of humans - but they don't play D&D, so we don't see them.) ---------------------
May i help you to improve you're theory a little?
I adjust to number 3, but i must add some considerations
I'm fully interested in roleplaying all the time and also fully interested in mechanical stuff, but only outside the game.
I try to check most mechanical stuff before game starts, see how it works and how it feels. But when the game is going on, i can easily throw it away if it starts messing with my roleplaying.
So i'm always interested in roleplaying. That's even before game starts, by creating a robust backstory for my character without trying to get any mechanical advantage. I don't start from a idea of what i want my character to be good at, i start my character from where did he or she born, who raised him/her, how he/she become interested in adventuring, likes and dislikes, personality and such things. From then on, i must check if rules are available to "mechanize" my idea.
If there are no rules, well it's time to do them. If there are rules which don't satisfy my needs... fix or replace them to adjust to my idea.
Rules aren't chains for me, they're just guidelines. But i understand that there are other people who prefer just to go always by the rules (or stay as true as possible to them), because lack of creativity, time, laziness or anything else. It's fair either way and surely it must fit with group style.
May i help you to improve you're theory a little?I adjust to number 3, but i must add some considerationsI'm fully interested in roleplaying all the time and also fully interested in mechanical stuff, but only outside the game.I try to check most mec
I can do nothing but laugh intensively at your position....have you ever heared of a lector / editor? Apparently not. Apparently no writer ever need for someone to proofread his works...I call utter BS to the point of ridicule....I'll let you think about that for a few minutes. Please take your time before answering. You'll really need to mull this one over.
You seem very intent on 'proving' that it is easy to produce professional level writing. I'm not sure this is supported by an apparent inability to maintain even a generally civil degree of discourse in an informal internet forum. That would seem to undercut your point rather severely.
Fluff in the PHB has never been stellar, nor really all that good. Passable and fit for purpose, yes. But that's pretty easy in my opinion.
Again, given your difficulty noted above, I'm not sure how you intend to make your case. Particularly when you admit yourself that in order to reach the professional level, even the PHB fluff needs must go through, by your estimate, as many as 9 revisions. That hardly sounds "pretty easy."
All of this is a sidebar to the actual point of this thread, of course: that so-called "fluff," the narrative conventions of the game, precede and dictate mechanics, rather than the other way around.
You seem very intent on 'proving' that it is easy to produce professional level writing. I'm not sure this is supported by an apparent inability to maintain even a generally civil degree of discourse in an informal internet forum. That would seem t
98% of the math should be easily attainble by a B average highschool student. I think where you guys see math problems, they are actually designer's intentions, or possibly just errors.
The front-facing math should be easily attainable by a D-average 2nd-grader. The system-kernel math is where a doctorate in various forms of calculus and combinatorics would be nice.
The front-facing math should be easily attainable by a D-average 2nd-grader.The system-kernel math is where a doctorate in various forms of calculus and combinatorics would be nice.
You seem very intent on 'proving' that it is easy to produce professional level writing. I'm not sure this is supported by an apparent inability to maintain even a generally civil degree of discourse in an informal internet forum. That would seem to undercut your point rather severely.
I seem intent on dispelling BS.
Civil discourse does not factor into that. If your feelings have been hurt, I couldn't care less.
If you feel you need to sidestep my points and attack my demeanor, go ahead, you are only shooting yourself in the foot repeadetly. Either tackle the points or stop embarassing yourself.
Fluff in the PHB has never been stellar, nor really all that good. Passable and fit for purpose, yes. But that's pretty easy in my opinion.
Again, given your difficulty noted above, I'm not sure how you intend to make your case. Particularly when you admit yourself that in order to reach the professional level, even the PHB fluff needs must go through, by your estimate, as many as 9 revisions. That hardly sounds "pretty easy."
All of this is a sidebar to the actual point of this thread, of course: that so-called "fluff," the narrative conventions of the game, precede and dictate mechanics, rather than the other way around.
You know, your arguments get weaker post by post. Revisions are not "hard to create". Revisions are a bit of work, but nothing that's hard per say. Again, you have editors and lectors that help you out. If you have basic english skills, can write properly and have some imagination you can produce fluff that is on par with PHB-level fluff.
Then again, now "more time needed" relates to "incredibly hard" apparently. You should go into creative writing, your skills in "making up crap" is pretty good, apparently.
I seem intent on dispelling BS.Civil discourse does not factor into that. If your feelings have been hurt, I couldn't care less.If you feel you need to sidestep my points and attack my demeanor, go ahead, you are only shooting yourself in the foot re
Civil discourse does not factor into that. If your feelings have been hurt, I couldn't care less. If you feel you need to sidestep my points and attack my demeanor, go ahead, you are only shooting yourself in the foot repeadetly. Either tackle the points or stop embarassing yourself.
You are not in a position to hurt my feelings. You are in a position to demonstrate how difficult it can be to control one's rhetoric, even in an informal setting. That you are doing, thanks.
You know, your arguments get weaker post by post. Revisions are not "hard to create". Revisions are a bit of work, but nothing that's hard per say. Again, you have editors and lectors that help you out.
Why would you need editors, if writing is as "easy" as you claim? Just as a sidenote: this is the third time you've used the word "lector" as though it were some recognized editorial or teaching profession. No such position exists outside of church services, to my knowledge.
Then again, now "more time needed" relates to "incredibly hard" apparently. You should go into creative writing, your skills in "making up crap" is pretty good, apparently.
I have dabbled in creative writing. My first novel won a nice award. But that's beside the point.
You are not in a position to hurt my feelings. You are in a position to demonstrate how difficult it can be to control one's rhetoric, even in an informal setting. That you are doing, thanks.Why would you need editors, if writing is as "easy" as yo
You are in a position to demonstrate how difficult it can be to control one's rhetoric, even in an informal setting. That you are doing, thanks.
So, how am I doing this, exactly? By not exhibiting perfect language skills in a language I did not grow up with?
Oh, I am shocked.
You know, your arguments get weaker post by post. Revisions are not "hard to create". Revisions are a bit of work, but nothing that's hard per say. Again, you have editors and lectors that help you out.
Why would you need editors, if writing is as "easy" as you claim? Just as a sidenote: this is the third time you've used the word "lector" as though it were some recognized editorial or teaching profession. No such position exists outside of church services, to my knowledge.
For the first part, let my just say: *facepalm*. If you are incapable of understanding it, fine. Go ahead. I won't keep you.
As for your second part: Lector translates 1:1 to Lektor, a german word which indicates what essentially is an editor. If you enter the german word into dict.leo.org, which is an excellent word translator, you will find that lector and editor are both used.
Do you still not have any counter-arguments? Do you need to keep attacking minor non-problems?
Then again, now "more time needed" relates to "incredibly hard" apparently. You should go into creative writing, your skills in "making up crap" is pretty good, apparently.
I have dabbled in creative writing. My first novel won a nice award. But that's beside the point.
What kind of book?
So, how am I doing this, exactly? By not exhibiting perfect language skills in a language I did not grow up with?Oh, I am shocked.Why would you need editors, if writing is as "easy" as you claim?Just as a sidenote: this is the third time you've used
Good story telling and writing is not easy. Want proof? Simply check out for what passes for entertainment in many books, games and movies these days.
That said, I am not sure how the PHB is going to have "good" fluff if it is to maintain a generic flavor so that the game can cater to as many settings as possible. The fluff in the AD&D books was considered pretty bad, even back in the '70's when it was new. What made it cool, was how easily it was to integrate the fluff into a campaign world. The fact is, a rule book doesn't need awesome fluff. While excellent fluff would be nice, the very nature of that high quality fluff that makes it so alluring may well hamper the efforts of DMs and players to integrate such fluff into their more individual campaigns.
Now a published campaign setting better have quality content and inspiring fluff since that is mainly what you are paying for.
Notice that neither of the above really have anything to do with the math.
Good story telling and writing is not easy. Want proof? Simply check out for what passes for entertainment in many books, games and movies these days.That said, I am not sure how the PHB is going to have "good" fluff if it is to maintain a generic
Writing creative, original, compelling fluff is not easy. Thankfully, it is not a requirement for getting fluff published.
Neither is getting particularly stellar math, as previous editions have likely demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. The question then goes back to the OP issue: should the math drive the narrative choices, or vice versa. Up until the fourth edition, the answer was clearly that narrative trumped mechanical considerations. This was necessarily true even in 4E, since the mechanics simply don't exist without narrative rationale, but it was a good deal more opaque, to the point that some players, and even designers, may have come under the misapprehension that this was a game of mathematics, rather than one of storytelling.
Given the primacy of the narrative in a ttrpg, I think it's good to remember how difficult it is to write work which would be accepted by the potential customers as compelling enough both to merit purchase, and to justify the mechanics.
Neither is getting particularly stellar math, as previous editions have likely demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. The question then goes back to the OP issue: should the math drive the narrative choices, or vice versa. Up until the fourth edi
So, how am I doing this, exactly? By not exhibiting perfect language skills in a language I did not grow up with?
No, by failing to control your temper in a public forum. And now, apparently, by coming up with excuses for that failure. Every time you do so, you are underscoring the difficulty of writing well. Again, thank you for the object lesson.
For the first part, let my just say: *facepalm*. If you are incapable of understanding it, fine. Go ahead. I won't keep you.
The absence of an argument is not an argument. If you wish to cede the field, that's fine.
As for your second part: Lector translates 1:1 to Lektor, a german word which indicates what essentially is an editor...
So you are incorporating foreign words into the conversation, ones which mean the same thing, according to you, as the English word you were already using. And you are doing so in the course of arguing that writing clearly is "easy?"
What kind of book?
A novel about fantasy gaming. It won the EPIC award for best science fiction novel of the year by an independent publisher. Modesty and my dislike of spamming prevent me from providing a link, but I will PM you a an e-copy, if you like. Relative to this conversation: it was ridiculously difficult to write, as is any work even approaching a publishable level. Universally I have found that those who argue otherwise have never actually gotten anything published.
No, by failing to control your temper in a public forum. And now, apparently, by coming up with excuses for that failure. Every time you do so, you are underscoring the difficulty of writing well. Again, thank you for the object lesson.The absence
Another point to consider is that much of a rule book is not comprised of creative writing. The body of such books is actually technical writing which is a whole different animal.
Another point to consider is that much of a rule book is not comprised of creative writing. The body of such books is actually technical writing which is a whole different animal.
The math in D&D is widely regarded as some of the wonkiest, weakest math in all the land... mathematicians taking over would be a godsend.
Keep playing warcraft and everquest
Yeah! Get off his lawn!
LOL
I'd just like to echo the sentiment that good math is essential to a good system.
Keep playing warcraft and everquest[/quote]Yeah! Get off his lawn![/quote]LOLI'd just like to echo the sentiment that good math is essential to a good system.
As for your second part: Lector translates 1:1 to Lektor, a german word which indicates what essentially is an editor...
So you are incorporating foreign words into the conversation, ones which mean the same thing, according to you, as the English word you were already using. And you are doing so in the course of arguing that writing clearly is "easy?"
It's not a foreign word, it exists in the english language as well, as I pointed out. I use both editor and lector to make sure people understand. Maybe you are not capable of compehrending that writing on a forum is not the same as writing serious stuff. Maybe you are utterly unaware that people of multiple languages use the forum and thus additional clarity is welcome.
Honestly... I don't know why I still suffer through posting with you. You are a wall of ignorance and nothing comes through. I'll just leave it at that and do the thing I mostly did until now: Simply ignore your drivel.
Seems like the best idea, yeah.
As for your book, keep it. I have no interest.
But then again, apprently there is only really awesome stuff out there. There is no published stuff that is not entirely awesome, epic and totally perfect in all respects.
Ugh, there I go again. I'll just leave it at that.
So you are incorporating foreign words into the conversation, ones which mean the same thing, according to you, as the English word you were already using. And you are doing so in the course of arguing that writing clearly is "easy?"[/quote]It's not
It's not a foreign word, it exists in the english language as well, as I pointed out.]
Yes, and he pointed out that in the english languge, it means a religious reader. If you are using it to mean editor, then you are using the foreign version of the word, not the english one.
Yes, and he pointed out that in the english languge, it means a religious reader. If you are using it to mean editor, then you are using the foreign version of the word, not the english one.
Yes, and he pointed out that in the english languge, it means a religious reader. If you are using it to mean editor, then you are using the foreign version of the word, not the english one.
Except the english translation I use correctly translates it both ways into the right word.
Either the english language is also capable of using lector in relation to the german term or dict.leo.org has been wrong for the first time in over 10 years of use from my side of things.
Except the english translation I use correctly translates it both ways into the right word.Either the english language is also capable of using lector in relation to the german term or dict.leo.org has been wrong for the first time in over 10 years o
Okay, let me tell you something: Creative people do not always have perfect or even good grammar skills. Nor is grammar a matter of creativity. It is extremely decidedly not part of creativity. It's technical, and nothing else. Grammar is a matter of applying to correct pattern to your idea. That is technical. Creativity is coming up with that idea, and is, well, creative effort.
Let's take a quick example here: I write a lot, and typically get a lot of good feedback from everyone I hand my stuff out to, be it friends or strangers I asked to cross-read. What I am not as good as is grammar, since I have an actual aversion to grammar (thanks to horribly bad teachers in school). Does that suddenly make me uncreative? Even though I can create you any number of worlds on the fly and typically draw my players into my worlds within a few minutes of storytelling?
Do you really want to tell me you see no difference between grammar and the actual creative process?
There is a reason lectors and editors exist, because writers make errors. No matter how much training they have, they make errors in sentence contruction all the time. That's normal. That's why you go over the thing one or two more times after you've amassed a large amount of story and let it be cross-checked by at least 2 people.
What you see as written down is not a first draft. Far from it. What you read in most books is the 4th, 5th or 9th version of the chapter / book in question, because it got changed around a little and the language reworked here and there.
tldr: Good writing takes a lot of hard work by a lot of different people...
Edit: I think that is why people assume your statement supports the idea that good writing takes a lot of hard work by a lot of different people.
tldr: Good writing takes a lot of hard work by a lot of different people...Edit: I think that is why people assume your statement supports the idea that good writing takes a lot of hard work by a lot of different people.
I submit the following points which I hope we can agree on: 1) Professional writing is a lot of work, as indicated by the requirement for multiple people to work together on it (writers and editors), the need for several revisions, and the fact that people take collage courses to learn it and then get paid for applying their skills. 2) The creative ideas required to make PHB1 level fluff, which is primarily setting-independant rehashes of ideas which have existed since earlier versions of D&D, are not especially hard to come up with, especially for professional writers in WotC's employ. 3) The creative ideas required to make a complete setting, such as Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, and present it in a thorough manner such as a typical published setting book is reasonably hard, even for a professional writer in WotC's employ. (I specify "in WotC's employ" because we can assume WotC only hires professional writers who know what a "Wizard", a "Cleric", a "Rogue" and a "Fighter" are, and how they interrelate, etc. This assumption cannot be made of all professional writers in existance.)
I think it's important to get the mechanics right in terms of the emergent fluff they create at the table. I believe there was an example earlier of 3.x Monk and Ranger who were described/intended as highly mobile skirmishers, but in practice had substantially above-average incentive (especially at low levels) to stand in one place and trade blows. The Scout fit that description better with his skirmish dice, but still could actually be better off standing and fighting overall, depending on various factors, since his dice didn't necessarily make up the difference from losing his extra attacks. Even the Rogue was biased toward stand and fight, since he could get multiple sneak attack hits with a flank or such. Thus the story actually experienced in world is that weapon users, especially those supposedly highly mobile and skirmishery, do best when standing in one place trading blows. (Charge builds avoided this but could have their own limitations, and I managed to make a totemist/scout that was super mobile and indeed dealt much more damage with move+(4x)attack than she could standing and fighting.)
By contrast, 4e's mechanics create an emergent fluff in which Rangers and Rogues are often extremely mobile, and Monks are basically peerless in terms of mobility. Fighters tend to be much less mobile, and indeed tend to prefer stand-and-fight, but in this case it becomes the exception instead of the rule and serves to differentiate them notably from everyone else. (on the downside of 4e, we have to accept a bit of cognitive dissonance because 4e characters clearly live in a non-Euclidian space. Some people have trouble keeping that out of their mental narrative and just sort of rounding the corners in thier minds eye. I find the non-Euclidian rules to make things run much faster and smoother at the table, but I agree they are a bit jarring to think about.)
As some other points to consider to see how all this applies: 4e HS create the following narrative points: 1) A person can take a lot more beating over the course of a day than they can all at once: having a few minutes to rest helps a lot. 2) Nevertheless, no amount of resting lets someone go on taking beatings forever (maybe corner case exceptions, like Vampire, but they generally have some narrative sense). 3) An extreme high HP character (max con Warden w/ Toughness) is only about twice as hard to take down in any given moment as a low HP character (min Con Wizard w/o background stat-swapping). The difference in durability is primarily in the per day side (HSxHSV+HP) not the immediate side (HP alone). 4) True healing (defined as HP gain w/o a surge spend) is very rare and limited. However, characters can tap their long term reserves (w/ bonuses) through even a brief rest (Second Wind), quick first aid (Heal check to grant Second Wind) or even a bit of inspiration (Inspiring Word, Healing Word, Majestic Word, etc. Yes, Healing Word is not True healing. Cure Light Wounds is). True healing cannot be bottled and sold, but remedies that can tap your reserves can be. 5) A good nights sleep will get you back on the top of your game, except for any diseases you may be afflicted with.
By contrast, 3.5 healing rules create the following narrative points: 1) A person can take exactly the same amount of beating over the course of a day as they can all at once. Nothing short of a night's rest or magic will help, and it typically takes weeks to recover naturally from being beat up a lot. 2) An extreme high HP character (max Con Barbarian) is about 10x as hard to take down in any given moment as a low HP character (min Con (6, Elven) wizard), with the ratio scewing upward at higher levels (due to quadratic HP gain as Con rises). The difference is 100% on the immediate side, and in fact the low HP character will heal by natural rest much faster (percentage wise). 3) True healing is really common. It is a very frequent necessity. It can be packaged and sold in the form of potions, scrolls, or wands. (Assuming the DM allows. Even if magic-marts aren't present, the items themselves are likely to show up in loot.) 4) 1-2 Good night's sleep will get a typical party back to the top of their game, by virtue of the cleric healing everyone up with magic. A party without supernatural healing powers available will likely have to wait a week to recover, breaking up the pacing of the plot, or else go into the next day's challenges injured.
Now, there are positives and negatives to both of those emergent narratives, and even if you prefer one overall you don't have to be 100% happy with all of it. For example, 4e could use an optional injury system derived from the disease system to track wounds that continue to impare you even after a night's rest. It would give a much more gritty/dangerous feel. (I personally like 4e's superheroic/badass feel but not everyone does.) My main point is that the developers need to come up with good ideas for what they want the emergent narrative to be, and build mechanics that produce that emergent narrative. The HD mechanic, for example, give us points 1 & 2 from 4e's list and 2 & 3 from the 3.5 list (with I believe an option between 4e's 5 and 3.5's 4). I don't find it to be an ideal or compelling arrangement personally, but perhaps it will improve by the time of publication.
I submit the following points which I hope we can agree on:1) Professional writing is a lot of work, as indicated by the requirement for multiple people to work together on it (writers and editors), the need for several revisions, and the fact that p
I submit the following points which I hope we can agree on: 1) Professional writing is a lot of work, as indicated by the requirement for multiple people to work together on it (writers and editors), the need for several revisions, and the fact that people take collage courses to learn it and then get paid for applying their skills. 2) The creative ideas required to make PHB1 level fluff, which is primarily setting-independant rehashes of ideas which have existed since earlier versions of D&D, are not especially hard to come up with, especially for professional writers in WotC's employ. 3) The creative ideas required to make a complete setting, such as Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, and present it in a thorough manner such as a typical published setting book is reasonably hard, even for a professional writer in WotC's employ. (I specify "in WotC's employ" because we can assume WotC only hires professional writers who know what a "Wizard", a "Cleric", a "Rogue" and a "Fighter" are, and how they interrelate, etc. This assumption cannot be made of all professional writers in existance.)
No one is saying that creative writers don't employ proper grammar.
Actually, someone did say that...in fact, went so far as to declare that "grammar is decidedly technical, and not a matter of creativity."
You quote me, and yet you can't read the difference between the two statements? Grammar is a series of rules. Anyone can alter what they've written to adhere to the rules of grammar. However, if one lacks creativity, no amount of revision will make the fluff enticing, no matter how perfect its grammar may be.
Actually, someone did say that...in fact, went so far as to declare that "grammar is decidedly technical, and not a matter of creativity."[/quote]You quote me, and yet you can't read the difference between the two statements? Grammar is a series of
You quote me,and yet you can't read the difference between the two statements?
In part because the sentence you initially wrote was grammatically incorrect. I could not parse the mixed construction. As stated, you seemed to be implying that either grammar had no place in creative pursuits or that creative writing need not be grammatical. Both statements are demonstrably incorrect. Thank you for restating your position.
Grammar is a series of rules. Anyone can alter what they've written to adhere to the rules of grammar.
As I grade my students' final exam papers, how I wish that were true. Alas.
In part because the sentence you initially wrote was grammatically incorrect. I could not parse the mixed construction. As stated, you seemed to be implying that either grammar had no place in creative pursuits or that creative writing need not be
How come we are talking about grammar. We should be talking about how 5e currently has some of the worst math in any edition of D&D.
The how is not important, the why is. And the why is the "tyranny of feel", as it has been named.
Remember, math is utterly irrelevant as long as it somehow ""feels"" like D&D. Whatever that means.
The how is not important, the why is. And the why is the "tyranny of feel", as it has been named.Remember, math is utterly irrelevant as long as it somehow ""feels"" like D&D. Whatever that means.
As stated, you seemed to be implying that either grammar had no place in creative pursuits or that creative writing need not be grammatical. Both statements are demonstrably incorrect.
If this were always true, editors should be all out of the job. You can write creatively, but make some grammatical errors that you don't notice on the initial writing of it.
If this were always true, editors should be all out of the job. You can write creatively, but make some grammatical errors that you don't notice on the initial writing of it.
As stated, you seemed to be implying that either grammar had no place in creative pursuits or that creative writing need not be grammatical. Both statements are demonstrably incorrect.
If this were always true, editors should be all out of the job. You can write creatively, but make some grammatical errors that you don't notice on the initial writing of it.
Nope. Impossible. He knows, he published a book.
There are no errors in books, no revisions and everything published is always of great quality.
You heared it here first, folks!
If this were always true, editors should be all out of the job. You can write creatively, but make some grammatical errors that you don't notice on the initial writing of it.[/quote]Nope. Impossible. He knows, he published a book.There are no errors
I assume this is what your talking about. Definately not hard. The hardest set of mathematics I've seen a need for is calculating the curve for advantage and disadvantage rolls. This is much easier.
Since you bring up the example of advantage and disadvantage, I think it's worth pointing out that people on these boards frequently show that they don't understand the math involved.
In particular, many people calculate the expected value of a d20 roll (10.5), compare it to the expected value of a d20 roll with advantage (13.825) and use that to state the approximate bonus of advantage (3.325). The problem being that this is entirely wrong. Looking at expected value is a mistake, since we don't typically care what number the die shows, but rather only care if it is higher than a target number. The implicit, incorrect assumption that most people make is that all target numbers appear with equal frequency. We know that the game is specifically designed so that this is not the case.
For example, if the rolls needed were distributed as follows... (frequencies pulled out of thin air, but a reasonable starting point) Spoiler:Show
Frequency occurring
Roll needed for success
P(success on d20)
Stochastic process…
P(success with advantage)
Stochastic process…
1
1
0
1
0
0.01
2
0.95
0.0095
0.9975
0.009975
0.01
3
0.9
0.009
0.99
0.0099
0.01
4
0.85
0.0085
0.9775
0.009775
0.02
5
0.8
0.016
0.96
0.0192
0.05
6
0.75
0.0375
0.9375
0.046875
0.25
7
0.7
0.175
0.91
0.2275
0.3
8
0.65
0.195
0.8775
0.26325
0.25
9
0.6
0.15
0.84
0.21
0.05
10
0.55
0.0275
0.7975
0.039875
0.02
11
0.5
0.01
0.75
0.015
0.01
12
0.45
0.0045
0.6975
0.006975
0.01
13
0.4
0.004
0.64
0.0064
0.01
14
0.35
0.0035
0.5775
0.005775
15
0.3
0
0.51
0
16
0.25
0
0.4375
0
17
0.2
0
0.36
0
18
0.15
0
0.2775
0
19
0.1
0
0.19
0
20
0.05
0
0.0975
0
1
0.65
0.8705
...then we see that advantage changes the probability of success from 0.65 to 0.8705. The specifics are not important; what is relevant is that people ignore a substantial issue in understanding the maths of advantage because...
The point being that the ability to interpret the data is crucial, and in the case of something this complicated the ability to do so in a deep way is quite rare. It’s why I am very hesitant to accept this next point.
Anyone who thinks they(developers) don't understand the core mathematics of the system is deluding themselves. They might have some wonky areas, like skill mastery, but they have made it very clear that they did that on purpose. i.e. pulling most of the rogues combat pillar away, and giving him ultra skill capability. This wan't a test of the system we did for them, it was a test of our reactions. Does godlike skill capability make the rogue intersting even if he is weak in combat? Our answer was no.... This was not a math problem, it was a people problem, and they got their answer.
Math problems in XP gain you say.... Hmmm could this be because they want us to level faster and test charachter at higher levels faster? Get a feel for progression, microwave style?
Math Problems in the Fighters XD, is that becasue they want to get us to higher number faster perhaps?
I think it very likely that anyone who thinks he or she possesses a deep knowledge of the mathematics involved in the game is actually the one suffering under a delusion. I’m not saying that’s always the case, or the case in any particular instance (such as the author of this quotation, or any developer in the D&DN team), but it is far from a simple matter.
The examples given may well be appropriate; the devs may be intentionally skewing the mathematics in a certain direction to test the results. Indeed, it is probably the case that they have done exactly that. However, it does not immediately follow that they understand the maths of the system as a whole. I really don’t think we have enough information to make that determination.
Often, it is the consequences of a choice that are not immediately obvious that threaten the math of the system. A case in point would be the stacking of bonuses in 3E. While devs at the time may have had a decent grasp of the effect of a +2 bonus, I sincerely doubt they recognized the effect of bonus progression and stacking on the game. Indeed I recall them acknowledging as much when working on 4E, that 3E simply hit a “sweet spot” in a certain level range because the math “just worked out.”
Since you bring up the example of advantage and disadvantage, I think it's worth pointing out that people on these boards frequently show that they don't understand the math involved.In particular, many people calculate the expected value of a d20 ro
I assume this is what your talking about. Definately not hard. The hardest set of mathematics I've seen a need for is calculating the curve for advantage and disadvantage rolls. This is much easier.
Since you bring up the example of advantage and disadvantage, I think it's worth pointing out that people on these boards frequently show that they don't understand the math involved.
In particular, many people calculate the expected value of a d20 roll (10.5), compare it to the expected value of a d20 roll with advantage (13.825) and use that to state the approximate bonus of advantage (3.325). The problem being that this is entirely wrong. Looking at expected value is a mistake, since we don't typically care what number the die shows, but rather only care if it is higher than a target number. The implicit, incorrect assumption that most people make is that all target numbers appear with equal frequency. We know that the game is specifically designed so that this is not the case.
For example, if the rolls needed were distributed as follows... (frequencies pulled out of thin air, but a reasonable starting point)
Frequency occurring
Roll needed for success
P(success on d20)
Stochastic process…
P(success with advantage)
Stochastic process…
1
1
0
1
0
0.01
2
0.95
0.0095
0.9975
0.009975
0.01
3
0.9
0.009
0.99
0.0099
0.01
4
0.85
0.0085
0.9775
0.009775
0.02
5
0.8
0.016
0.96
0.0192
0.05
6
0.75
0.0375
0.9375
0.046875
0.25
7
0.7
0.175
0.91
0.2275
0.3
8
0.65
0.195
0.8775
0.26325
0.25
9
0.6
0.15
0.84
0.21
0.05
10
0.55
0.0275
0.7975
0.039875
0.02
11
0.5
0.01
0.75
0.015
0.01
12
0.45
0.0045
0.6975
0.006975
0.01
13
0.4
0.004
0.64
0.0064
0.01
14
0.35
0.0035
0.5775
0.005775
15
0.3
0
0.51
0
16
0.25
0
0.4375
0
17
0.2
0
0.36
0
18
0.15
0
0.2775
0
19
0.1
0
0.19
0
20
0.05
0
0.0975
0
1
0.65
0.8705
...then we see that advantage changes the probability of success from 0.65 to 0.8705. The specifics are not important; what is relevant is that people ignore a substantial issue in understanding the maths of advantage because...
The point being that the ability to interpret the data is crucial, and in the case of something this complicated the ability to do so in a deep way is quite rare. It’s why I am very hesitant to accept this next point.
Anyone who thinks they(developers) don't understand the core mathematics of the system is deluding themselves. They might have some wonky areas, like skill mastery, but they have made it very clear that they did that on purpose. i.e. pulling most of the rogues combat pillar away, and giving him ultra skill capability. This wan't a test of the system we did for them, it was a test of our reactions. Does godlike skill capability make the rogue intersting even if he is weak in combat? Our answer was no.... This was not a math problem, it was a people problem, and they got their answer.
Math problems in XP gain you say.... Hmmm could this be because they want us to level faster and test charachter at higher levels faster? Get a feel for progression, microwave style?
Math Problems in the Fighters XD, is that becasue they want to get us to higher number faster perhaps?
I think it very likely that anyone who thinks he or she possesses a deep knowledge of the mathematics involved in the game is actually the one suffering under a delusion. I’m not saying that’s always the case, or the case in any particular instance (such as the author of this quotation, or any developer in the D&DN team), but it is far from a simple matter.
The examples given may well be appropriate; the devs may be intentionally skewing the mathematics in a certain direction to test the results. Indeed, it is probably the case that they have done exactly that. However, it does not immediately follow that they understand the maths of the system as a whole. I really don’t think we have enough information to make that determination.
Often, it is the consequences of a choice that are not immediately obvious that threaten the math of the system. A case in point would be the stacking of bonuses in 3E. While devs at the time may have had a decent grasp of the effect of a +2 bonus, I sincerely doubt they recognized the effect of bonus progression and stacking on the game. Indeed I recall them acknowledging as much when working on 4E, that 3E simply hit a “sweet spot” in a certain level range because the math “just worked out.”
Unreadable chart, how about:
Roll %age %ag of getting at least
1
0.25%
100.00%
2
0.75%
99.75%
3
1.25%
99.00%
4
1.75%
97.75%
5
2.25%
96.00%
6
2.75%
93.75%
7
3.25%
91.00%
8
3.75%
87.75%
9
4.25%
84.00%
10
4.75%
79.75%
11
5.25%
75.00%
12
5.75%
69.75%
13
6.25%
64.00%
14
6.75%
57.75%
15
7.25%
51.00%
16
7.75%
43.75%
17
8.25%
36.00%
18
8.75%
27.75%
19
9.25%
19.00%
20
9.75%
9.75%
You can add the bonus and tell us where the actual percentage is...
Since you bring up the example of advantage and disadvantage, I think it's worth pointing out that people on these boards frequently show that they don't understand the math involved.In particular, many people calculate the expected value of a d20 ro
Writing creative, original, compelling fluff is not easy. Thankfully, it is not a requirement for getting fluff published.
Neither is getting particularly stellar math, as previous editions have likely demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. The question then goes back to the OP issue: should the math drive the narrative choices, or vice versa. Up until the fourth edition, the answer was clearly that narrative trumped mechanical considerations. This was necessarily true even in 4E, since the mechanics simply don't exist without narrative rationale, but it was a good deal more opaque, to the point that some players, and even designers, may have come under the misapprehension that this was a game of mathematics, rather than one of storytelling.
Given the primacy of the narrative in a ttrpg, I think it's good to remember how difficult it is to write work which would be accepted by the potential customers as compelling enough both to merit purchase, and to justify the mechanics.
The problem is the story telling part can be altered by any DM, and thus is not entirely necessary. The math however if a DM alters it without knowing what they are doing and having done several pages of probability equations to test their alterations will inevitably unbalance the game. Several editions were unbalanced to begin with like 3.xE and 2E, so altering the math didn't change anything and might actually bring more balance. Altering the math in 4E though could bring disastrous results...
Neither is getting particularly stellar math, as previous editions have likely demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. The question then goes back to the OP issue: should the math drive the narrative choices, or vice versa. Up until the fourth edi
@Pyromatic Not sure 100% I know what your getting at, but here is a few points. The math of the basic system is easy, even easy on the inside. Advantage/Disadvantage effect on rolling is teh hardest calculation I've seen. I have software for it andI'm sure they do to.
There is no such thing as 'skewing' the system, since skewing implies there is one natural shape to it. The developers are crafting the system, and are shaping it to be a specific way. They test different things at different times. Set objectives to fit to how we react to things and then adjust, not because the math is 'wrong', but because "players like hitting more" or "Skills are too easy." If gaming was a just math problem, it actually would be super boring. Not because math isn't fun, but because gamer math isn't challenging.
I'm not saying that there isn't math mistakes that happen sometimes.
Games always suffer from bloat, and Math is where this bloat usually takes the worst toll, this can be expected in all games as they start expanding. Rather then having a whole team of developers working on one book you might have a few, the desire for total balance in a supplement isn't the same as it is for campaign sourcebook. Also bloat drives sales, people like finding improvements in their books, although they might try to deny it.
@malcapricornis That's weird. I love world peace and also love video game violence, am I doomed? Staisfying the varying interests in how bonuses work is also one of the easiest things to accomodate with a module, if you want to make it like 4e was. Then just swap out existing attack bonuses, and insert 1/2 level Attack bonuses. DM's can add 1/2 a creatures level to its AC. It's pretty simple really. Just need a chart for the new DCs also and it's done.
@PyromaticNot sure 100% I know what your getting at, but here is a few points. The math of the basic system is easy, even easy on the inside. Advantage/Disadvantage effect on rolling is teh hardest calculation I've seen. I have software for it andI'm
It's not the scale of math it's the debate about whether it's important that's disconcerting.
Gamer math is also very hard. First of all most people are bad at statistics and probability to begin with. Refer to the Monty Hall goat and car problem for an example.
It's not the scale of math it's the debate about whether it's important that's disconcerting.Gamer math is also very hard. First of all most people are bad at statistics and probability to begin with. Refer to the Monty Hall goat and car problem for
You can add the bonus and tell us where the actual percentage is...
I included all the calculations for anyone that wants them. The chart supposes that the numbers you need to roll for success on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency (which is established as a design intent, though people tend to forget this fact.) I started with a possible array of frequencies centred around needing an 8 or higher as a "for instance" and used a stochastic process to show that this assumption has a definite impact on the way advantage affects the probability of success.
If you're not interested in the calculations, don't worry about them. The point is that people have a habit of thinking they understand the maths better than they actually do. (And, in the interest of heading this particular issue off at the pass, please note I'm not claiming an exhaustive understanding myself.)
I included all the calculations for anyone that wants them. The chart supposes that the numbers you need to roll for success on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency (which is established as a design intent, though people tend to forget this
I made this too, it helps to see what the bonus is equivelent to for what roll.
I.e. if you need to roll a 20, advantage gives you the equivelent of a +1 roughly...
20 =+1 bonus 5%boost
19 =+2 bonus 10%boost
18 =+3 Bonus 15% boost
17 =+4 bonus20% boost
16 =+4 Bonus20% boost
15 =+4 bonus20% boost
14 =+4 bonus20% boost
13 =+5 Bonus25% boost
12 =+5 Bonus25% boost
11 =+5 Bonus25% boost
10 =+5 Bonus25% boost
9 =+5 bonus25% boost
8 =+5 bonus25% boost
7 =+4 bonus20% boost
6 = +4 bonus20% boost
5 = +4 bonus20% boost
4 = +3 bonus15% boost
3 = +2 bonus10% boost
2 = +1 bonus5% boost
1 = +0 bonus0% boost
I made this too, it helps to see what the bonus is equivelent to for what roll.I.e. if you need to roll a 20, advantage gives you the equivelent of a +1 roughly...20 = +1 bonus 5%boost19 = +2 bonus 10%boost18 = +3 Bonus 15% boost17 = +4 bonus 20%
@Pyromatic Not sure 100% I know what your getting at, but here is a few points. The math of the basic system is easy, even easy on the inside. Advantage/Disadvantage effect on rolling is teh hardest calculation I've seen. I have software for it andI'm sure they do to.
There is no such thing as 'skewing' the system, since skewing implies there is one natural shape to it. The developers are crafting the system, and are shaping it to be a specific way. They test different things at different times. Set objectives to fit to how we react to things and then adjust, not because the math is 'wrong', but because "players like hitting more" or "Skills are too easy." If gaming was a just math problem, it actually would be super boring. Not because math isn't fun, but because gamer math isn't challenging.
I'm not saying that there isn't math mistakes that happen sometimes.
Games always suffer from bloat, and Math is where this bloat usually takes the worst toll, this can be expected in all games as they start expanding. Rather then having a whole team of developers working on one book you might have a few, the desire for total balance in a supplement isn't the same as it is for campaign sourcebook. Also bloat drives sales, people like finding improvements in their books, although they might try to deny it.
Whether you would call it "skewed" is a purely semantic debate, but in the sense that you are working with a system and alter the math for a specific purpose, you have skewed the results relative to what you had before. Your own examples illustrate why the devs might change things from what they actually have some intention of releasing as a final product.
What I'm getting at is that I completely dispute the claim that "gamer math isn't challenging." Adding a +2 bonus to a die roll and seeing how it changes the probability of success isn't hard. Understanding the impact of various bonuses of varying availability across the game as a whole is most certainly quite difficult.
Whether you would call it "skewed" is a purely semantic debate, but in the sense that you are working with a system and alter the math for a specific purpose, you have skewed the results relative to what you had before. Your own examples illustrate
It's not the scale of math it's the debate about whether it's important that's disconcerting.
Gamer math is also very hard. First of all most people are bad at statistics and probability to begin with. Refer to the Monty Hall goat and car problem for an example.
Excellent reference.
@Zago: Pyromaniac's point is not that we can't calculate the probabilities but that the variable marginal probability undermines whatever intentions the designers had about modifiers when determining their scale.
Excellent reference.@Zago: Pyromaniac's point is not that we can't calculate the probabilities but that the variable marginal probability undermines whatever intentions the designers had about modifiers when determining their scale.
You can add the bonus and tell us where the actual percentage is...
I included all the calculations for anyone that wants them. The chart supposes that the numbers you need to roll for success on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency (which is established as a design intent, though people tend to forget this fact.) I started with a possible array of frequencies centred around needing an 8 or higher as a "for instance" and used a stochastic process to show that this assumption has a definite impact on the way advantage affects the probability of success.
If you're not interested in the calculations, don't worry about them. The point is that people have a habit of thinking they understand the maths better than they actually do. (And, in the interest of heading this particular issue off at the pass, please note I'm not claiming an exhaustive understanding myself.)
I guess I used a different methodology. I used:
1
0.0025
0.0025
1
1
0.25%
100.00%
2
0.01
0.0075
3
6
0.75%
99.75%
3
0.0225
0.0125
5
15
1.25%
99.00%
4
0.04
0.0175
7
28
1.75%
97.75%
5
0.0625
0.0225
9
45
2.25%
96.00%
6
0.09
0.0275
11
66
2.75%
93.75%
7
0.1225
0.0325
13
91
3.25%
91.00%
8
0.16
0.0375
15
120
3.75%
87.75%
9
0.2025
0.0425
17
153
4.25%
84.00%
10
0.25
0.0475
19
190
4.75%
79.75%
11
0.3025
0.0525
21
231
5.25%
75.00%
12
0.36
0.0575
23
276
5.75%
69.75%
13
0.4225
0.0625
25
325
6.25%
64.00%
14
0.49
0.0675
27
378
6.75%
57.75%
15
0.5625
0.0725
29
435
7.25%
51.00%
16
0.64
0.0775
31
496
7.75%
43.75%
17
0.7225
0.0825
33
561
8.25%
36.00%
18
0.81
0.0875
35
630
8.75%
27.75%
19
0.9025
0.0925
37
703
9.25%
19.00%
20
1
0.0975
39
780
9.75%
9.75%
To find the percentage of any given die roll just take: the (roll value / # of sides) ^ number of dice. Subtract the previous die roll calculation from the current calculated value. You get the probability for that die value.
I included all the calculations for anyone that wants them. The chart supposes that the numbers you need to roll for success on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency (which is established as a design intent, though people tend to forget this
I made this too, it helps to see what the bonus is equivelent to for what roll.
(snip)
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency. When trying to calculate the average bonus of advantage over the game as a whole, those frequencies have a significant impact.
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not a
@Pyromatic Not sure 100% I know what your getting at, but here is a few points. The math of the basic system is easy, even easy on the inside. Advantage/Disadvantage effect on rolling is teh hardest calculation I've seen. I have software for it andI'm sure they do to.
There is no such thing as 'skewing' the system, since skewing implies there is one natural shape to it. The developers are crafting the system, and are shaping it to be a specific way. They test different things at different times. Set objectives to fit to how we react to things and then adjust, not because the math is 'wrong', but because "players like hitting more" or "Skills are too easy." If gaming was a just math problem, it actually would be super boring. Not because math isn't fun, but because gamer math isn't challenging.
I'm not saying that there isn't math mistakes that happen sometimes.
Games always suffer from bloat, and Math is where this bloat usually takes the worst toll, this can be expected in all games as they start expanding. Rather then having a whole team of developers working on one book you might have a few, the desire for total balance in a supplement isn't the same as it is for campaign sourcebook. Also bloat drives sales, people like finding improvements in their books, although they might try to deny it.
Whether you would call it "skewed" is a purely semantic debate, but in the sense that you are working with a system and alter the math for a specific purpose, you have skewed the results relative to what you had before. Your own examples illustrate why the devs might change things from what they actually have some intention of releasing as a final product.
What I'm getting at is that I completely dispute the claim that "gamer math isn't challenging." Adding a +2 bonus to a die roll and seeing how it changes the probability of success isn't hard. Understanding the impact of various bonuses of varying availability across the game as a whole is most certainly quite difficult.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the way they develop is they start with their goals. When I comment on skewed, it was only becuase this thread seems to indicate thatthere is one right set of mathematics (usually the way they like it) and if it's differnt then its skewed or poorly designed.
AS far as the math goes give me an example of the hard mathematics you speak of? The system core is pretty much d20 + (0-12).
Whether you would call it "skewed" is a purely semantic debate, but in the sense that you are working with a system and alter the math for a specific purpose, you have skewed the results relative to what you had before. Your own examples illustrate
I made this too, it helps to see what the bonus is equivelent to for what roll.
(snip)
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency. When trying to calculate the average bonus of advantage over the game as a whole, those frequencies have a significant impact.
I think my chart shows the opposite. it shows the drastic change of the probabiiity curve.
I'm not saying its the end of the story, its the better story, because it says the only really important thing, which is that advantage disadvantage heavily boosts rolls in teh middle and has a much more minor effects on really easy or really hard rolls.
Is it even deeper then that?
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not a
I made this too, it helps to see what the bonus is equivelent to for what roll.
(snip)
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency. When trying to calculate the average bonus of advantage over the game as a whole, those frequencies have a significant impact.
I think my chart shows the opposite. it shows the drastic change of the probabiiity curve.
I'm not saying its the end of the story, its the better story, because it says the only really important thing, which is that advantage disadvantage heavily boosts rolls in teh middle and has a much more minor effects on really easy or really hard rolls.
Is it even deeper then that?
Absolutely it is. Because you then have to ask the question: "What numbers do you actually need to roll to succeed most of the time?" That's what I'm getting at with frequency of rolls needed. It's the next step. If the game centres around, for example, needing an 8 or higher to succeed on attack rolls, that impacts the consideration of advantage.
And what precisely do you mean by "a much more minor effects on really easy or really hard rolls"? For example, you might say that advantage has a greater impact when you need an 11 to hit than when you need a 20 to hit, but if you are calculating it in the sense of proportional increase to expected damage per attack, it actually has a greater impact when you need the 20.
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not a
What you might be missing about advantage is that people are rarely needing to roll at the high end. Of course there isn't statistics on this but I be supresed if more 1% of rolls are dependant on needing a roll higher then 18.
A first level fighter starts feeling the diminishing return of hitting with advantage at AC 25, I haven;t even noticed ac reature with an AC of 25 yet.
@pyromantic,What you might be missing about advantage is that people are rarely needing to roll at the high end. Of course there isn't statistics on this but I be supresed if more 1% of rolls are dependant on needing a roll higher then 18. A first le
I made this too, it helps to see what the bonus is equivelent to for what roll.
(snip)
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency. When trying to calculate the average bonus of advantage over the game as a whole, those frequencies have a significant impact.
I think my chart shows the opposite. it shows the drastic change of the probabiiity curve.
I'm not saying its the end of the story, its the better story, because it says the only really important thing, which is that advantage disadvantage heavily boosts rolls in teh middle and has a much more minor effects on really easy or really hard rolls.
Is it even deeper then that?
Absolutely it is. Because you then have to ask the question: "What numbers do you actually need to roll to succeed most of the time?" That's what I'm getting at with frequency of rolls needed. It's the next step. If the game centres around, for example, needing an 8 or higher to succeed on attack rolls, that impacts the consideration of advantage.
And what precisely do you mean by "a much more minor effects on really easy or really hard rolls"? For example, you might say that advantage has a greater impact when you need an 11 to hit than when you need a 20 to hit, but if you are calculating it in the sense of proportional increase to expected damage per attack, it actually has a greater impact when you need the 20.
sorry, i should type slower.
I mean that advantage has reduced effect at top and bottom range.
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not a
I made this too, it helps to see what the bonus is equivelent to for what roll.
(snip)
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not appear with equal frequency. When trying to calculate the average bonus of advantage over the game as a whole, those frequencies have a significant impact.
I think my chart shows the opposite. it shows the drastic change of the probabiiity curve.
I'm not saying its the end of the story, its the better story, because it says the only really important thing, which is that advantage disadvantage heavily boosts rolls in teh middle and has a much more minor effects on really easy or really hard rolls.
Is it even deeper then that?
Absolutely it is. Because you then have to ask the question: "What numbers do you actually need to roll to succeed most of the time?" That's what I'm getting at with frequency of rolls needed. It's the next step. If the game centres around, for example, needing an 8 or higher to succeed on attack rolls, that impacts the consideration of advantage.
And what precisely do you mean by "a much more minor effects on really easy or really hard rolls"? For example, you might say that advantage has a greater impact when you need an 11 to hit than when you need a 20 to hit, but if you are calculating it in the sense of proportional increase to expected damage per attack, it actually has a greater impact when you need the 20.
My chart shows probability. The last column is the percent chance (probability) of getting at least a die roll of x value. The column before that details the probability of getting an exact value on a die roll.
You have a 75% chance of getting an 11 with advantage. If you need an eight or higher, the probability of getting that is 87.75%.
The point being that your chart is not the end of the story. People look at it, average the bonuses and say "Advantage is worth about +3.375 to a d20 roll." They've entirely missed the point that the numbers needed to succeed on a d20 roll do not a
What you might be missing about advantage is that people are rarely needing to roll at the high end. Of course there isn't statistics on this but I be supresed if more 1% of rolls are dependant on needing a roll higher then 18.
A first level fighter starts feeling the diminishing return of hitting with advantage at AC 25, I haven;t even noticed ac reature with an AC of 25 yet.
I'm not missing it. That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't consider the impact of advantage on the game as a whole without considering the frequency at which certain rolls are needed.
I'm not missing it. That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't consider the impact of advantage on the game as a whole without considering the frequency at which certain rolls are needed.
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions between static modifiers (like the -2 from prone) and dis/advantage (like from intoxicated) can only be determined through a joint probability distribution. It is extremely unlikely that WotC is doing that level of statistical analysis.
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions betwe
What you might be missing about advantage is that people are rarely needing to roll at the high end. Of course there isn't statistics on this but I be supresed if more 1% of rolls are dependant on needing a roll higher then 18.
A first level fighter starts feeling the diminishing return of hitting with advantage at AC 25, I haven;t even noticed ac reature with an AC of 25 yet.
I'm not missing it. That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't consider the impact of advantage on the game as a whole without considering the frequency at which certain rolls are needed.
Oh.. Then we agree! yay.
Wether or not there is hard math involved, isn't really important. My point was that people try to act like Bad Math is the reason why the game is different then what they want. Instead of realizing that it's not the math its the intent.
On the orcus thread they are saying that a peasent hitting a god is bad design. They might go so far as to say it's a math error. But it's not, its the intent of the design. This effect backs a philosophy about how hitting shoudl change from previous editions. They can choose to not like it... But it's only bad design if it fails to meet it's own intent.
I'm not missing it. That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't consider the impact of advantage on the game as a whole without considering the frequency at which certain rolls are needed.[/quote]Oh.. Then we agree! yay.Wether or not there is ha
I mean that advantage has reduced effect at top and bottom range.
No, I knew what you were getting at. It's just that what you are saying is only true from a certain viewpoint, which may or may not be the most accurate approach at any time.
As an example, if a character does 10 points of damage on a hit:
Needing an 11 to hit, their expected damage per attack is 5. With advantage this goes to 7.5, a proportional increase of 50%.
Needing a 20 to hit, their expected damage per attack is 0.5. With advantage this goes to 0.975, a proportional increase of 95%.
So, from the point of view of proportional increase in expected damage per attack, you get more benefit from advantage when you need a 20 to hit than when you need an 11.
No, I knew what you were getting at. It's just that what you are saying is only true from a certain viewpoint, which may or may not be the most accurate approach at any time.As an example, if a character does 10 points of damage on a hit:Needing an
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions between static modifiers (like the -2 from prone) and dis/advantage (like from intoxicated) can only be determined through a joint probability distribution. It is extremely unlikely that WotC is doing that level of statistical analysis.
Why would they need to? You think they need to spend extra time calculating the effects of "proneness" on hit rates?
I think it works like this, "Dude, lets make being prone give you a -2, and see what people think." After Playetest, "Dude, 20% people think a the -2 effect to being prone isn't enough, let s make it -4, and see if they ENJOY it more."
I woudln't be suprised if they are doing calculations, we can see the formula they are working off of.
But once again they are solving for FUN, if peopel say they like higher hits rates they increase them, if they like simpler hit rates they decrease them.
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions betwe
Wether or not there is hard math involved, isn't really important. My point was that people try to act like Bad Math is the reason why the game is different then what they want. Instead of realizing that it's not the math its the intent.
On the orcus thread they are saying that a peasent hitting a god is bad design. They might go so far as to say it's a math error. But it's not, its the intent of the design. This effect backs a philosophy about how hitting shoudl change from previous editions. They can choose to not like it... But it's only bad design if it fails to meet it's own intent.
I will agree with you here in part. If the game isn't doing what you want, it may not be because the designers screwed up the math. It may be that the math is doing exactly what they wanted.
However, a major point of argument in this thread is that the math is actually very complicated. As such the devs could potentially introduce math that does not have the effect they want. In fact that is very likely to happen unless they have some knowledgeable people taking a long, hard look at it.
Whether or not they do, I have no idea.
I will agree with you here in part. If the game isn't doing what you want, it may not be because the designers screwed up the math. It may be that the math is doing exactly what they wanted.However, a major point of argument in this thread is that
Wether or not there is hard math involved, isn't really important. My point was that people try to act like Bad Math is the reason why the game is different then what they want. Instead of realizing that it's not the math its the intent.
On the orcus thread they are saying that a peasent hitting a god is bad design. They might go so far as to say it's a math error. But it's not, its the intent of the design. This effect backs a philosophy about how hitting shoudl change from previous editions. They can choose to not like it... But it's only bad design if it fails to meet it's own intent.
I will agree with you here in part. If the game isn't doing what you want, it may not be because the designers screwed up the math. It may be that the math is doing exactly what they wanted.
However, a major point of argument in this thread is that the math is actually very complicated. As such the devs could potentially introduce math that does not have the effect they want. In fact that is very likely to happen unless they have some knowledgeable people taking a long, hard look at it.
Whether or not they do, I have no idea.
So give me an example of the really hard math that needs to be done.
I will agree with you here in part. If the game isn't doing what you want, it may not be because the designers screwed up the math. It may be that the math is doing exactly what they wanted.However, a major point of argument in this thread is that
So give me an example of the really hard math that needs to be done.
What needs to be done is a matter of opinion. How it should be done is also open to debate; I think one purpose behind the amount of playtesting being done is to allow all us gamers out here that like to hack away at systems a chance to do exactly that. If you want to find exploitable math in a game, no faster way to do so than release it to the masses.
However, I absolutely think it's necessary for the devs to keep their own watch on things, and I gave an example already in this thread.
When 3E devs introduced the scaling BAB bonuses, it may have looked simple enough. I'm sure many of them could have calculated the probability of hitting a particular monster (or even the average over time of hitting a variety of monsters) considering that scale. Likewise, they could have done the same with some available bonuses, such as enhancement bonuses to weapons. However, I sincerely doubt they recognized the impact on the game from the sheer volume of available bonuses, the way in which those bonuses scaled over level and other factors, and the way stacking was handled.
What needs to be done is a matter of opinion. How it should be done is also open to debate; I think one purpose behind the amount of playtesting being done is to allow all us gamers out here that like to hack away at systems a chance to do exactly t
So give me an example of the really hard math that needs to be done.
What needs to be done is a matter of opinion. How it should be done is also open to debate; I think one purpose behind the amount of playtesting being done is to allow all us gamers out here that like to hack away at systems a chance to do exactly that. If you want to find exploitable math in a game, no faster way to do so than release it to the masses.
However, I absolutely think it's necessary for the devs to keep their own watch on things, and I gave an example already in this thread.
5e has pretty controlled bonuses and penalties, albeit the effects of bad balance might be more impactful in bounded accuracy. This control might be just because the system is in playetest and it will bloat. But like you said, the playtest is the best way to weed it out.
If there is bad math and players generally enjoy it... Is it bad math? If there is good math and people hate it is it actually good math?
I don't see why the developers should be investing heavily in the calculator's approval. My approval shoudl be sufficient
They should focus on the players approval. That's why I say teh funciton of math is to provide the labels, and to provide systems for responding to players intent. If players are sayin they aren't happy with the hit rates they can, devs can target teh pain points set new objectives for hit rates via multiple factors.
What needs to be done is a matter of opinion. How it should be done is also open to debate; I think one purpose behind the amount of playtesting being done is to allow all us gamers out here that like to hack away at systems a chance to do exactly t
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions between static modifiers (like the -2 from prone) and dis/advantage (like from intoxicated) can only be determined through a joint probability distribution. It is extremely unlikely that WotC is doing that level of statistical analysis.
Why would they need to? You think they need to spend extra time calculating the effects of "proneness" on hit rates?
I think it works like this, "Dude, lets make being prone give you a -2, and see what people think." After Playetest, "Dude, 20% people think a the -2 effect to being prone isn't enough, let s make it -4, and see if they ENJOY it more."
I woudln't be suprised if they are doing calculations, we can see the formula they are working off of.
But once again they are solving for FUN, if peopel say they like higher hits rates they increase them, if they like simpler hit rates they decrease them.
They don't need to anything. But they won't know the objective effects those mechanics have on the game without the sort of analysis I'm talking about. I've worked under companies that designed the way you're talking about. They made terrible systems, which is why I went back to college and became a statistician.
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions betwe
5e has pretty controlled bonuses and penalties, albeit the effects of bad balance might be more impactful in bounded accuracy. This control might be just because the system is in playetest and it will bloat. But like you said, the playtest is the best way to weed it out.
If there is bad math and players generally enjoy it... Is it bad math? If there is good math and people hate it is it actually good math?
I don't see why the developers should be investing heavily in the calculator's approval. My approval shoudl be sufficient
They should focus on the players approval. That's why I say teh funciton of math is to provide the labels, and to provide systems for responding to players intent. If players are sayin they aren't happy with the hit rates they can, devs can target teh pain points set new objectives for hit rates via multiple factors.
I use the example of bonus stacking and progression from 3E in part because we've had the benefit of time to see the problems involved, and in part because the devs have also had that benefit and are putting effort into improving the situation. I believe this comes from further lessons learned from 4E and some investment into understanding the math.
The example is certainly not meant to be exhaustive. There is little doubt that there will be a need to examine the math many times as the game goes forward. Some of the heavy lifiting will be done by playtesters to be sure, but it makes perfect sense for the devs themselves to put some effort into establishing guidelines for the various mathematical aspects of the game.
You might consider hit point and damage scaling for example. We are at the earliest stages of this, and the devs have acknowledged that they haven't nailed down much of it yet. I will state quite strongly that they must nail this down at some point, and it will not be a trivial matter to do so in a way that meets whatever criteria they decide upon.
I use the example of bonus stacking and progression from 3E in part because we've had the benefit of time to see the problems involved, and in part because the devs have also had that benefit and are putting effort into improving the situation. I be
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions between static modifiers (like the -2 from prone) and dis/advantage (like from intoxicated) can only be determined through a joint probability distribution. It is extremely unlikely that WotC is doing that level of statistical analysis.
Why would they need to? You think they need to spend extra time calculating the effects of "proneness" on hit rates?
I think it works like this, "Dude, lets make being prone give you a -2, and see what people think." After Playetest, "Dude, 20% people think a the -2 effect to being prone isn't enough, let s make it -4, and see if they ENJOY it more."
I woudln't be suprised if they are doing calculations, we can see the formula they are working off of.
But once again they are solving for FUN, if peopel say they like higher hits rates they increase them, if they like simpler hit rates they decrease them.
Fun is subjective though. It also is variable not just between different people but also within the same person over time. On top of that the way a group is composed and equipped makes a large difference as well.
The solution is, imo, an understanding amongst the players that they are in fact playing a game and things may be dynamically adjusted by the DM in order to provide the desired level of challenge. Unfortunately D&D and all paper and pen type games suffer from too few dice rolls to have precise balance.
Another problem is the d20 is too small. d100 or percentile dice w/e you want to call it would open up more design space.
It is also deeper than that because when the designers and DM's decide on the DC's, they don't know exactly what the character base modifiers and situational modifiers are. Consequently, the expected effect from relatively "simple" interactions betwe
So give me an example of the really hard math that needs to be done.
It isn't hard math, but it's math they screw up nonetheless. Some examples:
4E high level monster hit points and damage scaling. 4E original skill challenge DCs. 3E high level monster attack bonuses versus AC. AD&D high-strength dart master
It isn't hard math, but it's math they screw up nonetheless. Some examples: 4E high level monster hit points and damage scaling.4E original skill challenge DCs.3E high level monster attack bonuses versus AC. AD&D high-strength dart master
The most important thing is making the fluff match the crunch. The Math allowing and encouraging game that is found in the Story.
The math has to encourage a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard entering a dungeon and fighting monsters and dragons using weapons, skill, divinity, and magic for all levels of play.
The wierd thing is that many people here like to say that they have their own story and fluff... Which means the mechanics need to change for each of those stories...
I think I've just been convinced to try to port wfrp into the D&D fluff world.
The wierd thing is that many people here like to say that they have their own story and fluff... Which means the mechanics need to change for each of those stories...I think I've just been convinced to try to port wfrp into the D&D fluff world.
The most important thing is making the fluff match the crunch. The Math allowing and encouraging game that is found in the Story.
The math has to encourage a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard entering a dungeon and fighting monsters and dragons using weapons, skill, divinity, and magic for all levels of play.
The wierd thing is that many people here like to say that they have their own story and fluff... Which means the mechanics need to change for each of those stories... I think I've just been convinced to try to port wfrp into the D&D fluff world.
Not necessarily change the mechanics per se; without changing a single mechanic in 4E I've been able to build up quite an amount of fluff if I do say so myself
Even though 13th Age doesn't share the same perception as 4E in terms of rules, due to the open nature of the system it's been really difficult for me to do more than minor changes to the mechanics, and mostly adding new stuff just because I feel like it. With backgrounds functioning very similar to D&D Next (except it has much more granularity[1] and customizability[2]), the rules already fit just almost every need of mine, why change what's working perfectly for my groups?
Most of the changes in mechanics I've done in 13th Age would involve the Unique Things of my players, precisely because they're intended to be game changing. And even then, they're typically tiny changes that still don't affect the integrity of the system overall. Compared to having to limit casters, or enforce multi-encounter adventures and perhaps introducing houserules that alter classes in a major way, the mechanical tweaks involving Unique Things are practically minute.
If the system works as written, you don't need to make that many changes to the mechanics just to keep with the fluff.
The idea of Bounded Accuracy is nice, and the theories behind the DCs are alright, but the implementation needs work, and that needs someone good enough with math (not just algebraic math, likely statistical math) in order to ensure that whatever the fluff is supposed to represent, the mechanics of the system actually deliver.
If they said "Near Impossible tasks involve tasks that only the best can achieve", then DC 25 is reachable by those with the highest ability scores and/or training, then it'd be acceptable. But since they said "Near Impossible tasks are reserved for the gods or their equivalent without aid," that's a big disconnect. Compared to how 13th Age scales the DC -- wherein the lowest DC is 15 and the highest DC is 35 -- I'm pretty sure that stating "DC 35 is only reachable by the most legendary and iconic people in the game" wouldn't be far-fetched, as even a natural 20 with max background + ability bonus + level would not allow me to even try to hit DC 35 until I'm level 5 (Champion tier), and even then it's a 5% chance that slowly but surely goes up until I have a fairly decent chance to hit DC 35... and when I look back I realize how powerful I've become even though only 7+ levels have passed since I began adventuring[3].
If they can achieve that in D&D Next with Bounded Accuracy, I may actually be impressed enough to keep more rules in D&D Next than originally planned. This might mean ending up with bonuses to skill checks that are smaller (maybe +2 instead of +3, with skill specialization adding +1 or +2 at most), and perhaps nerfing Skill Mastery by a lot at first then allowing it to scale so that it's only at level 10 that I can have a 20% or better chance at hitting DCs reserved for gods... but I think it's possible, and that's what why I'm hoping that the math is not just thrown under the bus just because people want fluff more than mechanics.
You can LARP and run rules-less campaign, going only by fluff (good luck on combat), but for those who want solid rules for their game and can certainly run fluff on top of well-written rules, I'd really appreciate it if mathematicians helped in the development process.
[1] - from allowing the players to determine what their bonuses are, instead of +3 if you're trained, +0 if you're not [2] - instead of a predetermined list of skills that are related to your background, aspects of your background becomes your skill and you're encouraged to provide more detailed and exciting/interesting backgrounds whenever possible [3] - note however that 13th Age encourages the "fail forward" philosophy, which means that even at DC 35 it's not so much a matter of being unlikely to succeed as being unlikely to succed flawlessly (it'll almost always work, but it'll probably hurt you in the process)
The wierd thing is that many people here like to say that they have their own story and fluff... Which means the mechanics need to change for each of those stories... I think I've just been convinced to try to port wfrp into the D&D fluff world.[/quo
Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. Personally I am not convinced porting it to D&D (any edition) is a better idea than running it with the systems written for it. Or for that matter with several other systems written for a similar style of game.
Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. Personally I am not convinced porting it to D&D (any edition) is a better idea than running it with the systems written for it. Or for that matter with several other systems written for a similar style of game.
How come we are talking about grammar. We should be talking about how 5e currently has some of the worst math in any edition of D&D.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.
How so? I'm not sure how you can reach that concusion if we are playing the same playtest. Remember that 4e's math errors were not so immediately apparent and mostly revolved around divergence between players and monsters. The playtest's monsters are far more problematic at the moment. Not to mention:
the DC's on skills are questionable compared to the actual probabilities for success
we don't really have balance between classes yet, and the current classes even have different progression rates that cause more than a few math issues.
the situationality of manuevers means that most of the time there's no valid reason to use anything other than Deadly Strike or Flurry of Blows.
The hitdie healing system barely allows characters to recover once in the day.
The system for consitution creates largely diverging hitpoint ratios between characters.
Human attributes are mechanically superior to everything.
Dis/Advantage undermines challenge transparency and systemically encourages the tyranny of accuracy.
Where is the playtest math working again?
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.[/quote]How so? I'm not sure how you can reach that concusion if we are playing the same playtest. Remember that 4e's math errors were not so immediately apparent and most
The wierd thing is that many people here like to say that they have their own story and fluff... Which means the mechanics need to change for each of those stories...
I gotta say, Dags, you're the only person I've ever heard of who doesn't do that. And most people don't change many, if any mechanics to do it.
I think I've just been convinced to try to port wfrp into the D&D fluff world.
Go for it. I love the warhammer fantasy world, it's a lot of fun.
I gotta say, Dags, you're the only person I've ever heard of who doesn't do that. And most people don't change many, if any mechanics to do it. Go for it. I love the warhammer fantasy world, it's a lot of fun.
How come we are talking about grammar. We should be talking about how 5e currently has some of the worst math in any edition of D&D.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.
How so?
Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.
Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time? In the previous editions we're considering a completed product. With D&DN there are so many things that haven't been settled yet that we couldn't possibly hope to have all the math work well.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.[/quote]How so?[/quote]Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.[/quote]Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time? In the previous editions we're considering a c
The wierd thing is that many people here like to say that they have their own story and fluff... Which means the mechanics need to change for each of those stories...
What mechanics? I've carried a 'world' since 2E, where the fluff is extensively gutted and replaced, and never really had to change any rules to do so, apart from screwing with stock alignments.
(well, there was that one time where everyone was dragons, and I ditched the "humanoid lackey" bit from Council of Wurms)
What mechanics?I've carried a 'world' since 2E, where the fluff is extensively gutted and replaced, and never really had to change any rules to do so, apart from screwing with stock alignments.(well, there was that one time where everyone was dragons
How come we are talking about grammar. We should be talking about how 5e currently has some of the worst math in any edition of D&D.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.
How so?
Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.
Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time?
No, pre-3rd Ed also had Bounded Accuracy.
...hey... ?
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.[/quote]How so?[/quote]Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.[/quote]Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time?[/quote]No, pre-3rd Ed also had Bounded Accuracy
How come we are talking about grammar. We should be talking about how 5e currently has some of the worst math in any edition of D&D.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.
How so?
Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.
Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time?
No, pre-3rd Ed also had Bounded Accuracy.
...hey... ?
While that may be a valid response to some comments, I don't understand why you quoted me in making it.
I'm just saying the math of D&DN is a mess because it's still in the early stages. Trying to determine whether it is better as a whole compared to a previously completed edition doesn't seem particularly useful to me.
Looking at certain systems and comparing them to comparable systems from previous editions might be.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.[/quote]How so?[/quote]Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.[/quote]Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time?[/quote]No, pre-3rd Ed also had Bounded Accuracy
How come we are talking about grammar. We should be talking about how 5e currently has some of the worst math in any edition of D&D.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.
How so?
Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.
Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time? In the previous editions we're considering a completed product. With D&DN there are so many things that haven't been settled yet that we couldn't possibly hope to have all the math work well.
Not to mention that there's still disconnect between what the numbers are supposed to mean, and what they actually mean. The DCs still need fixing, the monster math still needs heavy reworking, the Expertise Dice need rebalancing, etc.
The opposite; the math of 4th Ed and previous sucks donkey nads next to 5th Ed.[/quote]How so?[/quote]Ability checks and Bounded Accuracy.[/quote]Isn't this an apples to oranges comparison at this time? In the previous editions we're considering a c
As stated, you seemed to be implying that either grammar had no place in creative pursuits or that creative writing need not be grammatical. Both statements are demonstrably incorrect.
If this were always true, editors should be all out of the job. You can write creatively, but make some grammatical errors that you don't notice on the initial writing of it.
Nope. Impossible. He knows, he published a book.
There are no errors in books, no revisions and everything published is always of great quality.
You heared it here first, folks!
Yes, that's exactly what he said. He didn't try to make the point continuously that professional writers know their stuff: grammar, conventions, etc. And they have fierce imaginations, as well as being able to connect plot lines and themes over the course of 100,000 words.
I find it disheartening that no one can understand my difference between length and quality. But, I find it almost suspicious that people don't understand the simple concept that professional writers are good at all areas of their profession - conventions included. Then it's almost a double-whammy when someone tries to disprove him simply by knocking the fact that he is a professional.
I equate it to the old time south. The politician in a debate commenting snidely on how his opponent used to be "book-worm. One of them learnin' folks that ain't never had to work, and don't know a good choice cause his head's all clouded with nonesense and such!"
If this were always true, editors should be all out of the job. You can write creatively, but make some grammatical errors that you don't notice on the initial writing of it.[/quote]Nope. Impossible. He knows, he published a book.There are no errors
Yes, that's exactly what he said. He didn't try to make the point continuously that professional writers know their stuff: grammar, conventions, etc. And they have fierce imaginations, as well as being able to connect plot lines and themes over the course of 100,000 words.
There are also a good number of authors that do not know grammar by heart and write how they write because of a feeling for the language. Since the poster in question seems incapable of accepting the fact, I'll just continue enjoying the silliness.
Oh, also remember said posters method of argument, and maybe also think about that one: Sidestep all questions, attack minor positions that actually do not relate to the argument at hand, then beat on them until the other poster gets sick of the charade. That actually really resembles politics. High grade scumbag politics.
There are also a good number of authors that do not know grammar by heart and write how they write because of a feeling for the language. Since the poster in question seems incapable of accepting the fact, I'll just continue enjoying the silliness.Oh
So this is the second time I've seen peopele trying to say that you can be a professional writer and not know how to write at the same time...good writers know grammar and the rules of writting whatever language they are writting in. That is the point. A good writer is the master of their language. That means they know the proper rules for grammar. Do they screw up some times? Yes, of course they do, everyone makes mistakes. That's one of the reasons why editors exist. Do writers sometimes take artistic liscence with the rules in order to make things more engrossing? Yes, especially in dialogue. That's why quotation marks basically turn off gramatical rules. Because you are literally quoting what someone said, and what people say may not be grammatically correct. Trying to say someone can be a good writer without knowing proper grammar is like saying you can be a good basketball player without knowing all the rules of the game. Good writers know the rules of grammar and follow them regularly.
So this is the second time I've seen peopele trying to say that you can be a professional writer and not know how to write at the same time...good writers know grammar and the rules of writting whatever language they are writting in. That is the poi
