|
7 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 9:43AM
#371
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
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)
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 9:45AM
#372
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
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... ?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 11:28AM
#373
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 11:57AM
#374
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 9:18PM
#375
|
|
|
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!"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 3:58AM
#376
|
|
|
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.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 6:13AM
#377
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
