|John Milligan 87|
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
John Milligan 87 wrote:Stop misrepresenting the scenario.
Pot, meet kettle...John Milligan 87 wrote:it’s comparing two rule sets that have a lot of similarities, about arguably the exact same design decision.
Note the bolded word in the quote. It seems MOST of us here don't buy into the argument that they DO use the same design decisions.John Milligan 87 wrote:You could remove all references to 5e and the points, they would stand or fall on their own merit, but you are not actually addressing them.
And I covered that: delay works just fine as is and is working as intended. What is there to justify? What do I have to prove? As I said above, how do I prove and justify that I like blue? The OP jumped over steps in an argument:
The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
#1 Make an observation.
#2 Ask a question.
#3 Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
#4 Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
#5 Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
The OP took steps #1-#4 by himself and wanted others to agree: we just made it it #1 and stopped there as we came to a different conclusion [things working fine] instead of his [things not working fine] then answered #2 [yes, no issue here]. As the person with a theory, they have to justify the observation, question, the testable explanation and the prediction. If the people you ask don't agree to the premise of any of those, it's a non-starter. If my observation is that the world is a sphere, I have no obligation to justify why it isn't flat: I can SEE it's sphere and don't have to write out a long post why it looks round...
You are completely misrepresenting once again what occurred. He presented some criticisms, you dismissed these criticisms because he referenced 5e.
It’s fine to state you have no problems with the system as it stands, but that on its own doesn’t address the points he raised. You of course are not obligated to address his criticism, it’s fine to simply like it how it is. However, without doing so, you are contributing nothing to the conversation of said critique. Does that really need to be explained?
Also, to rephrase for clarity, it is the same design problem, the outcome was however obviously is different.