BigDTBone wrote:Stephen Ede wrote:I suppose you could consider developer comments to be fortune cookies. Sure.BigDTBone wrote:
Dude, if you seriously don't understand the difference between "it takes 3 hours to drive to Denver," and "you must always take exactly 3 hours to drive to Denver," then you shouldn't have conversations in the rules forum.
The rules are not written in legalese, they are written by reasonable people for use of reasonable people.
Ha, Haha, Hahahehehe ROTFLMAO
Did you get that from a fortune cookie or something? Because I can't see how that statement bears any relationship to either Pathfinder or the 3.5 and 3rd Ed that came before it.
Indeed this very thread is one of many that put the lie to that statement.
If you want to link to the claim by a developer that the rules are written by reasonable people for use of reasonable people I'll be interested in reading it.Doesn't make the statement any more valid though. Frankly RPG developers and the people that play the games they develop may on occasion self identify themselves as "reasonable" but from everything I've seen in 30 years of RPGing it's a load of codswallop. The bulk of those people are not especially "reasonable" (if they were they probably wouldn't be in the business or playing the games) and any one following these threads has to have a pretty delusional definition of "Reasonable" to identify us as particuly "reasonable".
Not only that, the statement that rules are not written in legalese is obviously ridiculous. Rules aren't written conversationally! They are written to regulate or govern the way the game is played. They are very similar to laws, statues, or regulatory codes.
BTW - I particularly enjoyed the use of the word codswallop! Haven't seen that one in a while.
|Chris Lambertz Paizo Glitterati Robot|