Should Magic Spells/Powers be Interruptible?

[Thomas Shey]

Spells should absolutely require rolls. Whose idea was it that a magic-user's spells are always flawless, and it's on the victim to try to avoid the flawlessness?

Game designers who wanted to treat it as simply as possible while having some tactical limitations, which was treating it like expendable gear.

 

[James Gasik]

So, I am sliding now away from you and what you wrote, and into a discussion of writing and communication, in general. What you wrote is merely the immediate example. You may not be interested in that, and you are free to ignore what follows.

"I am sorry you took it that way," is like, "I'm sorry you took offense at what I said." It places responsibility for the result on the audience, and acknowledging none on the writer's part.

A writing teacher of mine once had a precept that seems appropriate here: There are three versions of every text: 1) what the author intended to get across, 2) what actually ended up on the page, and 3) what the audience gets from that text.

Thus....



Are you sure that the text you wrote actually includes the information to get that? If not, the responsibility for the misunderstanding isn't much on the audience.

This is similar in form (though not in content) to the issue we see when someone states a personal preference, but doesn't explicitly note that in the text.

"Ford trucks do not work," is a statement on the objective mechanical operation of Ford trucks, while, "Ford trucks do not work for me," is a statement of preference. The lack of specification changes the logical content of the statement, and the audience should not be expected to know the author means the latter, when only the former is presented.

I'm perfectly happy to say it's my fault for being too brief in my initial response. In my mind, the context was clear- that not worrying about the changes to monsters and how it impacts the game would be perfectly cromulent if everyone had that opinion about it (a spell is a spell is a spell).

What I foresee is that this isn't going to happen (probably, I'm happy to be wrong) and that concerns (might) be legitimate and worth discussing.

The fact that my context was not clear, and indicated to the reader as me saying something very different is unfortunate, but the idea that I'm laying the blame on the reader is just confusing to me. I wrote something, my point was not understood, I clarified. If you're asking me to never make such a mistake again, well, I'm only human.

If your intent was to educate me on my shortcomings, well thank you.

 

[Umbran]

If your intent was to educate me on my shortcomings, well thank you.

It is not personal, about your shortcomings. It is about a common shortcoming we frequently see in writing. As I noted - you were merely the immediate example.

... but the idea that I'm laying the blame on the reader is just confusing to me.

Okay, to begin, again, I am now talking about the writing itself, not our conversation. I am not personally offended - I'm only trying to point out the rhetorical missteps here.

What you wrote was, logically speaking, "I am sorry for <your action>." As opposed to, "I am sorry for <my own action>." It does not actually identify any error on the part of the speaker.

It is one of the classic forms of "non-apology apology". A well-formed apology apologizes for recognized actions under one's own control, rather than results that may not be.

One can see the issue with the form, and how it assigns responsibility, when one makes the example more concrete, like: "I am sorry you slapped me in the face." Now, it might actually be that my face was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but if that's the case, that's what I should refer to directly.

I wrote something, my point was not understood, I clarified. If you're asking me to never make such a mistake again, well, I'm only human.

I am making no request of you at all. I am merely discussing writing.