 SR4 FAQ #5--The Real One, No, I don't know why I'm up this late |
  |
 May 21 2005, 11:04 PM
Post
#326
|
|||||||||||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298  |
I thought we were discussing things that were added beyond the main book--that these were either "additions" or "changes". Apparently we were thinking of different things, and thus not communicating well. My point was supposed to be: if you can take the SR3 magic system and add MitS rules on to it--which, mind you, don't rewrite much of anything that is in SR3--then perhaps the original system actually was extensible enough after all. Maybe it didn't need reworking. Maybe it should just have some of the best extensions collapsed into the main book, and people could work on extending it again. But if you think MitS rules clash with the SR3 rules, then it's an argument that the whole edifice is unstable and in need of complete overhaul.
Aspected magicians already split up the abilities into crudely swappable pieces. These just make the pieces finer. So as far as changes go, it's not that drastic. So, okay, let's suppose we call this a change. Is this bad? Is this an example of the type of change that shouldn't happen in a game system? Something that illustrates that the magic system is inflexible and doesn't accommodate new rules without barnacles and bailing wire?
I assume sentences have meaning, so yes, sometimes I dispute sentences. In this case, I was genuinely unsure of what you meant. So I offered both interpretations that came to mind that would support what I thought was your argument. We do seem to be getting somewhere, though. I'm curious whether the difficulty of adding new material is actually based in rules or based in the setting, though. It's difficult to, for instance, add lots of new major magical traditions because the SR setting fairly strongly emphasizes the hermetic/shaman split, implying that those are the dominant forms of workable magic. So do you think the constraints were rules-based or setting-based? I can understand changing the SR4 magic system because it has to be changed because the core mechanic is changing. And I can understand changing it because the setting is changing to allow more magical traditions (and, likely, to make the distinctions less important). But I don't understand why the existing system was so hard to extend unless you don't like the setting.
Okay, I agree with that assessment. But that's not a drawback of the rules for the magic system, is it? That sounds more like the author didn't do enough homework on the cultural variations and/or didn't flesh out the descriptions enough to give a good feeling for the different variations.
|
||||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||||
|
May 21 2005, 11:24 PM
Post
#327
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
BTW it is very, very hard to humiliate a humble man. A humble man will not feel bad that he didn't know everything or made a mistake, but instead he'll feel good about learning something.
It is something i personally strive for, something i feel i can always improve on executing. But Lord it's hard to be humble when you are perfect in every way. ;) |
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:26 PM
Post
#328
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Okay, apparently stupid. I haven't noticed many successful traps you've laid where you said something that was too complex for the target to comprehend. I have noticed traps where you explained yourself poorly. But this doesn't reflect badly on the reader unless you can demonstrate that the only sensible interpretation of your remarks is your intended meaning, and not their interpreted meaning. That's a hard thing to do, and I haven't seen you engaging in it. Maybe some people have a natural reaction to be humiliated--but that's hardly appropriate unless it's a failing of theirs, and unless their interpretation is clearly flawed, it's not their failing. Anger and frustration at your (intentional!) inability to express yourself clearly is also an appropriate emotional response. It's not nice to try to communicate with someone who is intentionally making themselves hard to understand!
If you look up the dictionary definitions of "Brevity", "is", and "wit", you'll notice that it is false to say that "Brevity is wit". I'll go through in detail if you wish. So "Brevity is wit" is incorrect.
Now we have to ask whether it is "incorrect". It is also not the traditional quote, which makes it an incorrect quote. The original quote also has the benefit of being witty in a brief way--because it is so true, and yet so brief (because of the clever use of the word "soul"). This version does not have that benefit--it is brief, but not witty. As I argued before, the phrase suggests an improper course of action in the framework in which you used it, so the advice is unsound. So I conclude that it is not just incorrect, but also "incorrect" (depending on what the scare-quotes are intended to mean). If you only mean that "brevity is wit" is a grammatical sentence then I concede: it is not "incorrect". |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 21 2005, 11:27 PM
Post
#329
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Jesus fucking Christ, what a god damned retard. We'll never get back these 14 pages, you know that?
|
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:30 PM
Post
#330
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
LOL, you didn't follow the link to 'idiom'? The -dictionary- link? See now i really, really didn't expect that from you. But i do appreciate the irony, thankyou. :rotfl:
|
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:30 PM
Post
#331
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
How settling for being nicer to the next 'Patrick' that comes along? :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 21 2005, 11:36 PM
Post
#332
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
What do idioms have to do with anything? Are you proposing "Brevity is wit" as an idiom that has its roots in the quote from Hamlet? (Which could be called a proverb, but not an idiom.)
(Added in edit: Since you did not post a link, and my dictionary does not mention "idiom" in "brevity" or "be" or "wit", and nothing else you said seems to refer to dictionaries, links, or idioms, you're being very unclear at best.) |
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:36 PM
Post
#333
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
That isn't it. Those are either my mistake (which happens, and i apologize for them) or a combination of my mistake of gauging the other poster. I do cut slack when things are vague, for whatever reason. Sometimes it isn't just a single post. And civility is met with civility. But when people come in flaming when (IMO, it is a judgement call but i work hard to be fair) they should know better? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 21 2005, 11:42 PM
Post
#334
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Okay, if it's not being apparently stupid, maybe you can give an example of a place where you provoked a strong reaction by acting as a slayer and where you were not unclear?
|
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:47 PM
Post
#335
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525 |
You do not get to make up your own, idioms by the way. That would be called "speaking gibberish and pretending it means something." Now a close-knit group of friends may develop idioms recognized between themselves, but "brevity is wit" simply just appeared and is not in usage (or will be) so it does not qualify as an idiom in even the most lenient definition.
This isn't a case of you being clever, or vague, or anything other than wrong. However, your "strong personality" will demand that you post something trying to make it appear you knew what you were talking about the whole time while everyone else did not. This is not a "strong personality," it is a character flaw. One in direct opposition, by the way, to your earlier claim of being so very humble. |
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:51 PM
Post
#336
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
:( You think Shakespeare came up with that idea all by himself? That he was the first to think it? Those perhaps that is the first written text of it, or perhaps the first time those words were ever uttered. But as an idea???? The 3 word version is an idiom that is a symbol for the longer, and from there you go beyond. A symbol that apparently works as Crimsondude immediately recognized it. Was my first responce wasn't harsh? "Others have mentioned that to me before. I know the original, but my version's shorter. " ...and then some more insight, to my thinking... "Often people forget the actual character that has that line, and the character's perpensity for a preponderance of cumbersomely vast vebage. " Solstice was a bit nastier right off, but that wasn't me. But at any time it could have been let up, but it wasn't. I explain the symbology angle. I link to idiom (languisticly incorrect for its true meaning). Still people persist, as you do now. Would it have mattered if i wrote a 10 page essay on it? Probably not. P.S. Would it have mattered if the entire dev team worked two weeks on an FAQ 10 pages long complete with numerous details instead of those first 4 FAQs were shaky? Maybe it would have help some, they were bad. But the lesson was learned i think and FAQ #5 comes down the pipe.....to what responce? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 21 2005, 11:54 PM
Post
#337
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
He said he strove for humility but could always improve. That describes a goal, but not how well he's doing at reaching it.
|
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:55 PM
Post
#338
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525 |
You are correct Ellery, I suppose he could just be at the start of his path towards humility.
|
|
|
|
|
May 21 2005, 11:55 PM
Post
#339
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I'm always striving, so no i'm not there. Some times i'm closer than others. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 21 2005, 11:59 PM
Post
#340
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Ackkk, i'm way over....the symbology works. Crimsondude recognized it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 22 2005, 12:05 AM
Post
#341
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525 |
First, I hope you have just recently watched Boondock Saints and are trying to be funny by saying "symbology" instead of "symbolism." If you are not well you can pretend that you were, I'll give you that one for free.
Symbology is one case removed from the tense you should be using to reference. But if you were trying to use symbolism and we are now studying that symbolism (ie engaging in symbology) then why link to idiom? Because you misunderstood what the term meant? In any event, even if you intended there to be symbolism in the phrase "brevity is wit," while it is short, it is not witty, nor is it true. The desired symbolism therefore fails, as others have explained. |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2005, 12:07 AM
Post
#342
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Well, goodness, why stop there? Let's use "brevwit" instead, or perhaps "briefwit". In the style of "blog", we can then cut this down to "fwit" (which is nice because f evokes the word "fast" also), and then just jab at Jon and go "Fwit! Fwit!" every time he writes too many rules.
And I stand corrected. You did link to idiom. But that doesn't impact any of the points about "brevity as wit" being wrong--that it was referring to "brevity is the soul of wit" is obvious, and that it leaves out some of the most important parts is also obvious, and since you don't get to make up idioms on your own (because words do not gain meaning simply because you wish them to), it's only slightly more useful that "Fwit!" and a heck of a lot longer. Without the explanation of what you mean, you're liable to confuse rather than illuminate (which is exactly what happened, and justifiably so given that the quote was wrong and lost its soul, and convention is to quote quotes accurately), and you can explain "fwit" just as well. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 22 2005, 12:13 AM
Post
#343
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Nah, just sloppy word choice there. I wasn't thinking about that reference. Sorry that's not the best word to use there. Go ahead and insert the word you think it should be. It's not "true", it just is. Idioms are like that. Has it 'failed' or are people are just looking to pick my ass? :P P.S. Besides in the initial context of intended use it's more than fine. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 22 2005, 12:18 AM
Post
#344
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I didn't just make it up. You don't get to make them up, you just tap into the collective (un)conciousness. That it is recognizable is good. That it needs explaination to fully convey the underlying idea? Yes. But so does the longer. P.S. Yes, your thoughts on accuracy stand....or fall separately. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 22 2005, 12:22 AM
Post
#345
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525 |
Blakkie, seriously. If you intended it to be this tricky sybolistic idiom from the begining you failed horribly. If you just got the quote wrong, you're holding on far too long.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2005, 12:49 AM
Post
#346
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
The only idiomatic part of "brevity is wit" is understanding that the loss of "the soul of" is not intended to imply that brevity alone constitutes wit. And that was definitely lost on many of us here because--well, really, how is one to guess?
Otherwise, "brevity is wit" isn't an idiom at all, because it means exactly what it says, whereas idioms aren't understandable from what they say. So "brevity is wit" is a disguised idiom, masquerading as an incorrect quote or intentionally shortened phrase designed to emphasize the point that essentially nothing but brevity matters when it comes to wit. If you use this phrase around people enough, and explain what it means, fine, they'll understand you. Likewise with "fwit". (Heck, at that point you could call it #447b if you wanted to and do about as well.) If you drop it on unwitting listeners, you're just being unclear, using personal jargon in place of conventionally accepted usage (including conventional idioms). The longer phrase doesn't need explanation by you, because firstly, it's not an idiom so can be understood just by thinking about it, secondly, it's a common expression, so listeners who didn't get it the first time have already had time to understand what it means, and thirdly, it doesn't suffer from misinterpretation as a modification of another well-known saying when it was the well-known saying not the modification that you wished to stress. So on the one hand you have to explain what you mean, and on the other hand, you just use a well-known proverb. The three short extra words are worth it to me. |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2005, 02:23 AM
Post
#347
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 27-January 03 From: Kentucky, USA Member No.: 3,958 |
blakkie said it himself: he
He has already assumed he knows what the other posters on this board are thinking, and that he can 'enlighten' them with regards to their mistaken thinking. He's putting himself up on a pedestal above his target, acting as the intellectual superior. When that fails, he backtracks, throws smoke and generally tries to cloud the topic until
blackie, you're a troll. You intentionally attack others and try to verbally beat them into submission. If you feel people have blind spots, perhaps you need to examine your own. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 22 2005, 02:59 AM
Post
#348
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
wow. blakkie, that's it. you're out of the will, and on the ignore list. you are now my blind spot.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2005, 04:15 AM
Post
#349
|
|
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
Ok kids... Personal discussions should be taken to private message.
And seeing as this thread has sorta sprialed and fragmented over nearly 350 posts, I'm gonna shut it down. For those actually discussing SR4, please feel free to start up new threads to renew the conversation, but please... keep the OT stuff out. Oh, and everyone involved in the The People vs Blakkie? Things have degenerated into name calling and just a touch of the flammatory. This is a warning. Thanks! Bull |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th November 2025 - 05:13 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.