[projectaon] Re: Book 13 Erratum
- From: Chris Neilson <crusty.chris@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:26:25 +1200
I wouldnt think it needs go that far.
Realistically there are 3 situations that can occur for a veteran
player:
1) their stats are less than a new players stats
2) their stats are on par with a new player stats
3) their stats are much higher than a new player stats
given someone is in situation 2) or 3) they are most likely going to
carry their stats over regardless or the wording ("can" vs "should").
Situation 1) is the problem. The current wording implies that should
*you* wish to, you may dump all your stats/items etc and be no worse off
than a new player.
If you change the wording to "should" these people suddenly feel
pressured to play with inferior stats ie the word change offers no
benefit at all in 99% of cases, and is detrimental in the 1% fringe
cases. More importantly, its deviating from the original text - for no
benefit.
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:57 -0700, Jonathan Blake wrote:
> Is it just me or is there just too much going on with this. It seems
> like a simple change from "can" to "should" does not give enough
> information to help the reader make an informed choice. It's beginning
> to seem like this would be best handled by an extended explanation in
> the Readers' Handbook?
>
> --
> Jon
>
> ~~~~~~
> Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
>
>
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
