About the wording....
by
Eurtek at 2007-03-20 19:29:30
I'm not sure what needs to be said, but something does. While I am a fan for nice writing and all that jazz, I think in the context of proposals, wording should be a tad more formal, or at least more encompassing. Currently there is a proposal up for regeneration of 'blown up' squares. I don't see this proposal as doing much, considering there is currently no way to blow up a square. As Broken sorcery is defined:
"The caster?s current square is destroyed."
It is destroyed. It is not blown up, burnt to a crisp, exploded, or imploded. It is destroyed, and after said process of destruction, it is gone, has ceased to be, etc.
Now I know I should be relaxed and be taking this for what it is, a game, but every game has the parts of it which are key to everything, and here it is the rules and proposals. I respect them, and I enjoy the countless allusions we have weaved within them, but for certain key parts of proposals, all things should be nice and proper. triggers and referring to game state are one of them. I could argue, after all, that since no square will, in the future, be blown up, Proposal #107 would have no future effect, unless a new method of destroying squares came into existence.
Replies