Sure. If the player is the one who has a problem with it, they can choose to limit themselves. What if the GM is the one who doesn't like it? Then you're basically telling the player they can't do something the rules let them do. Better to houserule stuff like this up-front.
Well... the mechanics are more important--for the game book. The fiction is what you put into the game at your table. The mechanics are there to help shape the fiction.
I like this.
From my point of view, the mechanics are there to play out the fiction in a practical and hopefully verisimilitudinous way. It doesn't shape the fiction, it contours to it.
that still does not explain how, unless to you how is ‘because they said so’
how is that supposed to work…
if the mechanics violate the fiction, then I am not sure it is the fiction that has to give… I guess that is the fundamental difference
That's the fundamental difference in opinion this disagreement is about. People simply see the relationship of the mechanics and fiction differently. Whether we use mechanics to represent the fiction, or whether we invent fiction to justify the mechanics. I don't think anyone is going to change their position on that, it simply is an different way of thinking things.
