Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Water Bob" data-source="post: 5618735" data-attributes="member: 92305">I don't think so.&nbsp; Not at all.&nbsp; I've got a critical mind, and I'm a GM.&nbsp; It's my job to understand, completely, the rules.&nbsp; When my players ask me a question, I want to have an answer for them.&nbsp; So, I investigate everything that I don't quite understand, agree with, or have a question about.&nbsp;That's exactly what these forums are for, yes?&nbsp; To discuss the game?&nbsp;That's what is happening in my threads.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sure, but the rules say a flank doesn't happen unless a foe is in square B, the character is in square E, and another foe is in square H (or one of the other direct line configurations).&nbsp;ABCDEFGHJ&nbsp;It seems logical tome that a foe in B, character in E, and second foe in G should also get the flanking bonus.&nbsp;I understand that, with a line drawn through, and no facing rules, that the rule is meant as an easy way to determine flank.&nbsp; That's probably why the designers did what they did.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That strikes me as quite strange, too.&nbsp; Why post, talk about how disgusted you are with the poster or the topic, and turn the thread to negativity?&nbsp; I don't get that at all.&nbsp;Why not just ignore the thread and keep moving to what interests you?&nbsp;Dandu is a great example.&nbsp; He pokes his head in, never offering anything constructive, usually babbling some Buddah idiocy, and then darts off.&nbsp; Why even come to my threads to begin with if I annoy you?&nbsp;You sure as heck don't see me peaking in on Dandu's threads, do you?&nbsp;Nope.&nbsp; I don't like the guy, so I just stay away from him.&nbsp; Simple as that.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Did you not just read up thread where I explained that?&nbsp;I've got a question about a rule.&nbsp; I don't know if I'm going to House Rule it.&nbsp; I didn't start the thread with changing the rule, in mind.&nbsp; &nbsp;The idea is to get some input from people who've got more experience with the game and have probably tackled the same issue and found answers before.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I didn't realize you were annoyed, but I'll say to you what I've said to a couple of others:&nbsp; IF I ANNOY YOU, THEN PLAIN IGNORE MY THREADS.&nbsp;Simple as that.&nbsp;If I post a thread and nobody answers it, it won't hurt my feelings.&nbsp; Trust me on this.&nbsp;It's better a thread that nobody participates in that an irritated, snarky, back-n-forth.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And, that thread has had a positive effect on my game.&nbsp; I'm not going to use the Optional Flanking Rules next time and see how it plays.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We've only had 4 game sessions and very little combat.&nbsp; We've had a lot of role playing.&nbsp; I expect a lot of combat our next game session, coming up in a couple of weeks.&nbsp; Thus, you've been seeing me investigate the combat rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Water Bob, post: 5618735, member: 92305"] I don't think so. Not at all. I've got a critical mind, and I'm a GM. It's my job to understand, completely, the rules. When my players ask me a question, I want to have an answer for them. So, I investigate everything that I don't quite understand, agree with, or have a question about. That's exactly what these forums are for, yes? To discuss the game? That's what is happening in my threads. Sure, but the rules say a flank doesn't happen unless a foe is in square B, the character is in square E, and another foe is in square H (or one of the other direct line configurations). ABC DEF GHJ It seems logical tome that a foe in B, character in E, and second foe in G should also get the flanking bonus. I understand that, with a line drawn through, and no facing rules, that the rule is meant as an easy way to determine flank. That's probably why the designers did what they did. That strikes me as quite strange, too. Why post, talk about how disgusted you are with the poster or the topic, and turn the thread to negativity? I don't get that at all. Why not just ignore the thread and keep moving to what interests you? Dandu is a great example. He pokes his head in, never offering anything constructive, usually babbling some Buddah idiocy, and then darts off. Why even come to my threads to begin with if I annoy you? You sure as heck don't see me peaking in on Dandu's threads, do you? Nope. I don't like the guy, so I just stay away from him. Simple as that. Did you not just read up thread where I explained that? I've got a question about a rule. I don't know if I'm going to House Rule it. I didn't start the thread with changing the rule, in mind. The idea is to get some input from people who've got more experience with the game and have probably tackled the same issue and found answers before. I didn't realize you were annoyed, but I'll say to you what I've said to a couple of others: [COLOR=blue]IF I ANNOY YOU, THEN PLAIN IGNORE MY THREADS.[/COLOR] Simple as that. If I post a thread and nobody answers it, it won't hurt my feelings. Trust me on this. It's better a thread that nobody participates in that an irritated, snarky, back-n-forth. And, that thread has had a positive effect on my game. I'm not going to use the Optional Flanking Rules next time and see how it plays. We've only had 4 game sessions and very little combat. We've had a lot of role playing. I expect a lot of combat our next game session, coming up in a couple of weeks. Thus, you've been seeing me investigate the combat rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification