Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6510472" data-attributes="member: 90370">I never contested this assertion.It's strange you would point this out, as it's obvious.My question has nothing to do with demanding a standard be met. It is a question to find out the reason why someone does not employ a given practice or at least see its utility, not a demand to employ that practice. I still don't have an example of what you're talking about (bad "content" choice that isn't on some level a "rules" choice) so I can't see what you mean.Then my question remains unanswered:Assuming there was zero cost to changing the rule that made you fudge (and it was possible), would you accept the change?Pointing out bad fixes is irrelevant to that question.Then your observation does not match mine.Which is fine.The point is if it's _ever_ coming (whether you know or not) the internal calculus of how often you have to try how hard slips down a notch. In practice, you never know when a fudge is coming, but you almost always know when you have a GM capable of fudging--which means you can be a little more lazy al the time.It's like playing chess against a worse opponent--you don't know when they'll make a mistake, but you are not gripped with the same concentration as when dealing with a better chess player.Again, that's not what happens in practice at the appropriate table.  If the players are not really terribly stuck on the idea of challenging themselves against an objective ruleset, they wind up not caring.Again (and perhaps the last time) no.  If you cannot predict, then you still have to try.  You can only slack off trying when you know the fudge is coming - do it any other time and you hose yourself.  Regardless of how you interpreted my question beforeCan you now answer this question please? I believe the answer will be interesting to both of us and perhaps surprising and fun to talk about...Assuming the change has no cost at all (in time or effort) why not change the rule and close the loophole?Not "Do you think it will be easy to change the loophole?"Not "Is your first priority changing the loophole?"Not "Do you think your game will fall apart if you close the loophole?"Not "What are all the ways you might close the loophole wrong?"Not "Do we call the loophole 'rules' or 'content' before changing it?"butAssuming the change to the game that would make it so you'd never have to fudge has no cost at all (in time or effort) why would anyone not change the rule (or accept a change to the rules from outside) and close the loophole?</blockquote>

Verification