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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6473549" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure, but its also less than a second thought to correct how the rule works.   More to the point though, most edge cases created by poorly worded rules involve much more ambiguity regarding the intention of the rules and the way to handle them.  I doubt the case you mention here would ever come up because it is so counter-intuitive.  But you will run into plenty of cases of players planning actions based on their understanding of the rules where pulling the rug out from under them won't seem so reasonable.I've played 'Old School'.  I've been DMing since 1982.   I submit that a lot of the people who wrote the 'Old School Primer' have rose colored glasses.  'Old School' involves hours long arguments between players and DMs because the rules are so opaque, inconsistent, poorly organized, contradictory, reliant on DM fiat, and difficult to apply consistently.   'Old School' assumes that every DM is a master rules smith that can craft on the fly, under pressure, new rules that are fair, interesting, and reasonable.   The truth is that even many skilled DMs are terrible rule smiths.   Just because your world building, characterization, pacing and plotting is excellent, doesn't mean you are a good rules designer (and vica versa).  It's an absurd result because it creates a binary situation where you try to screw the PC for proposing he act in a way that isn't explicitly allowed by the rules.  Faced with this response to a creative non-rule proposition, the player will learn the lesson - don't try to imagine what your character is doing, simply follow the rules.   It's an absurd result because it offers no granularity, no interest, little verisimilitude, not much in the way of game play and the only time you'd see it actually occur in game would likely be abusive.</blockquote>

Verification