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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="General Starlight" data-source="post: 117256" data-attributes="member: 3653">I'd rather drop it, too.Well sure, Icebear.  Thinking too much (over thinking) or reading too much into (mostly concentrating on semantics of the language) a rule ultimately isn't the best basis of a good ruling anyway.  What's fun, fair, reasonable, balanced, and desired for your own world is a far better yardstick, and it helps if whatever method you may employ, you tend to use it consistently.  I prefer a bit more complexity than most, tend to use it, and feel it produces more realistic, consistent results since that's how I approach the game.  But it's not the only way.    But I enjoy it all, and enjoy discussing the logical reasons, if that's what someone offers here, the semantics of the write up, if that's what someone offers here, their ideas on balance, if that's what someone offers here, or wherever they go in a forum such as this.  If I didn't, I wouldn't even get involved with that particular post.  I'd much prefer doing that than trying to tell someone their method doesn't belong or is somehow wrong or not as good as mine.  It's far too subjective to make any such claim reasonable anyway.    And trust me, I certainly appreciate anyone wanting to concentrate more on the up coming scenario lay out than some piddly, trivial matter that isn't going to affect their game much anyway.  I'm just not sure how hanging out in an En World forum and taking part in a discussion on the very thing you wish to avoid helps there, or conserves your precious time, but I will assume you are simply not currently pressed for time and, like me, think taking part in such a discussion can be a fun part of the game too, when time permits, like now.    Sorry if anyone felt slighted that I think more realism has advantages over hong's third law, but that's only true insofar as when and if realism is both desired and appreciated.  Clearly, if it is not as important to one, then this isn't going to be the case, and nothing I know compels me to think this makes their style of play somehow flawed.  That would be like saying: "Hey, you aren't really having the fun you seem to think you are."  I can't imagine saying anything much stupider than that, except, perhaps, if someone wanted to start going around telling others they had a superior handle on what another person thinks than that person does them self, and further criticizes them for such alleged thoughts, like they were perhaps god and could see into the mind of another, they're so certain.  Such barely deserves acknowledgement.  Suffice it to say there's a reason why it's refreshing when one admits their errors.  It's because far more frequently, many don't have the maturity to do so.    I understand the POV of not wanting too much realism, and even I admittedly and fully accept 'some' blatantly unrealistic aspects of a game (like 2e combat, for example) since realism in combat is not what I look for in a more roleplaying endeavor.  I sure as heck won't defend such things as realistic, however, should one decide to criticize it.    Thankfully, now that I've answered some posts, I too would much rather talk about the topic at hand. a.k.a. Teleportation.    Jim.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification