Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6640809">Because of people like Spinzcantspellhisname.&nbsp; To people like them, &quot;rulings&quot; in their favor are a vindication that they're playing D&amp;D the &quot;right&quot; way and they're going to lord that over others, use it to shut people down and disrespect alternative playstyles.&nbsp; Because those people exist in real life too, people who are less interested in having a good time and more interested in having a competition to &quot;win&quot; over others.That and nothing was changed mechanically.&nbsp; If there is a problem with the rules mechnically, that's what WOTC should comment on.&nbsp; If there is a question of verisimilitude their answer should be &quot;play the way you want.&quot;&nbsp; That should have been enough of an answer for the vast majority of people (and it probably was).&nbsp; So much for &quot;rulings not rules&quot;.Have the arguments gone away?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; So what was accomplished if it didn't change anything mechanically, didn't put a stop to the debate/discussion/flame wars, and only served to tell people that their preferred level of verisimilitude is unacceptable?I get this feeling from many of the Sage Advice blogs.&nbsp; They strike me more as &quot;This is how we play the game we wrote.&quot;&nbsp; Not useful ruse clarifications.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6640809"] Because of people like Spinzcantspellhisname. To people like them, "rulings" in their favor are a vindication that they're playing D&D the "right" way and they're going to lord that over others, use it to shut people down and disrespect alternative playstyles. Because those people exist in real life too, people who are less interested in having a good time and more interested in having a competition to "win" over others. That and nothing was changed mechanically. If there is a problem with the rules mechnically, that's what WOTC should comment on. If there is a question of verisimilitude their answer should be "play the way you want." That [I]should[/I] have been enough of an answer for the vast majority of people (and it probably was). So much for "rulings not rules". Have the arguments gone away? No. So what was accomplished if it didn't change anything mechanically, didn't put a stop to the debate/discussion/flame wars, and only served to tell people that their preferred level of verisimilitude is unacceptable? I get this feeling from many of the Sage Advice blogs. They strike me more as "This is how we play the game we wrote." Not useful ruse clarifications. [/QUOTE]

Verification