Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4035651" data-attributes="member: 32164">Emphasis Mine.There you go again. You're referencing a different playstyle than yours with phrases like &quot;violate the rules,&quot; &quot;breaking the rules,&quot; and &quot;wants to ignore the game.&quot; You previously used &quot;cheat&quot; and &quot;cheater&quot; to describe said playstyle.Do you even realize that you're just as guilty of the &quot;badwrongfun&quot; attack as the people you're saying attacked you? Or do you truly not realize this is loaded language you're using?Once again, the counter-argument is this: the game isn't &quot;in play&quot; when the PCs aren't &quot;on-stage.&quot; Therefore, anything that happens when the PCs aren't involved doesn't have to be governed by the game rules.That's not &quot;cheating,&quot; nor is it &quot;breaking&quot; or &quot;violating&quot; the rules, no matter how you view it, because the rules are utterly and completely silent on whether the game rules can, or even should, be used to govern all actions in the game world. Ergo, the game's &quot;rules&quot; aren't being violated if something that can't, by the rules, happen to a PC happens to an offstage NPC. The rules are clearly written, and intended, to apply whenever PCs are involved. Nobody's disputing that. Every single one of us is saying &quot;the rules always apply when PCs are involved.&quot; Different rules for PCs and NPCs may bother your suspension of disbelief, and it's fine if you want to avoid it because of that, but it's a perfectly legal playstyle.So, let's have no more &quot;badwrongfun&quot; accusations coming from either side, 'kay?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 4035651, member: 32164"] Emphasis Mine. There you go again. You're referencing a different playstyle than yours with phrases like "violate the rules," "breaking the rules," and "wants to ignore the game." You previously used "cheat" and "cheater" to describe said playstyle. Do you even realize that you're just as guilty of the "badwrongfun" attack as the people you're saying attacked you? Or do you truly not realize this is loaded language you're using? Once again, the counter-argument is this: the game isn't "in play" when the PCs aren't "on-stage." Therefore, anything that happens when the PCs aren't involved doesn't have to be governed by the game rules. That's not "cheating," nor is it "breaking" or "violating" the rules, no matter how you view it, because the rules are [i]utterly and completely silent[/i] on whether the game rules [i]can[/i], or even [i]should,[/i] be used to govern all actions in the game world. Ergo, the game's "rules" aren't being violated if something that can't, by the rules, happen to a PC happens to an offstage NPC. The rules are clearly written, and intended, to apply whenever PCs are involved. Nobody's disputing that. Every single one of us is saying "the rules always apply when PCs are involved." Different rules for PCs and NPCs may bother your suspension of disbelief, and it's fine if you want to avoid it because of that, but it's a perfectly [b]legal[/b] playstyle. So, let's have no more "badwrongfun" accusations coming from either side, 'kay? [/QUOTE]

Verification