Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4039657" data-attributes="member: 32164">Ah. But for the purpose of what everyone (save you) was actually discussing, is the rhetorical device you used to "win" the argument actually relevant? What does stating out loud that "hey, the rules cover all rules, even rules about ignoring rules," actually prove?In other words, your statement and victory is irrelevant to the discussion and debate, which actually boils down to this:Should events in the gameworld be constrained by what is "possible" following a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written (and potentially also including anything with a mechanistic resolution system that the DM decides to add to his game)? Or are all those mechanistic rules merely an abstraction intended to facilitate gameplay that have no bearing on what's actually possible in a narrative context?And your semantic victory doesn't answer that debate. Moreover, from what I can tell, there is no answer to the debate, except what each person decides for themselves according to their preferences.It's like (and strangely enough, tied up with  :\ ) the old discussion about whether hit points represent one's ability to absorb actual physical damage or just a playable abstraction representing one's ability to avoid being seriously injured. Neither answer is objectively "right" or "wrong."And I still think we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point.</blockquote>