Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6873124">Eloelle.&nbsp; I was wondering what sort of trap you were planning to spring with that leading question.&nbsp; (In my mind's eye I was picturing a string tied to a stick propping up one end of a cardboard box.)Anyway...I suppose you're trying to suggest that &quot;ruling&quot; == &quot;house ruling&quot; (whatever that is) == &quot;house rule&quot; and therefore...well, I really don't know where that is supposed to lead.&nbsp; That DM judgment calls are all house rules?&nbsp; And that therefore allowing somebody to play a 5 Int Genius is a house rule?OMG SOMEBODY LET ME OUT OF THIS CARDBOARD BOX BEFORE I STARVE!The silliness of the phrase &quot;house ruling&quot; aside, the two things, rules and rulings, are opposites.&nbsp; One is a one-time subjective interpretation.&nbsp; The other is (meant to be) a consistently applied, objective mechanic.&nbsp; Making a ruling does not establish a rule.It appears you've made the mistake of thinking that because they share the same first syllable they're essentially the same thing.Furthermore, not all DM &quot;decisions&quot; should be classified as rulings.&nbsp; If I say, &quot;Hey, would a Drow Druid fit in with your campaign&quot; and the DM says, &quot;Yeah, sure&quot; I'm not asking for a ruling and he isn't giving me one; I'm just asking if that's gonna work in his campaign.&nbsp; Out of courtesy. On the other hand, if he says &quot;no&quot; and I insist anyway then I'm being an uncooperative dickwad and he might have to make an actual ruling.&nbsp; Or you could say that even just his &quot;no&quot; is the ruling, which means....If you want to equate rulings with house rules, then the conclusion is that NOT allowing Eloelle as a character concept is the house rule.&nbsp; (Unless you actually believe that the rules require 5 Int to be roleplayed as dumb, which is...well let's just say there's some irony there.) Q.E.F.D., Baby.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6873124"] Eloelle. I was wondering what sort of trap you were planning to spring with that leading question. (In my mind's eye I was picturing a string tied to a stick propping up one end of a cardboard box.) Anyway... I suppose you're trying to suggest that "ruling" == "house ruling" (whatever that is) == "house rule" and therefore...well, I really don't know where that is supposed to lead. That DM judgment calls are all house rules? And that therefore allowing somebody to play a 5 Int Genius is a house rule? OMG SOMEBODY LET ME OUT OF THIS CARDBOARD BOX BEFORE I STARVE! The silliness of the phrase "house ruling" aside, the two things, rules and rulings, are opposites. One is a one-time subjective interpretation. The other is (meant to be) a consistently applied, objective mechanic. [I]Making a ruling does not establish a rule. [/I] It appears you've made the mistake of thinking that because they share the same first syllable they're essentially the same thing. Furthermore, not all DM "decisions" should be classified as rulings. If I say, "Hey, would a Drow Druid fit in with your campaign" and the DM says, "Yeah, sure" I'm not asking for a ruling and he isn't giving me one; I'm just asking if that's gonna work in his campaign. Out of courtesy. On the other hand, if he says "no" and I insist anyway then I'm being an uncooperative dickwad and he might have to make an actual ruling. Or you could say that even just his "no" is the ruling, which means.... If you want to equate rulings with house rules, then the conclusion is that NOT allowing Eloelle as a character concept is the house rule. (Unless you actually believe that the rules require 5 Int to be roleplayed as dumb, which is...well let's just say there's some irony there.) Q.E.F.D., Baby. [/QUOTE]

Verification