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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4981483" data-attributes="member: 20998">Yes, exactly yes. For some this is the reality of gaming. While my preference is that it be a cooperative experience, this may not be the preference or experience of others. Ari, I think you're taking my comments further than their intent. See further EW's comment I've quoted above and my reply. If the above is not the way your game plays, than I'm probably not splitting any hairs about how your game functions.To address some of your house rule questions: Firstly the judge, IMO, should be the GM and the players. MY take on gaming is that the GM and the players are cooperating to have a good time. It's an unspoken social contract of sorts. As a result, everyone at the game table should understand and agree with house rules. Secondly, some people are either not good at, don't have the time to, or dislike for some reason building house rules and would prefer to rely on something with that "official" feel, a.k.a. in a rulebook somewhere.On your last point, I disagree. It can do exactly what house rules do for individuality. Note I state can, since obviously not all complex rules actually produce anything productive. I could argue that we do play our roles this way in real life. I'm a project manager. I put that on my resume. It has significant impact on how my chances are to get a new job. It can be "challenged" reasonably by someone calling my previous employer. On the other hand, if I merely stated I was a project manager because the world lacked jobs (oh the joy to dream!) and I just wanted to be one, how do I support it? But all of that said, it's a silly line of arguing anyway, since we're not really talking about modeling real life in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification