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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1919922" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>it doesn't i understand what those statements mean. There is nothing opaque about them. yours seems to however, just decide to throw some out in toto. like the whole "guidelines not scripts". I think, from everything I have seen, think mine is a more accurate reading of the rules than yours.I don't believe i ever said they did not sometimes write rules inconsistently. Honestly, the vast majority, say 90% of players IMX never have their character undergo an alignment change. Even when the character undergoes significant changes in story, they usually still remain within the broad stretches of alignment.of the ones who do change, it is usually no more than a one space shift.so, it is very very rare for a character to, IMX, shift so radically as to be in a position of "I lose all of my class abilities." MOREOVER, the classes with that problem have it stated up front. So, the players who CHOOSE that class are forewarned of the alignment restriction. That tends to make them not play the class unless they do intend to play a character appropriate to it. So, these are LESS LIKELY to be playing "marginally in line" characters for these classes and certainly not playing a character likely to do a radical reversal.So, all in all, this whole "class restriction" issue has come up so rarely that its not a problem i would ever give any sort of "commonality" to.thats all it took!?! gee, why didn't you say so earlier. It could have saved us a lot of typing had you said this.how totally unsurprising. shocked i am. but, you do realize what you are describing as "what happens with the alignment mechanic" is no where even close to what i see 90% of the time, 50% of the time, and so forth, right? Thats part of the problem... your house definition of rational actor is not equal to mine. What about a discussion of "what if people feel like playing their character, even when that won't get them the most powers and plusses, and they trust that this "sacrifice of power for character and story" won't be held against them by the GM and result in a loss of screen time or "relevence". What about people who, having a good non-competitive relationship with their GM, trust him enough to not see "being my character even when it hurts" as simply a decision to be based on "efficiently summing the powers and bonuses"?I would consider those very, extremely "rational actors." That descirbes a MAJORITY not a MINORITY of my players.As for a discussion of "one in a million" YOU fus were the one who brought into this discussion the QUESTION of running outsiders with always descriptors, and the one in a million is a direct quote from that "always" descriptor YOU drug in. if you did not want to discuss one-in-a-million, why bring up the "always"  outsiders at all? Were you just unaware of the "one-in-a-million" reference? hilarious, as always.[/QUOTE]

Verification