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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7759446" data-attributes="member: 6704184">It's very clear, Max. It just isn't written in technical language. That's a good thing. Firstly, it does match reality, because people just aren't walking around afraid of plants, and even if they were, that doesn't mean that they're aware that a specific plant is a threat, any more than I'd be aware that a guy walking past me is a threat, just because I've been attacked completely at random by a guy walking past me on the street before. He can still sucker punch me, because knowing that people are potentially dangerous doesn't mean I'm away that a specific person is about to attack me. It doesn't say that you have to be unaware that a potential threat might exist, it says you have to be unaware of the threat. A person isn't a threat just because they have the potential to attack you. You have to be aware that they're about to do so. There is no reason to make that any more clear than it is, wasting page space that is put to good use in the book as is. Meaningless quibbling about wording aside, Someone else already explained that you're wrong about what the rules actually do without the clause in question. It's a rule. Not a "non-rule rule", but simply a rule.  Arbitrary to the point of the nonsensical. I could say that about any system that has more an alternative available with more spelled out rules. I could just as easily, using precisely the same reasoning, say that no game but GURPS has very spelled out rules.  There isn't a contradiction there, you're just questing after confusion.  Most of which have resulted from people refusing to read the rules, or trying to twist wording to mean something obviously not intended. A thing that is well known a cost of very spelled out rules systems.</blockquote>

Verification