Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 4620259" data-attributes="member: 11821">This thread is completely bizarre.I think this is what happens when you start a thread in response to posts in a different thread, but don't directly explain the connection.&nbsp; You find out that everyone else replying thinks they're in a different thread than you think they're in. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I understood as of a few pages ago what Imaro was actually arguing, but I can see why there was some initial (and maybe continuing) confusion.Still, everyone's making statements I don't really see as controversial.&nbsp; Maybe I'm wrong?(1) If you have a rule you don't like, you can change it so you do like it.(1a) If you don't like something about a system, you can add a rule to change the system.(2) If you do this, you've changed the game a bit, it might make more work for you down the road, and you can't expect it to be supported in later published releases.(3) There's a difference between adding a component like a spell, feat, or class; and changing a rule, like Reserve Points or replacing a d20 with 2d10. (Edit: Or at the very least can see that a person could reasonably think so.)I mean, really, I don't know what everyone's talking about anymore. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-O</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Obryn, post: 4620259, member: 11821"] This thread is completely bizarre. I think this is what happens when you start a thread in response to posts in a different thread, but don't directly explain the connection. You find out that everyone else replying thinks they're in a different thread than you think they're in. :) I understood as of a few pages ago what Imaro was actually arguing, but I can see why there was some initial (and maybe continuing) confusion. Still, everyone's making statements I don't really see as controversial. Maybe I'm wrong? (1) If you have a rule you don't like, you can change it so you do like it. (1a) If you don't like something about a system, you can add a rule to change the system. (2) If you do this, you've changed the game a bit, it might make more work for you down the road, and you can't expect it to be supported in later published releases. (3) There's a difference between adding a component like a spell, feat, or class; and changing a rule, like Reserve Points or replacing a d20 with 2d10. (Edit: Or at the very least can see that a person could reasonably think so.) I mean, really, I don't know what everyone's talking about anymore. :) -O [/QUOTE]

Verification