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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7695506" data-attributes="member: 48965">How about you give me the benefit of the doubt and I'll give you the same... I'm not understanding how @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> arrived at his conclusion and I stated why...I don't disagree with what you are saying here.... however different events and big events are not synonyms... and I assume @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> uses the word "bigger" for a reason. No one is disputing a GM Intrusion (on a 1) should be different from a regular failure but I'm not agreeing it has to be some big event... it doesn't and nothing in the article or rulebook supports this.  Slipping in mud isn't some big event and an extra monster or two joining the fray isn't some big event... does that clear things up?   Agree to a point... Monte is using the qualifier of them not being fun to determine what frequency they should be used with.  He's not making a general statement about them in the article without reference to the qualifier that your player(s) doesn't/don't find them fun... this is key because it gives his reasoning for wanting to reduce them... the exact question @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> is asking. When did I say this?... I've said previously in this thread I use a blend of the two when running the Cypher system.  I'm disagreeing with @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>'s claim of Monte's reasoning for wanting to reduce character ineptness fumbles... <sarcasm>Now whose either being wilfully obtuse, here, or trying to pull off some sort of obfuscatory argument technique or something... </sarcasm>And I disagree that this is Monte's position or reasoning for wanting to reduce character ineptness driven fumbles.  Now if you and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> believe this to be true, that's ok and I'm willing to discuss whether I believe what you two think has merit but I don't agree with the premise that Cook's reasoning lies along the same line so I'm not going to start a discussion with the assumption that Cook's reasoning lies along the same lines as yours since I don't believe it does....</blockquote>

Verification