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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6738085" data-attributes="member: 16814">So, if I understand correctly, the rules apply differently depending solely on the actors involved?I would not like that.I can only go by what you say here, and you said 'Only magic.'  I asked for clarification and you clarified 'only magic.'  I'm fine that you've changed it, but I'd like it pointed out that I was going exactly by what you said.  If that's too narrow, I don't have a solution.See, I'd like to agree with this, but I really don't.  The rules as written are meant to provide a framework, an agreed upon reference so that every player has an understanding of what to expect.  It's fine to change that framework, and occasionally good to do so, but only if everyone is made fully aware of the changes.  I'm sure you do that, but then to say in a general thread that the rules are fluid isn't entirely fair -- they're not really that fluid.  This thread is an excellent example.  We've both read the rulebook, and you clearly run your game a different way than I do mine, but you're using the fluidity of the rules as a defense instead of clearly stating where you differ from the baseline.  And the rules are the baseline.  They are important to be a baseline, and it's a valid assumption to make that the rules as written will be used unless stated otherwise.  Anything else leads to unpleasantness in the game as seemingly arbitrary decisions change what would otherwise be expected.I like that I can overrule things in the rules.  I like that I can modify things.  But I still hold the rules as important and not something that is easily changed.  I'm playing a game based on those rules, and people that sit at my table bring expectations that those rules will be used.  I should endeavor to not change those rules without good reason and without informing the players beforehand.  Anything else is being capricious.Which probably explains my issues with your rulings -- they don't follow the rules and it took a great deal of questioning to get the corner cases nailed down because you were very fluid holding to an ideal not present in the rules.  Allowed by them, yes, but not explicitly present, either.</blockquote>

Verification