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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9102250" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, there are a few reasons.Not caring enough to fix it properly. "Eh, it's fine." I'd say that's probably the most common of the possible reasons not to. The "shrug of God" as TVTropes puts it. Could be generic apathy ("who cares? I'll probably change my mind later anyway"), very specific apathy (just not caring about that situation), could be something between ("eh, if it comes up again..." every time because it happens just infrequently enough to always forget what the previous solution was.)Wishing to project an inerrant appearance. "I don't make mistakes." This one can be pretty sneaky for many GMs in a high-GM-authority environment. Illusionism can be a very strong temptation rather than just admitting you goofed up. Pretending that every accident or unforced error was actually a brilliant move in disguise. Etc.Caring about it...for the wrong reasons. Pettiness, stubbornness, righteous indignation, vindication-seeking. That last one affected me, as a player, for many years; I tried so hard to make 3.X be the game I wanted to be, convinced that it was just the right house-rule or homebrew alternative away from being exactly what I always wanted.Ignorance. Not actually realizing that the solution was merely metaphorical duct tape, and instead thinking that it was a well-engineered solution to the problem. This one is particularly likely in very opaque systems with lots of disparate parts, because it's so much harder to see how those parts actually fit together.It's good that you prefer to work out a proper solution after the slap-patch has done its job and gotten you through the session. The implication I have gotten from others is that this is, to put it very mildly, rather less than a universal preference.</blockquote>

Verification