Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jessemock" data-source="post: 1410844" data-attributes="member: 15694">Mostly for the fun of it.&nbsp; But that's always been one of the great attractions of D&amp;D: diminutive rules disputes and 'legal cheats' have become a pastime in their own right.Dealing with this 'other hobby' in a post-Magic:the Gathering world can amount to something of a chore, however.One problem is that the sort of rules analysis required to produce 'bag of snail-puppies' interpretations--that is, absurdly literalist--may result in 'blowback' readings that contradict the intent of the rules set:&nbsp; while sifting through the rules for the perfect munch, opportunities to throw a wrench in the gears arise.The D&amp;D/D20 rule sets facilitate this rules-wrangling:&nbsp; why do you suppose that there's a need for a rule about what to do when the rules contradict themselves? On the other hand, appeals to Rule Zip bug me:&nbsp; while it's true that no one plays by the rules as written (given that the rules themselves recognise that they sometimes contradict themselves, how could you?), it's also clear that Wizards doesn't allocate too many resources to careful editing.&nbsp; The sheer mass of the rules demand a certain level of mess, but that should encourage greater efforts against sloppiness, rather than the other way around.In other words, there's a great deal of issues that shouldn't be left for House Rules to resolve.&nbsp; Rule 0 should allow for further options, not permit patches.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jessemock, post: 1410844, member: 15694"] Mostly for the fun of it. But that's always been one of the great attractions of D&D: diminutive rules disputes and 'legal cheats' have become a pastime in their own right. Dealing with this 'other hobby' in a post-Magic:the Gathering world can amount to something of a chore, however. One problem is that the sort of rules analysis required to produce 'bag of snail-puppies' interpretations--that is, absurdly literalist--may result in 'blowback' readings that contradict the intent of the rules set: while sifting through the rules for the perfect munch, opportunities to throw a wrench in the gears arise. The D&D/D20 rule sets facilitate this rules-wrangling: why do you suppose that there's a need for a rule about what to do when the rules contradict themselves? On the other hand, appeals to Rule Zip bug me: while it's true that no one plays by the rules as written (given that the rules themselves recognise that they sometimes contradict themselves, how could you?), it's also clear that Wizards doesn't allocate too many resources to careful editing. The sheer mass of the rules demand a certain level of mess, but that should encourage greater efforts against sloppiness, rather than the other way around. In other words, there's a great deal of issues that shouldn't be left for House Rules to resolve. Rule 0 should allow for further options, not permit patches. [/QUOTE]

Verification