Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4015407" data-attributes="member: 957">That will be somewhat self-fulfilling as I expect quite a significant number of people will find this case of the rules assuming they can use them to be very disruptive.&nbsp; But they will probably tend to not play 4E.&nbsp;&nbsp; I know this type of arbitrary assumption on the way my game world works would suck for me.&nbsp; And it isn't a theory.&nbsp; And I explained it to my (gamer) wife last night to which she promptly replied &quot;Well that's stupid.&quot;&nbsp; I'd dispute the term &quot;theory&quot; here.And I'm all on board with majority control.&nbsp; But the post I first replied to didn't run that way.&nbsp; It assumed that one persons rationalization would end the debate.I'd be very interested to see how you do this.&nbsp; I'm sure it will be easy enough to invent low power rings.&nbsp; But I don't see WotC making this rule without building some assumptions about the rest of the system around it.No arguement from me there.&nbsp; But I've never disputed that.&nbsp; You're kinda reframing my point with a completely different spin.&nbsp; The presumption that everyone else will either automatically accept one person's rationalizations or else they are not being a good friendly player if far and away different than expecting everyone to reach a mutual agreement.Yeah,. 2E was full of dumb rules like this.&nbsp; Of course, thats when I dumped D&amp;D.....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4015407, member: 957"] That will be somewhat self-fulfilling as I expect quite a significant number of people will find this case of the rules assuming they can use them to be very disruptive. But they will probably tend to not play 4E. I know this type of arbitrary assumption on the way my game world works would suck for me. And it isn't a theory. And I explained it to my (gamer) wife last night to which she promptly replied "Well that's stupid." I'd dispute the term "theory" here. And I'm all on board with majority control. But the post I first replied to didn't run that way. It assumed that one persons rationalization would end the debate. I'd be very interested to see how you do this. I'm sure it will be easy enough to invent low power rings. But I don't see WotC making this rule without building some assumptions about the rest of the system around it. No arguement from me there. But I've never disputed that. You're kinda reframing my point with a completely different spin. The presumption that everyone else will either automatically accept one person's rationalizations or else they are not being a good friendly player if far and away different than expecting everyone to reach a mutual agreement. Yeah,. 2E was full of dumb rules like this. Of course, thats when I dumped D&D..... [/QUOTE]

Verification