NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6843762" data-attributes="member: 16814">Just as a friendly aside, how do you expect this conversation to proceed when your first response to my in this thread is a slur?  I'm curious as to whether you thought that labeling me a, what was it, "outrage manufacturing machine" was going to be helpful to discourse?Given as how this is the first response to me, you may have missed my statements on the matter, which are largely in tune with you on 'lack of objective means'.  However, I don't find the argument that such objective rules don't exist means that there are no restrictions whatsoever, which does seem to me (correct me if I'm wrong) to be your argument.  The game has a clear slant towards low intelligence being, well, low intelligence, and people have a general idea of what low intelligence at least kinda sorta looks like, and it's not Sherlock Holmes.  Expecting that a player will at least try to approximate, to the best of their ability, a low intelligence score is not unreasonable, and has a reasonable footing in the game in the description of intelligence.  Hard, objective rule?  No, granted.  Reasonable expectation of players?  Yes.  Can there be exceptions?  Sure, but that should be agreed to between the player and the GM, and not left in the realm of 'the rules don't say I can't, so...'  .That's nice, please remove me from the universal you, I'm not in that camp.  And my point of you saying 'badwrongfun' is specifically in reference to you labeling someone as 'that guy' if they don't agree with your playstyle.  Granted, it was couched in terms of being at your table, and everyone has the ability to determine who they play with on whatever criteria they wish, but the implication was much wider than just your table.Generally, I find the 'doesn't say I can't in the rules' types of argument to be very weak and often used to excuse blatant abuse of the game.  Not implying that you do that, just putting that argument into context for how valid it is.  The rules don't say a lot of things.  They don't say that you can't shoot laser beams out of your eyes, for instance, yet that's something that kinda goes without saying.  To touch on a common argument in this thread, the rules also don't say that frogs can't take IQ tests, but you're a strong opponent of the Frogs Have IQs, Too movement it would appear.  Clearly, 'frogs can't take IQ tests isn't in the rules' isn't a compelling argument for you in that regard, either, because, as I believe you've said, you know what a frog is and will run your game with that knowledge (heavy paraphrase there, not claiming that as a quote).  How far, exactly, is it from knowing that frogs can't take IQ tests to knowing that a very low INT score shouldn't be a smart guy?  We all make judgement calls when the rules aren't clear, based on how we think the world should be.  I don't find it compelling that your argument in one such case is entirely rules-being-absent driven while in a similar case it's however you say it is because that's your call.  If I had to guess, the actual difference here isn't a lack of a rule, it's that the decision affects a PC, and you've a strong record of never agreeing to any restrictions on the declarations of PCs.  Since expecting a low INT score to be at least nodded at in player roleplaying, I imagine that this trips this sacred cow of yours, and explains your vehemence in arguing and willingness to engaging in slurs of people that challenge this belief of yours.  IIRC, it's a similar topic that landed me on your ignore list previously.  At that time, I didn't recognize the strength of your conviction of the inviolate nature of PCs, and mistook your strident words for attempting to declare how others should play to your preferred style.  Honestly, you come across similarly here, but I've read more of you (and don't hold grudges often) and recognize that this is a topic on which you will always respond strongly.  And I can respect that.  All I'm asking is that you step back a moment and recognize that others may come at this differently, and their methods are just as valid as yours, and don't deserve being labelled as 'that guy' for stating them.</blockquote>

Verification