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="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6844842" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Ah... that makes sense, I supposed. Though now I feel it is important to clarify: My earlier comments would be more clear had I included that my table does not operate in this way.If something is intended as out-of-character, it need only be clarified at all - not necessarily in advance of saying it.No, I don't think that I can - especially not in the context of playing a game.That's not what any definition of the word "just" I've ever seen says, since they tend to use the word "fair" as part of the definition.Fairness always seems pleasant to me. If you are "caught in an infraction" the the "charge" is just - unless you are talking about being caught in one infraction and being charged for a different infraction in its place, and were not clear in saying so.That's how any group I've ever been in treated the rules they agreed to play by, so I really don't see how this is some strange thing.That makes it sound as though the complaint is not actually against the person's fairness (applying things to everyone fairly, himself included - which is a good thing), but against the person's refusal to do as the very rule-book says and tailor the game to his group, including changing any rules that don't make sense (which is a bad thing, since literally every rule in every game ever written "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense" not in an objective and universally applicable way, but a subject one).</blockquote>

Verification