Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2040417" data-attributes="member: 23012">Wow -- you're still that bitter about losing the last argument?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I fail to see what is so horrible about pointing out that people are making unwarranted generalizations.Fine.  This is different from asserting that the rules are 'incomplete' (which you and others have claimed in the past).I fail completely to see why a relatively 'rules light' system necessarily involves 'cutting corners'.  Or 'inconsistent ad hoc GM calls'.I can assure you that I cut no corners, my GM calls are based on the rules and the requirements of the game, and they are quite consistent. Nobody claimed that C&C is for everyone, anymore than HERO or GURPs is.But going around claiming that a 'rules light' game requires 'cutting corners' and other rubbish is completely unjustified.  Now that this silly matter has been taken care of, back to the subject matter in question: the C&C game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>