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="Umbran" data-source="post: 6459999" data-attributes="member: 177">Wrong.  I don't agree.    Gamemasters are not ragingly stupid.  Aside from the quote's suggestion that they are thick of skull and numb of wit (so that they don't realize they supposedly don't need rules), it disregards the practical fact that rules are needed - they provide an overall context, consistency, and continuity of experience required for most folks to have a satisfying play experience.  Rare, indeed, is a GM who actually needs no rules at their table.  At least, in my experience.  The greatest GMs I have ever played with are very mindful of the rules they play under.That the rules can be edited and adjudicated, even on a moment to moment, ad hoc basis, does not say they are irrelevant, or unnecessary.  I mean, really, you're spending how many hours of your life on a D&D site, discussing these rules, but claiming they are irrelevant to play?  That seems pretty silly - if the rules are really irrelevant, why aren't you spending time discussing something that *IS* relevant to play? Or, are you saying that you're so foolish as to waste your time in this way?  In which case, if you are that foolish, why should be listen to you?To be clear - I know you are not a fool.  That leaves the statement as a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect - but I find that less useful than the practical realities.  We spend so much time having to weed through the dramatic effect that it gets in the way of getting to useful bits.  The process is tiring, so I'd like to cut through it.Agreed.  But, you can't measure the rule's or ruling's relevance until you actually *have* it.  The whole initial question of the thread was, in essence, "Why seek official rullings?"  You can't prejudge it to be un-useful to you if you don't ever seek it out!Yes.. and no.  In the context of this discussion, we have a tendency to think about ourselves, or our own tables as the iconic example that others also generally match. That brings us to statements like we have seen - "remind folks what the point of the game is!"  As if doing so will end the questions about rules?  If you stop and think about it, the disagreement probably arose because there is a clash of what's important to various people!  Reminding them of "what the point is" is probably either going to continue to polarize them (each side think their issue is important), or dismiss someone's position as "not the point".Rather than *remind* them of what the point is, why aren't you *asking* them what the point is?  "Joe, why does this mean so much to you?"The internet is good at driving discussion to polar opposites.  In your statements, for example, it sounds like there are two things: that which is primary, and that which is irrelevant.  As if there were not spectrum of priorities and concerns?How about we drop consideration of "essential"?  Because, that is likely a bugaboo in the discussion - the number of people documented to be, "OMG, if I don't have the official ruling on this, I'm gonna DIE!!!1!" does not seem to be large.  You seem to be attempting to speak against a stance that few, if anyone, here is actually taking.   Moreover, it implies a position of, "that which is not absolutely essential should be ignored," and that's not a good way to get a great experience, is it?  Let's look at it from a practical standpoint.  You bought the rules, read them over, and thought they served your purposes.  For the most part, they do serve your purposes.  The designer's ideas seem to suit what you need.  But, there's an edge case, or an ambiguity of wording catches you up.  Why on earth *wouldn't* you want to know what they thought?  Everything else they wrote is working well, so, why not seek out clarification from the source?  What is the argument *against* getting an official ruling?</blockquote>

Verification