Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 3472505" data-attributes="member: 29014">Would your opinion change if the wand said &quot;1 time per day&quot; like the amulet did?No, I'm not asking whether they would get a bonus if I tried to convince them again.&nbsp; I'm asking whether I even have to try--it seems plausible that they are already convinced from the phantom round before I used the amulet.I disagree--preciseness is incredibly crucial in the writing of the rules.&nbsp; Anything else is careless.&nbsp; As it comes to my game, as I said, the unfairness of the exploit that they left into the rules is so obvious that I would immediately houserule it.&nbsp; My game is built upon minor houserules here and there to increase playability, so really, this strict constructionism is only useful as a common parlance when speaking across games, such as on an online forum.&nbsp; Using anything else in such a situation is meaningless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rystil Arden, post: 3472505, member: 29014"] Would your opinion change if the wand said "1 time per day" like the amulet did? No, I'm not asking whether they would get a bonus if I tried to convince them again. I'm asking whether I even have to try--it seems plausible that they are already convinced from the phantom round before I used the amulet. I disagree--preciseness is incredibly crucial in the writing of the rules. Anything else is careless. As it comes to my game, as I said, the unfairness of the exploit that they left into the rules is so obvious that I would immediately houserule it. My game is built upon minor houserules here and there to increase playability, so really, this strict constructionism is only useful as a common parlance when speaking across games, such as on an online forum. Using anything else in such a situation is meaningless. [/QUOTE]

Verification