Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8474607" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Note in the example I responded to, the GM (and presumably the players) all acknowledged it was dumb.  In fact, in  a later post the poster gave an example of having a gentleman's agreement to not engage with a similar thing.  So this isn't a case of a marginal rule; this is a case of someone with a group that actively agrees the rule is bad.  If they're still tolerating it for the reason you say at that point they've fallen into the trap of accepting authority over everything else, and that's not a good look.I'll give a pass on character gen problems under those circumstances, though if there's many of them, at some point that's a good reason to stop using said app.  A character gen program that premits no modificiation of its output is poorly designed.At some point, if you seriously think the rule is bad enough, that's even more reason to change it, not less.  If you seriously aren't up to changing the rule and its that bad and that pervasive, why are you still using that system?Afraid this one I just flat out don't buy.  People have always played with multiple GMs using a same game; that never stopped anyone from doing house rules before, don't see why it should now.Never said it had to be done on the fly, but again, in the original context this was apparently a known issue that was just being tolerated.  "We'll fix this later, but for now let's move on" is a different thing from "Its bad, but what are you gonna do?"And if you genuinely think a rule is bad, you should be.  Otherwise its either not that bad or you think its conceptually intractable.More accurately, its part of it in a place that can't be worked around.  I use plenty of game tools.  I still haven't lost the ability to roll a die if needed or have a player do so.Again, if its that bad a rule, and a fundamental part of the system, why are you using that system?Not even close to a good enough reason (if, again, the rule is that bad).Generally granted.  But if its a one-off issue, its usually not that big a deal in the first place.I simply disagree this latter is true.  Again, I've seen groups playing multiple incarnations of the same system many times over the years with different houserules and yet somehow they got by.Rules interactions problems has some legitimacy, but I have to question if you're someone is so averse to trusting their understanding here if they really understand the rules they're using in the first place.This must be a D&D-sphere thing.   While there's obviously some diminishing returns when house rules get too extensive, I've never seen people balk just because someone is using houserules in a game anywhere else.  And frankly, even in D&D it was more the rule than the exception for a good part of the hobby (one of the things that always makes it amusing talking to people about AD&D1 is the number of people who think they played by the book when they'd simply forgotten how many house rules they used...)</blockquote>

Verification