Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8474629" data-attributes="member: 7026617">That's a good reason not to like having to deal with a bad rule. Its not a good reason not to deal with it. The latter is a choice, not an obligation.All reasonable.  But again, there's a big difference between these and "We all know this rule is dumb but we're just accepting it."  There are any number of responses to that but (barring your caveat about not sweating the small stuff), ignoring it while being put off about it is not a good one.  Its letting the door repeatedly hit you in the foot because you can't be bothered to fix that (and the fact the builder made a  mistake in the first place is not a reason not to).  Questioning why the hell you bought a game with that bad a rule is also perfectly legit, but at that point I again have to question why you're still playing the game (there can be network externality based reasons for that, but again, that's not a case that should occur if everyone is having a problem with the rule).Not--really?  Many of the same issues can apply (or not).  If you're not feeling competent to fix a broken bit, why is changing that bit for your own purposes going to be any safer?  It still can have unpredictable knock-on effects (and this is even true with relatively light games).Its the idea that "because a rule is written, there's no choice but to accept it" but somehow the same person can feel okay about making a ruling on the fly that I find bizarre.  Nothing about a rules-heavy system requires you to just sit and take what it dishes when it lays an egg, and nothing about making up a rule on the fly says that rule will somehow be better.  Its just a construction that makes no sense: either you're competent to rework a rule at need or you're not.  If you're not your on-the-fly choices aren't going to intrinsically be any better.This does not mean that someone who prefers a rules-light approach should mend their ways and go to a heavier one.  But the idea that somehow a situation where you have to make rules on the fly is going to be intrinsically better than having an extent one, or that the latter somehow binds you to it even if it makes no sense doesn't hold water. It comes down to whether you find the consistency and ability to predict what a rules heavy game gives your more or less valuable than the flexibility and room to remove parts of output from the direct rules that a rules light game does more valuable. And those cannot be but judgment calls based on a combination of taste and experience.</blockquote>

Verification