Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9430319" data-attributes="member: 7026617">And as far as I'm concerned, every time he does that he's making a rule. Or he's not caring about consistency.(To be clear, sometimes this is necessary--no rules set can cover every possible situation without the GM or the group having to do rule-making because the overhead in terms of rules text is too high for the frequency the event will occur.&nbsp; But the more often the situation comes up, the more it turns into a house rule--or the more they've decided consistency in that context is unimportant to them.&nbsp; I don't consider there to be a third case).Its house-ruling the moment any attempt to impose consistency on it occurs.At which point they've decided they don't care about consistency in that context.&nbsp; They wouldn't be doing anything different if they simply decided the consequence randomly.&nbsp; And that only works as long as the players involved are also similarly unconcerned.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9430319, member: 7026617"] And as far as I'm concerned, every time he does that he's making a rule. Or he's not caring about consistency. (To be clear, sometimes this is necessary--no rules set can cover every possible situation without the GM or the group having to do rule-making because the overhead in terms of rules text is too high for the frequency the event will occur. But the more often the situation comes up, the more it turns into a house rule--or the more they've decided consistency in that context is unimportant to them. I don't consider there to be a third case). Its house-ruling the moment any attempt to impose consistency on it occurs. At which point they've decided they don't care about consistency in that context. They wouldn't be doing anything different if they simply decided the consequence randomly. And that only works as long as the players involved are also similarly unconcerned. [/QUOTE]

Verification