Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Boots" data-source="post: 7733034" data-attributes="member: 92239">[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Thank you for going through the process of finding the areas of the book that support your argument.Suffice to say that I appreciate the effort but disagree with your interpretation in a few areas.&nbsp; Mostly this has to do with the definition of skilled and smart play and the amount of latitude that is given in the rules set.&nbsp; Too many people that I played with in the 80s missed the part about the point of the game being to have a good time and used a similar interpretation to yours to treat others poorly.&nbsp; Too many games ended due to not having an understood social contract for the group.I've learned over the years that the way around that is to make sure that everyone who joins a table understands the lethality level of the game and agrees to that as part of the social contract of the table.&nbsp; Doing that has pretty much eliminated any misunderstandings of what the group's idea of &quot;fun&quot; is; but it's lacking from the advice given in the rulebooks of the era.Again thanks, but I fear that if I continue this we're going to add another six pages to the thread going back and forth.&nbsp; I'm going to bow out and declare you the winner <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Too much work to do this week to be on the forums heavily.Side note: I've put a bunch of people on ignore this week.&nbsp; If you reply to anything I did in the most recent powergamer thread, I won't be able to reply to it.&nbsp; Get me via PM instead.Be wellKB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Boots, post: 7733034, member: 92239"] [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Thank you for going through the process of finding the areas of the book that support your argument. Suffice to say that I appreciate the effort but disagree with your interpretation in a few areas. Mostly this has to do with the definition of skilled and smart play and the amount of latitude that is given in the rules set. Too many people that I played with in the 80s missed the part about the point of the game being to have a good time and used a similar interpretation to yours to treat others poorly. Too many games ended due to not having an understood social contract for the group. I've learned over the years that the way around that is to make sure that everyone who joins a table understands the lethality level of the game and agrees to that as part of the social contract of the table. Doing that has pretty much eliminated any misunderstandings of what the group's idea of "fun" is; but it's lacking from the advice given in the rulebooks of the era. Again thanks, but I fear that if I continue this we're going to add another six pages to the thread going back and forth. I'm going to bow out and declare you the winner :) Too much work to do this week to be on the forums heavily. Side note: I've put a bunch of people on ignore this week. If you reply to anything I did in the most recent powergamer thread, I won't be able to reply to it. Get me via PM instead. Be well KB [/QUOTE]

Verification