Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MichaelK" data-source="post: 4843747" data-attributes="member: 60635">First of all Gizmo, let me apologize if I've offended you. It's not my intention.The phrase "Common Sense" is an idiom. The meaning is not derived from either word or their logical combined whole, instead it is determined by a traditional meaning assigned by the majority of english speakers.I'm not referring to some commonly held ideal, well... not directly anyway. But sufficient wisdom to realize that if a particular interpretation of the rules seems too good to be true, then it probably shouldn't be interpreted that way."Too good to be true" is such a cliche, that I feel it falls under the bracket of "Common Sense".I apologize if my choice of words was offensive, but that's how I see it.I may of course be wrong.I disagree a little with your choice of words there myself actually.I don't think that the DM's job is to enforce their opinions upon the game. The DM is an elected official, of a sort, entrusted by a group of players with authority and responsibility to adjudicate the rules on their behalf. Although the players choosing them as DM can be seen as a mandate of sorts to run the game style the DM wants, ultimately I think they're responsible to the group and should be running the kind of game everyone can enjoy and get behind.I don't. I think that practised spellcaster should benefit warlocks. I introduce this as a house rule in games that I run.This does not mean that I think anyone who disagrees or finds the 'spellcasters only' argument more persuasive lacks "common sense". But if someone says (as an extreme example. This is not meant to typify your viewpoint as a strawman, or to invoke some kind of slippery slope argument. This is for illustrative purposes only)...As I was saying, if someone says "But it never says you can no longer take actions after you die, therefore my character can", then I would describe that as lacking "common sense". This may be a subset of disagreeing with my opinion, but it is not the entirety.I agree and feel the same way. However as my comment was merely addressing the reason why rule changes are introduced to cover problematic rules, I fail to see the relevance.Nor are mine. In fact as I specified at the end, I've never encountered this problem in real life.While we disagree, sometimes a great deal, it is not because they lack common sense... at least not in my opinion. We merely have different ideas.Some ideas though seem to me to lack common sense.</blockquote>

Verification