Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7625382" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Again, you try and argue about the rule as if it said cant. It didnt. The rule says &quot;will not wear&quot;. That is the rule in play (barring house rules) and do that's the rule you agreed to when choosing to be playing a druid.If you, then player, agreed to play by that rule, why are you then trying to ho back on that in play and going all off with &quot;tyrant&quot; or &quot;railroad&quot; claims when it actually does apply to your character in play?Let's put it another way - if the rules at the table are &quot;no pvp&quot; then you and the other players have agreed to not have your characters do those things. Do you then get upset if the GM stops things when, in game, you decide to go attack a PC cuz &quot;there's nothing physically stopping the character!!!!&quot;?Is the GM a tyrant or railroading by not letting you the player go back and violate the rules you agreed to?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7625382, member: 6919838"] Again, you try and argue about the rule as if it said cant. It didnt. The rule says "will not wear". That is the rule in play (barring house rules) and do that's the rule you agreed to when choosing to be playing a druid. If you, then player, agreed to play by that rule, why are you then trying to ho back on that in play and going all off with "tyrant" or "railroad" claims when it actually does apply to your character in play? Let's put it another way - if the rules at the table are "no pvp" then you and the other players have agreed to not have your characters do those things. Do you then get upset if the GM stops things when, in game, you decide to go attack a PC cuz "there's nothing physically stopping the character!!!!"? Is the GM a tyrant or railroading by not letting you the player go back and violate the rules you agreed to? [/QUOTE]

Verification