Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JonnyP71" data-source="post: 7627267" data-attributes="member: 6788862">I think this post sums up that we simply think differently.&nbsp; Here in the UK we have a saying 'it's just not cricket' - referring to the 'spirit' of a contest.&nbsp; The idea being that traditionally you are meant to play honestly and not try to push your luck, it's why we get annoyed here in the UK when sportsmen try to fool an official, eg a soccer player diving to win a penalty, or an American footballer claiming a catch when the ball is clearly not under control... we generally consider such behaviour to be unacceptable.&nbsp; It might be judgmental of us, or old-fashioned, but it's a general part of the British psyche.It's the approach I use when playing D&amp;D, I'm a firm but fair DM who tries to work within the spirit of the game with my players, and I expect the same in return.&nbsp; I have the same approach when playing a character, work with the DM, not against him.&nbsp; Work with the setting.&nbsp; Try not to push the boundaries.Thus in the case of lawyer-style arguments regarding precise RAW language, for me it's the spirit of the rule that matters, NOT technicalities over preciseness of wording.Trying to get around component costs of Find Familiar, trying to get around the 'no metal armour' restriction for Druids (along with other issues such as players trying to get around Drow sunlight sensitivity, etc) all come under this 'spirit of the game' heading.&nbsp; And thus my robust response when people have the approach advocated by yourself (and Maxperson).&nbsp; It's an unpleasant style of play, it derails sessions, it's disrespectful to Dm and fellow players, and the game is simply better for the group as a whole if it is avoided... so don't do it.&nbsp; And if you see this approach in AL games - I've played a couple, and I never saw this happen - then it's another reason to avoid them.(my problem player I mentioned above was not British)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JonnyP71, post: 7627267, member: 6788862"] I think this post sums up that we simply think differently. Here in the UK we have a saying 'it's just not cricket' - referring to the 'spirit' of a contest. The idea being that traditionally you are meant to play honestly and not try to push your luck, it's why we get annoyed here in the UK when sportsmen try to fool an official, eg a soccer player diving to win a penalty, or an American footballer claiming a catch when the ball is clearly not under control... we generally consider such behaviour to be unacceptable. It might be judgmental of us, or old-fashioned, but it's a general part of the British psyche. It's the approach I use when playing D&D, I'm a firm but fair DM who tries to work within the spirit of the game with my players, and I expect the same in return. I have the same approach when playing a character, work with the DM, not against him. Work with the setting. Try not to push the boundaries. Thus in the case of lawyer-style arguments regarding precise RAW language, for me it's the spirit of the rule that matters, NOT technicalities over preciseness of wording. Trying to get around component costs of Find Familiar, trying to get around the 'no metal armour' restriction for Druids (along with other issues such as players trying to get around Drow sunlight sensitivity, etc) all come under this 'spirit of the game' heading. And thus my robust response when people have the approach advocated by yourself (and Maxperson). It's an unpleasant style of play, it derails sessions, it's disrespectful to Dm and fellow players, and the game is simply better for the group as a whole if it is avoided... so don't do it. And if you see this approach in AL games - I've played a couple, and I never saw this happen - then it's another reason to avoid them. (my problem player I mentioned above was not British) [/QUOTE]

Verification