Bbauzh ap Aghauzh's page

Jeff Lee wrote:

I really hate to see a good item where the author has missed an important detail in the mechanics. Sometimes its as simple as not assigning a DC. Other times its a new feature where the mechanics just aren't fully explained, and I get left wondering "Yes, but what happens under this circumstance, or if this comes up?"

Not just in otherwise good items, but I've noted a distinct trend in items not having a duration for abilities they provide, making said abilities conditional, but permanent...which is clearly not their intent.

So...those items got downvotes, and putting in a duration is important folks, don't forget about it.

This is not necessarily true. Ring of invisibility doesn't have a duration listed, but it does have a duration.

** spoiler omitted **

I definitely feel for your crew Walter.

It is never fun to have the feeling that something is being taken away from you. And I'm sure that is exactly how many of your players are going to feel.

So with that, all my discussion on this topic is with the understanding that you are in a difficult position.

I'll do my best to curb my further discussion for ideas on how to accommodate your players who have played through most stuff, rather than just tell you that your wrong for whatever reasons.

This is a post by Ryan Bolduan (original twin cities Venture-Captain) on our local meetup site in June of 2012.

I wanted to talk briefly (okay, not briefly, I just saw how long this post is, wow) about a problem I’ve been hearing about across the country from other Venture Officers. Specifically, players beginning to indicate that they’re running out of scenarios to play.

Pathfinder Society is just coming out of its childhood. We’ve experienced four seasons so far, and in July we’ll complete the season 3 story-arc at PaizoCon (PFS started with “season zero”, which is why we’re only on season 3). On average we get 26 scenarios a year added to our slate (with one or two bonus scenarios here and there). As of the end of season 3, we will have 92 scenarios still active over the four seasons (19, 28, 26, and 29 respectively) not including special events and the “4-star special”.

This may seem like a lot, but there are a few things to remember. First, those 92 scenarios are split over several tiers and roughly half (41 to be exact) are slated for “higher tiers” of 5-9 and 7-11. Second, we only get two new scenarios a month, only one of which is designed for 1-5’s. Third, 33 scenarios represent a “full life” of a character from 1-12, so you can roughly get three characters to 12 with the current scenarios (this isn’t exactly true, but close enough).

So why all this math? We all want you playing as much as you want/can, but we also want everybody to be aware of what can happen if you maintain an extreme “burn-rate”. If you’re playing weekly or more, or go to conventions and enjoy 5-8 scenarios in one weekend it can easy to lose track of what you have left to play. A player that plays weekly will eat through roughly half the scenarios available in a year. By the end of year two that player will have played all the pathfinder society that is available and won’t be able to enjoy the games weekly anymore . If you play whenever we run (which winds up letting you play about twice a week), you will be out of things to play before this time next year. Unfortunately, this level of play makes for an untenable situation, but we also don’t want to discourage you from playing – after all, playing is what keeps PFS alive!

So what can you do? Here are some ideas we’ve talked about:

GM!
Join the GM ranks and help us run games – you get character credit just like you’d get player credit – this doubles the number of chronicles you can apply to characters. I cannot stress this one enough. We have a fabulous slate of GMs, but if you've played a character to level 4 or 5, it's really time to think about sitting behind the GM screen yourself.

Level up!
Get that character to level 5 or 7 and keep playing – If you keep starting a new character around level five to “try things out”, you’ll run out of tier 1-5 scenarios very quickly.

Modules!
Play modules – Get a group of Pathfinders together on one of the game weekends and play through a module. They take about a day to run through (or a couple of days if you want to break up the session). Your character will earn 3XP and 4PA for playing through a module.

Start up an Adventure Path!
We will certainly miss seeing your pretty face every week, but one of the most important aspects of PFS is networking. Get to know your fellow players and find a group of like-minded players you’d like to invite to run a regular home. Adventure Paths make great options as they’re well defined, and most importantly, fun. While this isn’t a way to play Pathfinder Society and earn credit with your PFS characters, it is a great way to enjoy Pathfinder in general. So as much as we’ll miss you, we really won’t mind.

Drogon wrote:

Acedio wrote:

Drogon wrote:

Steven Huffstutler wrote:

I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.

Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.

I'm glad you have had success with this, but I suspect there are a lot of groups where this paradigm isn't going to be desirable.

Not to belabor the point, but why? Why is it undesirable to avoid all these situations that cause so much grief for you? Why would you NOT want to purely schedule ahead of time and avoid having any unforeseen circumstances or be forced to turn someone away, someone who may have ridden a bus for the last hour to get to you?

nosig, of course, can easily refute my questions, and gainsay my evidence. Interestingly, he is firmly in the "no replay" camp. So, it seems the two extremes in the scheduling paradigm neatly avoid this issue. Why not join in and make sure the rules are clear for your players, thus no longer having this problem?

Even if people tracked 5 days across the Mojave Desert to play at your game store. Why can the people not compromise? They could DM another table, or have them or someone else run another game.

If you randomly show up unaccounted for why would you feel entitled to not compromise for the game you crashed?

That is the question, isn't it?

Steven Huffstutler wrote:

Drogon wrote:

Steven Huffstutler wrote:

Conman the Bardbarian wrote:

Maybe someone should try a replay for no credit night where everyone just plays a scenario everyone has already played and let us know how it goes.

Would we not run into the opposite situation where we have one guy who shows up who can play something and then we are forced to turn him away?

Not if you schedule it ahead of time. d-:

I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.

Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.

I agree with this sentiment.

While we do have a couple venues in our area that cater to walk-ins, the organizers know to have a couple GM's "on call" so to speak. But in these cases, the walk-ins are almost always new players, and so confirmation or some other low level scenario works.

But a strict RSVP policy that you don't waver on, does ensure that RSVPs happen and that walk-ins are fairly rare.

there's no such thing as a sorcerer scroll or wizard scroll.

Its simply an arcane scroll.

Unless the spell is on an arcane caster's list that is not sorcerer or wizard, then it would be an arcane scroll that only a say Magus would be able to cast without UMD.

But because Intelligence and Charisma are both useable for arcane spells (unless its specifically say a Magus spell, then it would definitely need intelligence), you can try to emulate whatever ability you want with UMD.

or you switch to scenarios that everyone (except judges) can play.

If you start by limiting the universe of available scenarios to 2, then try to match players... you are going to hit problems.

In your example there are two tables, each with 5 players (and a judge). If 4 of those players (and judges) are in the "...few fall into Acedio's category—people that can't play for credit without prior planning." group then you have 2 of them judge and one each of the other two sit at different tables. Then pick something the players can play. And this is with one third of your group restricted to only one thing they can play - and each of those different scenarios.

If you are picking this scenario on the date everyone shows up, then essentially you are asking the Judge to run cold.

That I cannot agree with as a solution except for rare occurrences.

I had to run Destiny of the Sands part 1 cold at a convention. My table didn't go, a GM got sick for our Sunday Evening slot, and the players were signed up to play this one and couldn't play any of the ones I had prepped.

I bit the bullet, they understood, and I ran cold.

But this should be the exception, rather than the rule.

Andy....you know me...Mark K.

Lets talk then.

I'm sure we can come up with some resolution.

OK then so the solution is to play less??

Why not just find a different game...one that doesn't penalize you for being passionate about it...and spend the next several thousand dollars of gaming money on it instead?

Brilliant marketing strategy Paizo.

When I first started playing this game, back in February 2011, Ryan Bolduan was our V-C. He basically only had 1 game day going, 2 times a month. He also ensured that most of us folks starting to play at that time understood that there were a finite number of scenarios to play. That if you played past a certain rate, that you'd run out of things to play.

That made sense to me. I was ok with only playing twice a month.

Now our region has game days every night of the week except Monday and Fridays. We run upwards of 20 to 30+ tables a week. The ability for players in our area to play themselves out of scenarios is there now, where it wasn't before. But the increased play opportunities has also allowed our region to grow in numbers by leaps and bounds. Especially opening up week night play.

I would never want to tell someone to play less. If they like to play, that's awesome. Play as much as you want.

But with that comes a caveat. You know there are a finite number of scenarios. So somewhere in the back of your head, you know the more you play, the quicker you will run out of things and opportunities to play.

Your play rate is up to you.

But I don't understand something. Above you said that you work a lot and so don't have a lot of opportunity to play, but that you've played so much that you've run out of things to play. How long have you been playing Pathfinder Society, and how often per week or month do you play?

Have you met folks during your PFS play that you could start an adventure path with? Have you talked to your organizers about adding a scenario you can play within a timeframe that they could find a GM with enough time to prep for it?

Unlimited replay for no credit is not the only solution to what you are going through right now.

Best thing to do is send an email to your V-O's and game day organizers and see if there is something they can do to help accommodate you.

I know that if someone sent me a private email about this issue, I would brainstorm with them to help them find a way they could play more often.

Well from a business model not allowing replays is just stupid.

1. people like playing PF.

2. Some people don't get to ply with a regular group due to their work schedules.

3. PFS is available...Great!!

4. Go to store...play PFS...spend money on PF product. Want to play an Angelkin Inquisitor with alternate traits...that's 3 books beyong the Core book that you have to buy to be legal.

5. I buy product at the store to support the store, I know since PF came out I have spent over $3000.00 on Paizo product or PFS online materials. If I have no reason to go to the store I would buy less and buy online...and that hurts the actual stores big time. Not really sure if Paizo cares if their product is purchased at a store or online but I;m positive the storeowners do.

6. Now I've played a lot and am starting to run out of scenarios...hmm can GM some but my work schedule doesn't allow me much time off. I certainly cannot work on PFS stuff during work because not paying attention can get me or others killed or maimed...so no PFS prep at work.

7. Getting to the point of not being allowed to play as much as I would like due to running out of scenarios. Paizo prints a new book...I would certainly like to buy it and apply whatever I find interesting in it to a new PFS character...but why bother? probably won't be able to play them anyway.

Bottom line is don't drive your customers away from their preferred game and away from the stores.
If you don't personally agree with replays...fine...don't replay scenarios for yourself but allow others to do so if so inclined.
This is economics 101...give the customers what they want especially since it costs NOTHING...ZIP...NADDA but will drive sales and help keep stores open.

it would be interesting if Drogon came on this thread to comment. Because he has some "on the ground as a store owner" anecdotes for why allowing unlimited replay is bad for the game. How doing so has actually lead to the downfall of many other organized campaigns.

I definitely understand that you desire to play the game. And you like to play as often as you can.

But there are a finite number of scenarios. And two scenarios get put out every month.

Literally, if you play more than 2 to 4 times a month and are brand new right now, you will run out of scenarios in about 2 years.

If you play 2 or more times a week, you will run out of scenarios much more quickly than that.

This game was never meant to be played that often. But it is definitely encouraging to see the passion at which people devour this campaign. I'm not sure why the campaign should modify a rule that's in place for a very good reason, to satisfy the few who play so much, that they play themselves out of things to play.

I don't know Andrew. It still seems to me (continuing our discussion from before), that the RSVP system as you've just presented it is just preemptively preventing people from attending your event.

You're right, I don't think anyone would drive 2 hours after checking to see that they can't play. But the bottom line with that RSVP system or getting turned away in person is the same—that person doesn't get to participate. And I think that's not going to help your community grow.

Ideally there should be a way to encourage people to continue attending while attracting new people without turning anyone away. Hopefully adding APs and Modules to game days can help work towards this in my area. But I don't think simply following an RSVP system solves this.

Our region is growing quite nicely actually. We've had the same RSVP system in play since Ryan Bolduan started organizing PFS in the Twin Cities in early 2011 as our first Venture-Captain. And we started at like 2 tables, and now have almost 600 people signed up on our meetup site (granted, probably only 200 have been active in the last 3 months). Still, that's pretty significant growth, and we keep getting new people all the time.

We don't get very many walkups, because most of the time people hear of the event, we make sure that they know about our meetup site and RSVP system. Very rarely does someone just walk up and want to play. And those who have, most of the time, can't sit and play that day anyways.

True story. Wife was going to hang out with a friend the other day. So I thought I'd check to see if a game was available. I'd played everything offered. So I went to a movie instead.

Didn't deter me from checking the next week, or even the game day set up for 2 days later.

The current system punishes people who play a lot. I can see no downside to allowing people to replay scenarios...FOR CREDIT...as long as it is a different character than the other that has the chronicle sheet applied, and they do not spoil the game for others using prior knowledge.

If people claim that prior knowledge is a problem them why isn't there a ruling stating that a GM cannot play a scenario that they have previously GM'd?
People play to have fun so don't penalize your most prolific players by having an asinine replay ruling that drives people away...sometime AFTER they have shown up for an event.

I get the desire to play as much as you possibly can. Trust me, I do. I'd play every game day if I had the time.

But there are a finite number of scenarios. There always will be. All Paizo is producing right now, is 2 scenarios per month.

Eventually, if you play at a rate of more than 2 to 4 times a month, you will run out of scenarios you can play pretty quickly.

Personally, I rarely go see a movie more than once. I would get bored, real quick, if all I could do was replay scenarios. Especially if I'm replaying the same one more than once.

If its every once in awhile, I understand, or if you don't know when you'll get to play until a few days beforehand. It does kinda suck when the game day you could play at doesn't have anything you can play.

There is no perfect solution. But allowing replay for no credit I do not feel is the correct solution.

Acedio wrote:

7. There are exactly 0 businesses that have a business plan that is designed to make things more difficult for frequent customers :)

My entire problem with this is that it's highly damaging to communities that meet frequently. It alienates players who want to play but don't feel comfortable GMing. It prevents high frequency players who also GM from enjoying a casual game at their leisure. It pushes the same high frequency players into a funnel where they GM for no credit, or have to compete with other GMs to be present at game day (because there are fewer GM slots than player slots, of course).

And the crappiest part is that the people who get hurt by it the most are the people who spend the most time in the community.

And we're supposed to tell these people to go home? =\

I completely agree with Acedio. We had someone sit in a game (used pre-gen) with four players two weeks ago because she had played all three of the scenarios being offered. I guess from now on we tell folks forget it, sorry you drove 40 min to get here. Go home or twiddle your thumbs and watch everyone else have fun. What is the purpose? Why does Paizo care if someone plays for no credit? It adds an unnecessary rule that will discourage your most frequent players from showing up to regular events. Senseless and not good for the gaming community we are trying to build. Please change the ruling.

If you have an RSVP system, where you announce your scenarios at least a week, but up to a month or more ahead of time, and you only guarantee a seat to those who RSVP...

They why would anyone drive 2 hours to get anywhere without first checking if they can play what's being offered at that game day?

And if you aren't using an RSVP system, then you are hurting your community more than not allowing unlimited replay for no credit.

Requiring RSVPs solves this entire problem.

We have an incredibly high level of team work and cooperation in the Twin Cities.

And we often give up our consumables for the good of the group without expectation of recompense.

I don't believe the rules currently support any kind of return of an expended consumable.

It isn't about irritating grognards.

its about keeping things as simple as possible for GMs who aren't going to know all the rules about all the millions of races out there.

You can choose to assign it to a character at the beginning (and I usually want you to pick the actual character you are planning to assign it to).

But the way I see it, is if the scenario goes badly, the way the guide is written, you should have a choice to resolve the death for that character, or go back and change it to an unused character number, and report that new character dead before it ever gets played.

The choice of how to resolve the death should come after the scenario.

Otherwise the ability to assign it to a new dead character is not a valid choice anymore.

Andrew Christian wrote:

I am actually not in favor of this.

We don't need more rules that make it easier to be miserly instead of a team player.

With all due respect, earned as I think you've brought a lot of fantastic ideas to the forum, I must disagree. Is it being a team player to not purchase these items and let everybody else bear the burden? Is it being a team player to assume that, since you can't use a particular item, it is the duty of another player to purchase it and use it on you? I'd argue that's far more miserly.

Its a team player to act selflessly.

Expecting recompense is not being a team player.

I am actually not in favor of this.

We don't need more rules that make it easier to be miserly instead of a team player.

It is essentially a roleplaying choice. There is no way to ensure you have an "affinity" in PFS.

But to make sense, I would suggest saying your home region for your character (where he was born, grew up, whatever) is Lastwall. Perhaps even take a trait from Lastwall.

recycled.

VOs get them in PDF form, and we print a crapload to make sure that we cover enough as necessary.

Any that don't get handed out, get thrown away.

There is going to be a FAQ as mike stated above. Before any freak outs just wait and see what it says please.

Congrats!

Because its a humanocentric world.

still doesn't make it table variation per the definition in the guide.

Just because 100 people are wrong, doesn't make them not wrong.

It just means a lot of people are wrong.

David Bowles wrote:

nosig wrote:

I have found this to be another instance of YMMV. It very much depends on the judge at the table and the VOs at the event.

IMHO it shouldn't. Mr. Brock has made a ruling, but it is only found on the boards, and ... yeah. YMMV.

I don't relent on this. VOs do not have any input into this situation. It has been ruled on by Mr. Brock. The mileage DOES NOT vary on this. It's straight math.

Here's the situation.

My VC is the judge. We have an APL of 2.5. He says this rounds up, and when asked about the post from Mr. Brock, the VC says "that's an old post that does not apply now that we are in season 5".

(In this case it didn't matter, as one of the players left the table, so we only had 4 PCs and the rules pushed us back into "play down" at APL 3.)

So Mr. Bowles, your suggestion would be to what? leave the table? Threaten the VC (a great guy, who is doing a wonderful job and is after all an overworked Volenteer)? Or just play the game? We did the best we could. The player who wasn't comfortable playing up went home. And the rest of us played at sub-tier 1-2 (where we had planned to play from the beginning).

I don't feel comfortable argueing with the judge at the table. Even less when the judge is a VO. Even less when he's a great judge and MY VC. Afterword, if we have time, I'll try to talk (privately) with him and discuss it. But argue at the table, with 3 other players waiting to start a game that we are burning game time for? no, not often. If it's something I can't live with, I'll opt to do what my friend did and bow out.

Table variation (a.k.a. YMMV) only applies when the rule is not clear.

The rule is clear. V-Os are as prone to being human or make mistakes as the next guy. Just because a VO was wrong doesn't mean table variation applies. It just means he was mistaken.

Yup.

Blinkback belt seems good, but kind of demands Quickdraw.

My slayer tomahawk thrower just picked up her blink back belt and has had quick draw for a couple levels now.

Chris Mullican wrote:

Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5

Yes, I read that post already on this thread. The problem is that is was a 2012 ruling made before choice was removed from the equation and thus may no longer apply.

Since which way you round can matter, and no retraction has happened, we have to assume to post is still valid until one of two things happen.

An official retraction, or a rule is created that invalidates it.

Neither has happened.

It isn't allowed. Precedence reins supreme.

holding and wielding a two-hander are different.

You cannot do the two-weapon fighting spell & weapon thing that a Magus gets because you cannot two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon.

But you could cast a spell, free action grasp the weapon with both hands, and deliver that spell with the two-handed weapon.

Why black and white? I prefer to print my maps in color.

That being said. You can use your acrobat reader to select and copy the image to your clipboard. Then pick another app or program to paste it into, scale and tile it, then print. You'll have to cut and tape pages together, but this process usually leaves most GM notes out.

It's not the missing stat blocks that I have a problem with, it's the change in format of the maps.

I used to be able to click on the map in the older pdfs, copy, open MS paint, and paste it there.

It would show up without any of the map icons, room numbers, "S" for secret door symbols, and highlighted trap areas.

Ever since season 4, this layering effect was changed so that now, if I want to print out and use the nice map in the scenario, I have to spend all kinds of time editing it to remove those symbols becuase the cut and paste method doesnt work to strip out all the "GM Only" symbols. Most of the time I cant do a convincing job and wind up just drawing lines on graph paper.

Seems a shame to include a nice map that only I as the GM can see.

I have not had this layering problem at all. But then I just us acrobat to create another PDF from the clipboard.

One thing to consider, is that every full stat block will add to development time in making sure its correct.

And I'm sure creating a stat block appendix would also add to the development time. I know it did for me when I was developing Living Dragonstar.

I'm pretty sure the word count has to do with that I think they pay per word, not per scenario. So the budget is based on word count.

If not, then you are right. There isn't a reason not to include stat blocks.

Mark once explained that the reason stat blocks are done per encounter is that they want to maintain the same format they use for APs and Modules. The idea is if the stat blocks are with the encounter it is easier.

This of course in practice is not true. Especially when they refer me 10 pages previously for the stat block I need now.

I will sign this petition.

But some classes have features you cannot retrain per that chart.

probably about the same time chronicles are available for the new AP and the last two 64 page modules.

John and company are very busy with some projects, so how bout we give them some time?

Sounds ridiculous that to become a different type of cleric, you gotta first become an oracle or fighter or some other class.

I mean if Tiger Woods can become a different type of golfer every couple years without first becoming a football player...

Congrats!

Why would you need to train out of cleric to train back into a different type of cleric?

Couldn't you just retrain cleric to cleric and call it a synergy?

welcome!

Remember, just because its in your spellbook, you need the resource to be able to use it. That includes the chronicle, if that's what gives access.

Not being able to use the spell, includes not being able to access it with your arcane bond.

Andrew Christian wrote:

andreww wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

But the thing he's missing is, the nicest guy in the world who's a ton of fun, but roflstomps everything or seems to have that build that makes everyone else's character insignificant in most situations is still not going to be fun to play with.

Playing a turtle is about the opposite of roflstomping anything. Ridiculously high AC combined with terrible offence is a recipe for being ignored.

But when the GM ignores the turtle after the first round with intelligent bad guys, isn't that adversely affecting others too?

So yeah, you want to move this thing from "outshines" to "adversely affects?" You sure that's where you want it? I don't want to move it again.

Is there a reason for busting my chops here. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion and I really haven't said anything particularly controversial or inflammatory.

nosig wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I built a trip master and my friend a locksmith. But somehow another friend who is fun to play with, is both a better tripper and locksmith.

Not a fun character to play with.

Yeah, I have one character who fights in melee and also has a little bit of skills and some support casting. But melee-focused PCs always seem to do more damage, tanking-focused PCs always seem to have higher AC, face guys always seem to be able to get higher Diplomacy, INT-based casters always seem to out-Knowledge him, and other casters always seem to have higher save DCs.

Which explains why I never have fun playing Thomas the Tiefling Hero.

I'm sorry Jiggy... I think I missed something here. Was this sarcasm?

Yes. Thomas the Tiefling Hero is my absolute favorite character, despite always being outshone by anyone remotely specialized in any of the things he does.

You missed my point entirely.

Andrew Christian wrote:

But the thing he's missing is, the nicest guy in the world who's a ton of fun, but roflstomps everything or seems to have that build that makes everyone else's character insignificant in most situations is still not going to be fun to play with.

Playing a turtle is about the opposite of roflstomping anything. Ridiculously high AC combined with terrible offence is a recipe for being ignored.

But when the GM ignores the turtle after the first round with intelligent bad guys, isn't that adversely affecting others too?

Normally I would agree with Nosig.

But the thing he's missing is, the nicest guy in the world who's a ton of fun, but roflstomps everything or seems to have that build that makes everyone else's character insignificant in most situations is still not going to be fun to play with.

I built a trip master and my friend a locksmith. But somehow another friend who is fun to play with, is both a better tripper and locksmith.

Not a fun character to play with.

Combat maneuvers is what you use to get past ridiculous AC.

Trip the guy and he gets a -4 to his AC for being prone.

Grapple him and his Dex and strength take a -4 penalty, which results in a -2 to AC.

Both? Now he's at -6 to his AC.

You can damage while maintaining a grapple and get a +5 CMB to maintain.

As long as it doesn't mechanically change anything and there aren't already rules for your reflavor, fluff it up. Just don't expect any advantages for your fluff other than a smile for some cool roleplay.

What would be funny...

After V-C briefing:

GM: anyone want to buy anything?
Player: is there a graveyard nearby?
GM: huh?!
Player: well I need a skeleton.
GM: um, OK, make a stealth check

Social skills don't always automatically work just because you make the roll. Intimidating someone to change their attitude doesn't mean they will tell you everything, or not attack you.

Because you along with nearly everyone else on this forum spent 3 pages second guessing, accusing, and shaming the op without knowing anything about his build and blatantly ignoring his accounts of what happened at the table. Spent those 3 pages telling him he was wrong about the rules because you dont like how they work and then when someone finally got you to stop and realize that you were wrong then you turn it and say "well, technically I'm wrong but you shouldn't play the game that way."

When that got shown to be wrong it turned into "well some people might do crazy stuff that you aren't doing so therefore you role-play bad."

It's really really aggravating to read and I'm not even the OP!

Go back and re-read what I wrote.

You'll note that not once did I ever accuse the OP of doing anything.

I made some "what if" comments at first, because obviously I didn't have the whole story.

But you'll note that the dialogue between me and Rapanuii is rather civil and constructive.

Others may have done what you claim, but certainly not me.

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth, and make a ton of assumptions about the intent behind what I posted. I wish you wouldn't do that.