Snarky Hammer |
Fozzy Hammer wrote:It's not pedantic to want the rules to mean what the rules say, instead of what some people think that they might be trying to say. Either the rules matter, or we can all just simply play whatever game pleases us at the time, and I can start writing awesome boons into character sheets.Fozzy,
I don't want to sound negative here, but there's never going to be an organized play environment where the rules-as-written are 100% accurate, complete, and exhaustive.
You claim here is that the situation allows you to ignore any rules as you please, write made-up boons that other GMs would have to abide by, and generally act like a jerk.
Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who requires the rules be perfect.
If I were snarky, I might point out that Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who thinks they can make up rules about whether or not faction missions make a PC unplayable.
Hmm.
Rules are. Or they aren't. If a rule isn't applicable as written, then it's a poorly written rule. Pointing out poorly written rules should be welcomed, rather than sniffed at, as you appear to be doing.
A prossible reason that the rule is poorly written is that any reasoning behind it is sketchy at best ("we don't want PC's to be able to create effects that last beyond the scenario" "Really, what about healing?" "uh, except healing" "restoration?", "uh, that too." "raise dead?" "Oh, bringing someone back from dead is fine." "What about animate dead?"), and without a good way to differentiate between goodspell and badspell, we're left with badrule.