Gaming the system versus imaginative creativity


Gamer Life General Discussion

951 to 1,000 of 1,026 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:
WRONG. "Because I said so" IS a valid reason.

Recommended reading.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
LazarX wrote:


WRONG. "Because I said so" IS a valid reason. That's the definition of Rule Zero. All rules are optional. Rules are made to serve the campaign, not the other way around. It's the players choice to accept the DM's style or not.

You of course have the option to pout and leave the table if the GM won't allow your hybrid of the week.

I'm all for GM limits being respected, but if a player asks why, "Because I said so" is a terrible answer and neither engenders respect nor indicates that the GM has any for his players. I would recommend avoiding that answer like the plague.

Usually my answer would take the form of "That race or class does not fit within the setting of my campaign." And I would elaborate on that. "Elves on this world were created as artificial slaves by the Yuang Ti and bound to elemental powers. So now you can't be a elven priest of Corellon, because he does not exist."

But there are players like Umbriere Moonwhisper who would probably still parse that out as "Because I said so." And technically speaking, they would be correct.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

In a few instances I would say it is a reasonable response. All of those instances though do revolve around either a group of friends or an established gaming group, and that both the DMs and PCs trust the others judgements.

If a new person is joining the group or this is one of the more open games out there, then yes "Because I said so" is nowhere near a great answer, and is off-putting.


LazarX wrote:
Usually my answer would take the form of "That race or class does not fit within the setting of my campaign." And I would elaborate on that. "Elves on this world were created as artificial slaves by the Yuang Ti and bound to elemental powers. So now you can't be a elven priest of Corellon, because he does not exist."

That sounds a little more reasonable yeah. You say why and maybe give some elaboration. Literally just saying 'because I said so!' is a much different case.

LazarX wrote:
But there are players like Umbriere Moonwhisper who would probably still parse that out as "Because I said so." And technically speaking, they would be correct.

Lets not target others. I don't think its the same as saying 'because I said so!' at all myself.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LizardMage wrote:

In a few instances I would say it is a reasonable response. All of those instances though do revolve around either a group of friends or an established gaming group, and that both the DMs and PCs trust the others judgements.

If a new person is joining the group or this is one of the more open games out there, then yes "Because I said so" is nowhere near a great answer, and is off-putting.

The only open games I GM are Pathfinder Society and Legends of the Shining Jewel games, in which the rules for character creation and allowed races are network decisions, not mind and those are rules people agree to by signing up for the campaign period.

Otherwise, I don't GM for strangers. During the days when I joined open games as a player, I accepted the GM's guidelines on what was allowed and what wasn't. because in those days that was part of the convention of GM deference. "His game, his rules." part of what we called back then, simple basic courtesy to the person taking the trouble to build the world and provide the game. The games I GM for friends aren't an issue because anyone who's coming to the game is comeing because they are interested in the setting I'm going to run and have expressed interest in running characters that fit inside it.

It's not that strange a concept. In Star Trek Online, there is a fleet that only admits Vulcan and Romulan characters. I wasn't going to badger the fleet leader to admit my Human. In my day, this was considered basic gaming etiquette.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
"His game, his rules." part of what we called back then, simple basic courtesy to the person taking the trouble to build the world and provide the game. In my day, this was considered basic gaming etiquette.

In my day, no-save deathtraps were considered basic gaming content. "Too bad, roll up a new character!" We didn't even name our guys until 5th level.

Basic assumptions can change over time, though, and not always for the worse.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
"His game, his rules." part of what we called back then, simple basic courtesy to the person taking the trouble to build the world and provide the game. In my day, this was considered basic gaming etiquette.

In my day, no-save deathtraps were considered basic gaming content. "Too bad, roll up a new character!" We didn't even name our guys until 5th level.

Basic assumptions can change over time, though, and not always for the worse.

So since my concepts of gaming etiquette are obviously old fashioned, out of date, and otherwise obsolete, what are your new standards then? I have to assume that's what you were saying, as I can't think of any other reason for making that post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
So since my concepts of gaming etiquette are obviously old fashioned, out of date, and otherwise obsolete, what are your new standards then? I have to assume that's what you were saying, as I can't think of any other reason for making that post.

Depends on your group. In mine its closer to 'Its our game and our rules.'


LazarX wrote:
So since my concepts of gaming etiquette are obviously old fashioned, out of date, and otherwise obsolete, what are your new standards then? I have to assume that's what you were saying, as I can't think of any other reason for making that post.

For a lot of people, newer standards are that the DM is more of a referee and less of a dictator, is not all-powerful, and, in many cases, is not as indispensible as he thinks he is. (Someone else can step up and run the game, so it's not like he's so unique that you have to kiss his ass or he'll take his toys and go home. Let him!)

Some of this has to do with the fact that 3e presented actual rules for stuff that used to be DM-only purview, based on his or her personal whim (e.g., "Can I climb this wall?" "No, it's too steep and I don't think you're strong enough."). Some of it may have to do with new notions of "earned respect" vs. "follow the leader." Hell, for all I know, some of it has to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain, and people starting to feel like the spead of democracy is something to embrace.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
So since my concepts of gaming etiquette are obviously old fashioned, out of date, and otherwise obsolete, what are your new standards then? I have to assume that's what you were saying, as I can't think of any other reason for making that post.

For a lot of people, newer standards are that the DM is more of a referee and less of a dictator, is not all-powerful, and, in many cases, is not as indispensible as he thinks he is. (Someone else can step up and run the game, so it's not like he's so unique that you have to kiss his ass or he'll take his toys and go home. Let him!)

Some of this has to do with the fact that 3e presented actual rules for stuff that used to be DM-only purview, based on his or her personal whim (e.g., "Can I climb this wall?" "No, it's too steep and I don't think you're strong enough."). Some of it may have to do with new notions of "earned respect" vs. "follow the leader." Hell, for all I know, some of it has to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain, and people starting to feel like the spead of democracy is something to embrace.

I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.


Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.

As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
So since my concepts of gaming etiquette are obviously old fashioned, out of date, and otherwise obsolete, what are your new standards then? I have to assume that's what you were saying, as I can't think of any other reason for making that post.

For a lot of people, newer standards are that the DM is more of a referee and less of a dictator, is not all-powerful, and, in many cases, is not as indispensible as he thinks he is. (Someone else can step up and run the game, so it's not like he's so unique that you have to kiss his ass or he'll take his toys and go home. Let him!)

Some of this has to do with the fact that 3e presented actual rules for stuff that used to be DM-only purview, based on his or her personal whim (e.g., "Can I climb this wall?" "No, it's too steep and I don't think you're strong enough."). Some of it may have to do with new notions of "earned respect" vs. "follow the leader." Hell, for all I know, some of it has to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain, and people starting to feel like the spead of democracy is something to embrace.

The problem here is your use of dictator. If you are playing soccer and you want to kick someone in the head, would the ref be an overlord for telling you no?

Keeping to restrictions is not being an overlord. If you think so then I can almost bet that you personally have trouble with figures of authority.

Also, keeping to restrictions can make sure everyone stays on the same page. If you let one do something different then you have to let the rest and by the end of the discussion your whole game could be changed.

I know players want to have it their way but it doesn't always happen, same goes for DMs but they have a bit more control by default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are you saying kicking other soccer players in the head is wrongbadfun? Geez, way to force your playstyle on others, dude. That's, like, your opinion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.
As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Hmmm.

See, I'm of the opinion there's nothing wrong with either constitutional republics or elected dictatorships, as long as the players know which it is before they agree to join.

I don't like the idea that every game should be organized or run the same way, or that any standards of any kind should exist. What works best for one group doesn't work best for every group.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


as long as i can play my cute small framed female characters in your world, and as long as i have options that fit my artistic desires, it is fine. allowing the 8 species of planetouched, their subraces, and alternate bloodlines is usually sufficient for that. unless you have a similar cute human sized race that catches my eye, such as a half-nymph, dhampir, changeling, samsaran or similar creature i can reskin into something palletable.
Given the infinite variety of races I probably haven't even thought about, chances are we'd find either a suggestion from me that works for you, or a suggestion from you I can find a space to plop down a few whatever-settlement-types-they-live-in in an undefined region somewhere.

works fine enough

for example

planetouched can be inserted into any human region, due to being effectively human in all respects, with the exception of a little extraplanar blood. rare enough occurence anyway, but no more odd than a half elf or half orc. most of them work as pallette swapped humans with a few minor cosmetic alterations that may circumstantially be easy to conceal with the right garments.

Wouldn't be plane touched, but yes, chances are I would find something you could play without too much difficulty. When you are going for a feel or a theme rather than. I must have this race and this race only, no other can do, now now now ... Then its not that hard, usually some means of fulfilling a feel or theme can be found.

decent enough


Ravingdork wrote:
Where does one draw the line? Why the double standard?

Two reasons which (IMHO ) should rule on that

A) the GM is trying to further the story for the enjoyment of all. He is placing opposition, obstacles and enviroment by his own arbitrary will. He can simply batter you to detah by tailoring the world and environment against you. Hence I am certain the designer does not need to fear the player/PC. Only if he is unwilling to adapt, or chang the basic rules of his world

Nevermind that special and rules-inconsistent entities and effects make the world/setting more uncertain and threatening

B) one should neer really try to outtrump all the other players at the table, My charactr is better faster nicer etc... For one, it is a cooperative game. Second, if the GM is only semi-creative, he will find a way to eliminate the offendig character. Immortal players get entrapped, turned to stone whatever. Often enough by the other players who are usualy not there to cheer(lead) on one of them, but want some distinctive part of the campaign.
Well, if one cannot be a team player, it might either be the wrong team, or one is incapable of fitting into some surroundings.

c) Many GMs do not actually love to spend dozens of hours adapting a story to the specific outlandish needs of one PC. they have other stuff to do, and may want to lavish some attention on other players, too.

They actually love having their thorough campaign concept wrecked by some outlandish ploy even less, though. Since the outlandish concept is wreckig the fun for everyone who might have signed up for the plot/story. Except of course the "creative" player.

D) rules as written are fine, but basically not more than a guideline. I am pretty certain, that esigners at Paizo are pretty roficient, but they are not divinely omniscient. Hence the rules cannot apply to everything. Any setting as written and played is the GMs hometurf, and breaking it... I can also envision a certain protectiveness.

E) And pardon me being blunt : Is possible vanity a problem here ? Trying to trump the GM and "knowing the stuff better than she/he" does ?
I sincerly hope not


Immortal Greed wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

I've had those campaigns... we ruin the fun of the folks we don't like and the lesson is learned and those gms and players move on. Not everyone likes your sharkfin. Not everyone likes my style... Thats how you discover who's who... By letting everyone find a table that works for them.

Thats how life works.

You don't get bonus eeps for shackling a guy up in the basement and force feeding him sharkfin soup any more than I get extra eeps for running what I like for someone who doesnt like it...

Let people choose the sharkfin soup... And when they're ready no stop choosing the sharkfin soup... they go.. they watch... they stay... they join....

It's supposed to be about choice... You choose the restrictions, and they choose to join or not.

Take a deep breath and let the sorting hat put people where they belong. Even if it means no sharkfin soup today.

On eeps and running what you like, actually dms improve the most when they are running what they like and they really want to drag the players along for a ride. I've improved most when really diving into my creations, running them and taking on a ridiculous rp workload (which I didn't care about because I was having fun). Seen a dm that was awkward as you can be running pre-gens. He really grew when he got to run his own setting, which was plugged straight into his head, every single page (he wrote them, with only minor input from me). Now he is really competent and doesn't touch pre-gens. He no longer needs training wheels!

What made him grow, was the running of his own setting.

I agree. GM's become better by being forced to improvise... It's why I always recommend taking whatever the players throw at you... If they're all in agreement about what they want to play and you want to be a gm.... GM what they want to play... Even if it's not what you want to play... Like Kirth says. Take it as a chance to stretch your limits, step out of your comfort zone and see if you can make some fun happen in a space you haven't lived in for 30 years in your head. Homebrew worlds that last a lifetime are indeed awesome, but I've never found one that was even one iota more awesome than any game we've pulled out of our a$$e$ on a moments notice.

The skills that make a great GM have to be excercised or they wither and die... I have been mostly a gm for over 30 years and have only ever run one module. Castle Amber... And nobody has ever survived it to completion.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.
As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Both of which are better than anarchy.

Even a republic has a head of state, quite often with veto power.


ciretose wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.
As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Both of which are better than anarchy.

Even a republic has a head of state, quite often with veto power.

Hey now, don't knock Anarchy until you've tried it:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
]For a lot of people, newer standards are that the DM is more of a referee and less of a dictator, is not all-powerful, and, in many cases, is not as indispensible as he thinks he is.

Its funny (and not in an ironic way) how you refer to this as 'newer standards' since I've been playing under these standards since the late 80's... I think that's what makes our ideas of how things should work line up so often.

I can firmly say that no matter what kind of world or story or era or trope I was planning to gm if a player showed up and said he wanted to play a pony I'd totally allow it. Because I know for a fact that I can think of a dozen things I'd set up in the campaign that only a pony could do, which would make him feel awesome and validate his choice, and at the same time a dozen things a pony could not possibly do to remind him that every choice has it's achilles heel. And he'd probably love that too because even that shows I'm invested in his choice of going pony.

I may not like ponies but I sure enjoy talking about them more than I like restaurant metaphors and talking about sports referees. That's apples to oranges... I prefer comparing the whole half ogre to the ponies...

Now if someone showed up to my campaign and wanted to play an ORANGE...

BAN THAT MUTHAF[cencored]!!!!


captain yesterday wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.
As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Both of which are better than anarchy.

Even a republic has a head of state, quite often with veto power.

Hey now, don't knock Anarchy until you've tried it:)

Well in the U.S. we're trying it right now...


137ben wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.
As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Both of which are better than anarchy.

Even a republic has a head of state, quite often with veto power.

Hey now, don't knock Anarchy until you've tried it:)
Well in the U.S. we're trying it right now...

Can we leave politics out of this forum please?


shallowsoul wrote:
The problem here is your use of dictator. If you are playing soccer and you want to kick someone in the head, would the ref be an overlord for telling you no?

A larger problem, if I might offer a correction, is rather your use of faulty analogies. If you are playing soccer and the referee called foul when you kick the ball, because he just made up that rule for you banning you from doing so, on the spot, would you consider him a fair referee?

A fair soccer referee enforces the existing rules of the game. He does not selectively invent new restrictions on the spot. A fair DM enforces the existing rules of the game. He can invent new restrictions, but should refrain from imposing them unilaterally, without the agreement of all concerned, or he's overstepping his authority, IMHO.

Sovereign Court

That is why the GM is not simply the referee...or we might as well play a computer game. GM is also the arbitrator and the decision maker..


Personally, I think the GM only has authority (pick whatever metaphor you like) at the table; after play is finished, the GM is just another chucklehead drinking beer after a hard night of gaming.


Hama wrote:
That is why the GM is not simply the referee...or we might as well play a computer game. GM is also the arbitrator and the decision maker..

"Can" =/= "should." I can go over to the next cubicle and shoot staples at one of my co-workers. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea. Indeed, if my goal is to productively get along with my co-workers, shooting staples at them would be extremely counterproductive in most cases.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Are you saying kicking other soccer players in the head is wrongbadfun? Geez, way to force your playstyle on others, dude. That's, like, your opinion.

Now THAT would get americans watching jogger ball.

Sovereign Court

Hitdice wrote:
Personally, I think the GM only has authority (pick whatever metaphor you like) at the table; after play is finished, the GM is just another chucklehead drinking beer after a hard night of gaming.

We are talking during the game.


Arssanguinus wrote:
137ben wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.
As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Both of which are better than anarchy.

Even a republic has a head of state, quite often with veto power.

Hey now, don't knock Anarchy until you've tried it:)
Well in the U.S. we're trying it right now...
Can we leave politics out of this forum please?

no, no we can't:) VIVA LE FRANCE!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Personally, I think the GM only has authority (pick whatever metaphor you like) at the table; after play is finished, the GM is just another chucklehead drinking beer after a hard night of gaming.
We are talking during the game.

For the last 5 pages or so we've been talking about the GM banning races and other games features that just can't be decided during gameplay. If you think Kirth is describing a table where the players and GM come to a consensus during gameplay you haven't been reading the thread.

Sovereign Court

A GM is a GM as long as that specific game is involved. After the game, he is not a GM any more. Its pretty simple. Before or after it doesn't matter.

Should I if my player calls me and asks me some game related question to tell him "Sorry Bob, I am the GM only during the game."?


Hama wrote:

A GM is a GM as long as that specific game is involved. After the game, he is not a GM any more. Its pretty simple. Before or after it doesn't matter.

Should I if my player calls me and asks me some game related question to tell him "Sorry Bob, I am the GM only during the game."?

Hell, I don't know, what's a game related question? I certainly won't answer scenario or encounter specific questions outside of game-play, and given how much I rely on my players to flesh out the empty places in my campaign, answers to questions about that usually start with "Well, I'd always figured that..."


captain yesterday wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I rather like a republic more than a direct democracy.
As long as it's a constitutional republic, not an elected dictatatorship.

Both of which are better than anarchy.

Even a republic has a head of state, quite often with veto power.

Hey now, don't knock Anarchy until you've tried it:)

Viva La Anarchy!

No but really, in a six person group of friends your going to have a hard time finding an analogy for its politics. Could be any of the three depending on group, but mine have been closest to a republic or anarchy probably, and veto power is more of a group thing than a one guy thing imo and it (almost) never involves an election. I've never literally voted for my GM and given him absolute power, and when I run myself I like to keep things as a group discussion. The point where power comes in is mostly in the large scale world building and running NPCs and consequences, but players actions/wants/needs can control that and the mood and setting is decided as a group that way we aren't playing a high school drama when we want a lost in the forest with eldritch horror scenario.

Sovereign Court

Hitdice wrote:
Hama wrote:

A GM is a GM as long as that specific game is involved. After the game, he is not a GM any more. Its pretty simple. Before or after it doesn't matter.

Should I if my player calls me and asks me some game related question to tell him "Sorry Bob, I am the GM only during the game."?

Hell, I don't know, what's a game related question? I certainly won't answer scenario or encounter specific questions outside of game-play, and given how much I rely on my players to flesh out the empty places in my campaign, answers to questions about that usually start with "Well, I'd always figured that..."

"hey, can i use [random feat number 4] for my character?"

"Hey, is doing [random activity] socially acceptable in [random kingdom]?"
"Hey can i tweak my character's backstory to fit your world better now that we played in it a bit and i know it more?"
"Hey, how do i calculate CMB again?"
"[Any mechanics related question asked by a player without a rulebook]"

I won't answer any scenario or encounter related questions that aren't common knowledge either.

GMs job isn't done when the session ends.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW says the DM is the final judge and arbitraitor.

What more can be said?


shallowsoul wrote:
What more can be said?

Apparently quiet a bit. This is the internet after all.


The more and more I read this thread, the more I think of: THIS!

Sovereign Court

Quiet a bit?

I love discussing stuff with you folks. You brighten up my day.


shallowsoul wrote:
RAW says the DM is the final judge and arbitraitor.

And that players should be included in the decision.

Silver Crusade

MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
RAW says the DM is the final judge and arbitraitor.
And that players should be included in the decision.

You do realize that it's 'final' arbitraitor.


You still left out the player involvement part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think shallowsoul is misinterpreting TOZ. While the GM will be the source of the Final Decision, he should hear out the players' feedback and explain his own reasons. However, once he's made that decision, it's generally best that the players accept it and stop making a fuss. If their likes and the GM's are so incompatible that they can't play with the ruling, it's just a waste of time to even try.

So, he does give the final word, but his decision-making process can't be a bubble.


Hama wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Hama wrote:

A GM is a GM as long as that specific game is involved. After the game, he is not a GM any more. Its pretty simple. Before or after it doesn't matter.

Should I if my player calls me and asks me some game related question to tell him "Sorry Bob, I am the GM only during the game."?

Hell, I don't know, what's a game related question? I certainly won't answer scenario or encounter specific questions outside of game-play, and given how much I rely on my players to flesh out the empty places in my campaign, answers to questions about that usually start with "Well, I'd always figured that..."

"hey, can i use [random feat number 4] for my character?"

"Hey, is doing [random activity] socially acceptable in [random kingdom]?"
"Hey can i tweak my character's backstory to fit your world better now that we played in it a bit and i know it more?"
"Hey, how do i calculate CMB again?"
"[Any mechanics related question asked by a player without a rulebook]"

I won't answer any scenario or encounter related questions that aren't common knowledge either.

GMs job isn't done when the session ends.

Hama, I think your post agrees with mine in for the most part, but you can't honestly expect the two questions I bolded above to be answered solely by the GM, rather than any knowledgable player, outside of a play session.

Hell, there have been times when I, as the GM, have given experienced players the responsibility of educating new players because I've been too busy with real life issues. Their advice was not, "Always choose Chaotic Neutral as your alignment and max your Bluff skill because that way you can get away with anything." Most of the time they were actually more conservative than I would have been.

Edit: On reflection, I probably should have emphasized the CMB question, too.

Sovereign Court

People in position of authority frequently get asked questions like this. Plus it helps that i am pretty rules savvy. And also have access to rulebooks they do not.

Liberty's Edge

MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
You still left out the player involvement part.

Players.

Plural.

As in more than one person's wishes come into play.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

CRB.

Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of
everything that occurs in the game. All rule books,
including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law.
He must not antagonize the players or work to impede
their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor
them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and
consistent in his administration of the rules.


ciretose wrote:
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
You still left out the player involvement part.

Players.

Plural.

As in more than one person's wishes come into play.

That's what I said.


shallowsoul wrote:

CRB.

Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of
everything that occurs in the game. All rule books,
including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law.
He must not antagonize the players or work to impede
their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor
them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and
consistent in his administration of the rules.

Yes because discussing the possibility of allowing an elf is clearly coddling.

Sovereign Court

If they are extinct, it is...


Kinda like snow elves in skyrim?

951 to 1,000 of 1,026 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gaming the system versus imaginative creativity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.