Do you allow fluff when it doesn't affect mechanics?

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

Heck, I know of one rule I have only ever encountered one judge who enforced... and even then he only enforced it selectively

The GM is not REQUIRED to ask for the additional resources or the source of the original rules with ownership. Not asking for it is not a failure to enforce the rules, selectively or otherwise. It is however, required that the player have it with them and available IF the GM asks for it. Perhaps you just have knowledgeable GMs who do not need to review the rules to know what your character can do.

Now, IF the GM asks for it and the player cannot provide it, then yes, that would technically be considered a rules violation. Considering the wide range of reasons for non-compliance, the GM certainly has some discretion on what action is taken to enforce the rule and insure future compliance.

[Pink Dragon]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Pink Dragon wrote:

For those people who take a very hard line about enforcing the rules, what would you want to do about that?

If the issue has been vetted all the way up to and including the OPC and no action is being taken (as far as you know), then apparently the issue is not considered one to warrant any action. If you don't like that resolution, you really only have two choices; deal with it and play despite the lack of rules enforcement you want, or don't play.

Either way, you are welcome to discuss the issue in the forums (like you did) and try to illicit a change in the rules. Also, you might want to consider that your expectations for "hard-line enforcement" may not be in the spirit of the campaign and may need to re-accessed.

I personally have no issue with it as I am not a "hard-line enforcement" type. From your posts, I can see that you are not either. My question is directed at those who are "hard-line enforcement" types, because I simply do no understand why they need to be so hard-line about every little rule.

[KingOfAnything]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I guess I don't even know how to respond anymore. Seems the vocal majority is ok with breaking the rules as long as they don't have to have a potential confrontation. And that saddens me.

It is important to remember why we have the rules we do. Ultimately, we all play to have fun. If a one-time exception is the least disruptive option for the GM, others at the table, and the player in question, it should be considered.

Also, I think it is unfair to characterize this view as conflict avoidance. What Nefreet (and I think, others) advance is a deferral, not ducking. Putting off the hard discussions until after everyone has had their fun makes for a better experience all around.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed some posts and locking this one. I believe it's run its course.