![]() |
|
Rule revision: 2.3 - Dead Men Tell No Tales - Printable Version +- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums) +-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: News and Announcements (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13) +--- Thread: Rule revision: 2.3 - Dead Men Tell No Tales (/showthread.php?tid=211402) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: Rule revision: 2.3 - Dead Men Tell No Tales - Weapon - 03-20-2026 (03-18-2026, 09:07 AM)Nodoka Hanamura Wrote: Thank fuck. Personally I would amend that if it is consented between both parties then the rule should not apply, but that's just me thinking out loud. A number of rules are already waived if both parties consent, especially when it comes to rules of engagement. I don't think this would be handled differently. Whether or not it should be codified (we seem to be stacking unwritten un-rules these days) is another matter. RE: Rule revision: 2.3 - Dead Men Tell No Tales - Bat Bat - 03-20-2026 (03-20-2026, 05:14 AM)Weapon Wrote:(03-18-2026, 09:07 AM)Nodoka Hanamura Wrote: Thank fuck. Personally I would amend that if it is consented between both parties then the rule should not apply, but that's just me thinking out loud. I think we should introduce Rule 0, like the one we have in EDH in Magic the Gathering, with a slight asterisk, which reads "both parties have to consent". In case of official factions it would be a no-brainer, but both parties sometimes could lead into situations which they want to have roleplay consequences in some sort in the further lore/faction shenanigans. The question is, would that Rule 0 also apply to the written rules or to the IDs in consent of both parties, too? Not that I am a longer period returnee and the new ID system is still something I have to get used to, especially how Junker, Hogosha and overall Intel IDs are worded now. However, if there's anything I am SO GLAD we removed division of "Core House" and "Border House" division that existed back in a time. |