>>96311631
I take it that much like your takes on Arneson you've never actually read it and just heard what people say about it, given how much vague you're being about it's issues. (which it does have, just not in any way what you're saying)
>>96311639
Yes, but you made me think of trying "rule-players" and I found exactly two posts of his mentioning them.
One of them is pic related where he says the GM has the final word over rules lawyers and laughs about it.
The other one is even funnier in the context of this discussion, give me a sec and i'll post it.
>>96311653
I wonder how you can write this stuff with a straight face when it doesn't take very long at all to actually read his posts and find out you're wrong.