Quote:
Originally Posted by Mardur
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
And here is the entire point of this thread.
GM-A says the rules are that if a named has multiple spawn points, it's first to engage.
Player-A pulls a named in KC (which has multiple spawn points), kills it, gets loot. Player-B who happened to be camping nearby petitions. GM-B shows up.
GM-B says that Player-A shouldn't have pulled the named and Player-A gives the drop to Player-B
GM-B effectively undermines the rules stated by GM-A because all CSR have their own set of rules that contradict other CSRs' rules.
|
Fill in GM-A and GM-B with names, and one specific example. I'm calling you out on it, and I guarantee you can't do it without finagling details as described here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uthgaard
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
And after that hour, everyone present will spam whoever made whatever decision with tells isolating single lines or words from the rules to try to twist the situation in their favor. You can't always break a camp dispute decision down into a single facet. It usually involves a comprehensive understanding of the situation, and in most cases, a lot of guessing over who's telling how much of the truth.
|