Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26295802-20160118152627/@comment-25606723-20160118202038

Heartgold1234 wrote:

Tybereous wrote:

Heartgold1234 wrote:

Tybereous wrote:

Heartgold1234 wrote: The thing is, how far does 'reasonable' go? I'd say if we look at what would happen in reality, we cannot change it. There are certain limits on what would happen and I'd rather have it so the GM was the mediator, and didn't get involved themselves. I think it may need to be something the GM posts in the rules, so it's RP to RP. I also think that if someone says something, only the GM/cohost etc. should intervene. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. Yeah, and the GMs should make it more that the players state what their orders are, and the GM states what happens not the players. I like the traditional style better personally. I think it wouldn't be as fun if it was that realistic all the time. Also if the GM is out of town/only on once a day, you can't progress. But it is for the GM to decide. Well yes, but the latter problem is why we have co-hosts, is it not? If we don't have realism, we don't have an excuse for losing. There needs to be a loser for a victor. Eh, I like the idea. I just won't use it for my Roleplays. Call me lazy, it's what I am. As long as no strict 'YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE RULES IN ALL ROLEPLAYS!' rules are put in, I'm fine with it.