Search results

Huh ... I could have sworn otherwise. No idea how I came to that conclusion.

This lengthy response mostly tells me that I mangled the point I was trying to make. To rephrase what I was trying to say (hopefully) more simply: I GM in a "GM Rulings" style, and will do so in just about any system, but I understand that there are other, equally valid approaches, even in...

I'm good with a 1st level spell being able to manage this.

I've already conceded multiple times that if you say the rule change makes life at your table easier, I will take your word for it. The list of possible effects you quoted was me responding to the assertion that imaginative uses aren't possible. I disagree with that assertion, and gave examples...

Salute, drink and spit are all commonly used as verbs. If you are denying them on the grounds that they can also be used as nouns, then almost every possible command can be disallowed on a similar basis (in spite of the whole "suicide" thing in the 1e description, which appears to be just a very...

Clearly, there are many people not part of your "we." I do agree that the 1e version of sleep isn't the ideal one -- the B/X version with no saving throw is my preferred iteration.

I already conceded quite some time ago that if the GM wishes to obstruct every imaginative use then it will be impossible to use the spell imaginatively.

While I agree entirely with @Daztur that GMs making rulings is one of the cornerstones of what makes TTRPGs worthwhile to me, I also have to acknowledge that clearly that's not essential to an RPG, given that GMless games exist. Some would point to solo-roleplaying as another example, although...

My current group was formed in the late 90s, so 20 - 30 for me. Prior to that, I either had a 7 year group and a separate ~2 year group, or you could consider both of those to be single ~10-11 year group with a pause in the middle and some changes in personnel when it reformed. Members of the...

Ah, yes, now I see exactly what you were saying. Carry on. :cool:

Fair enough, if you just consider them useless in general, that's a whole other thing. (y) It was the reference to insufficient offensive power that threw me.

Wow. If this is a common attitude, I find it a little depressing. Not going to affect my game, and if you're having fun, more power to you, but I still find it a little unfortunate if people not only no longer see any value in non-combat utility, but consider such things "pollution".

Sure. Similarly, it's generally not much fun to have a DM who says, "There is a huge wave that capsizes your boat and you all drown!" That's a reason not to play with GMs who insist on making the game unfun, not to ban the GM from making rulings. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this...

"The target decides" is just an overly-complicated way of saying, "No non-standard effect can be useful." Why would the target ever interpret a command in an inconvenient way? If that's what you want, there's no point couching it as anything other than that. Similarly, "The caster decides" is...

One reason I sometimes do poorly in these sorts of discussions is I have zero respect for designer intent if it clashes with my own preferences. Case in point. That sounds unfun and mostly unworkable to me. But if I'm disregarding all this, I will admit it makes it much harder to discuss...

Why are you assuming that GMs should choose the most antagonistic way of adjudicating the spell's effect? If a character says "smash" at someone just standing around in a group, I'll most likely rule the target won't do much of anything. If a character says "smash" at someone with a mace...

Yes, and that's a fair conversation to have, if necessary. I'm simply pointing out that what's reasonable is going to vary from table to table, and possibly even from game to game at the same table. I certainly don't run Blades in the Dark with the same assumptions about the nature of the world...