NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5324677" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, but what does "require" mean? I'd say the only definition of require that makes sense here is that if you cannot supply such a description then the action cannot take place. Sort of like "If you can't tell me how you grab the swarm then you can't grab it." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I think that is what some of us are advocating. Now it is only a question of how persnickity the DM wants to be about that. The "just use the RAW and don't go down that path" camp basically seems to be saying that it is in some fashion unfair to the players to tinker with their resources and could unbalance the game. The "fiction is paramount" camp says that a game which ignores the fiction is basically gussed up Monopoly. Personally I think if you take anything to an extreme your game will probably suffer. The whole thrust of 4e seems to be to walk a line between the extremes to me. Exactly where that line falls is fairly arbitrary. Taking what Alex319 is saying above into account I think it is safe to say that no game is likely to ever be entirely satisfactory to either camp. Anything can be 'reduced to mere mechanics' and anything can be potentially explained away by some sufficiently clever interpretation of the rules. It all boils down to taste.Personally in my actual play of RPGs I don't care much about all this theory.</blockquote>

Verification