Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 5988053" data-attributes="member: 6685694">Not at all.  I don't play fighters, or really care what they do.  I am simply saying that spells in editions 0-3 worked in largely the same way that powers work in 4e.  There are written descriptions of when the spell can be cast, under what circumstances, what rolls are required, and what effect happens.  If the prereqs are met and the roll succeeds, the effect happens.  Yes the DM can by fiat say 'well, your spell doesn't work the way you want for a reason I am explaining now', but the same thing is true of a 4e power.  In both cases, the rules don't say 'the DM can override the written effect of a spell or power'- it's an assumption built into the nature of an RPG that uses a DM.And pretty much all of the above still requires adjudication in more rules-heavy editions.  In some cases spells got added guidelines for how to adjudicate, and in other things complex spells went away.  That more than anything may have affected how play works out- spells with complex or unpredictable effects are fewer and farer between in 4e.  But rituals still can include some of those same complications, and DM's can always add additional magic or rituals that require those kind of calls.This is essentially saying that the later editions took some of the spotlight away from the DM and spell casters and gave it to non-caster players- which seems perfectly fair.  Rituals can still have scrying-type effects that are unreliable and require adjudication if you want them to.Again: some people want to improvise story, and some people want to improvise action resolution.  Why is one crazier than the other?  If you've ever done improv acting or comedy, one of the fundamental rules is the 'yes, but' rule- if someone says 'look a bus', you don't say 'that isn't a bus, you're crazy!'- that kills the momentum of the scene and turns into a game of just contradicting eachother.  "Yes, but"-  (which I've specifically seen mentioned in some game mastering guides) means that if a player makes a suggestion that doesn't break the game, you allow it but add complications to it that ensure that it isn't abused.So in the example above, the player says 'I know you, my uncle served with you in the war'.  The army officer says 'You mean Lt. Bill- the officer I had shot for cowardice?!'  Now you've built onto the story and created additional hooks.  Rather than just allowing the player to create an advantage for themselves, you've created an opportunity to work for an advantage, or to take the story in a new direction.It is slightly more complicated way to create plot.  Just as adjudicating actions on the spot is a slightly more complicated way to resolve tasks.  In each case, the DM is just sharing a little control with the players to make the game more collaborative.</blockquote>

Verification