Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7422141" data-attributes="member: 6857506">It depends critically on what you consider to be a 'disruption' and what you consider to be 'fun'.  What leads to a D&D game being fun is not the same for everyone. <a href="http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/" target="_blank">http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/</a>You seem to be referring to what is called 'expression' in the linked article.  While your suggested approach probably would generally benefit expression seekers, for me, as a player (or a DM) it can mess with immersion ('fantasy' in the article); also, though perhaps to a lesser extent, challenge and narrative could suffer.Again, it depends on what you feel makes a story 'interesting'.  For me, rulings that condition the behavior of the world on its convenience for the PCs tend to make me just check out.  For me, it makes the story silly, not interesting.That's an interesting example because I rule the same way, but not for the same reason.  My reason is that that makes the world make more sense to me and my players.  Often it will be more convenient for the PCs that the spells act that way, and occasionally it will create a problem for them, but for me that's irrelevant.For me it is more fun to have to figure out a way to do what I want despite the restrictions.  So it doesn't have a negative impact on your game, but it might on someone else's.  There's definitely nothing categorically wrong with your approach, but other people may have more fun doing things differently.  Also, I understand that you are not necessarily advocating an extreme position (absolutely anything goes), but even given that you are picking what you consider to be a good balance point, other balance points can be just as valid.</blockquote>

Verification