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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5457734" data-attributes="member: 177">Magic cannot do what the GM does not allow it to do.In some games (like Mage), there are explicit rules for what magic can do or not do that the player can build upon - the rules of magic are known to the players, and they can (and are expected to) build new effects upon those rules.  This is not true in D&D.In some other games, there are explicit rules for "I pull a rabbit out of a hat" effects, where the character can accomplish things that nominally are not allowed by their stats and skills and abilities and powers, but happen anyway because the mechanic allows the player to grab that level of narrative control.  Previous editions of D&D did not have such mechanics, and 4e's action points are very limited in scope of what they can accomplish.So, no, D&D isn't one of the games that explicitly makes allowances for what I'm talking about.I don't generally keep the game world when I switch campaigns.  I don't usually even use the same game system for two campaigns in a row.  My players are not interested in repeatedly playing the same game in the same world.  So, chance for others to use what they do is negligible.My point is that the example you chose is nearly unique.  While I am sure many GMs have allowed what you're speaking of, very few players have ever seen their creations come into widespread use.  As a practical matter, there's pretty much a 0% chance that things arising in a game run by anyone other than a professional game designer will ever see use outside the group.  So, "You'll have glory, and your name will be sung with honor forever," is a pretty weak argument.Yes, developing the spell that accomplishes a climactic goal is cool, but given how D&D does spell design and implementation, it isn't apt to be a very visceral experience.  You presented this as an option to reduce the risk of personal loss to the characters.  Reduced risk typically means reduced dramatic tension - which means it is likely have less impact, and be less memorable.So, sure, it is an option, but if we are talking about the end of the campaign, it doesn't seem to be a notably better option.Of course it is.  Never have I said otherwise.  The issue is that it does not at all come across as a thought process.   If you were speaking face-to-face, it might, as someone could get that from facial expression, vocal tone, and such.  But in text a question is a question - a question you mean to ask looks exactly like one you don't mean to ask.Editing is key in communication with people in plain text.</blockquote>

Verification