Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9438254" data-attributes="member: 1008">I wouldn't define the sort of thing we're talking about as vaguely or poorly written rules, I consider them written in an open-ended fashion, leaving room for interesting interpretations and GM adjudication on edge cases. This is a good thing, in my opinion, not a problem. But yes, I do consider the problem to be with the participants, not the rules.You are welcome to call them poorly written at any point you would like; I'm just likely to disagree with the point you're going to choose. I like the open-endedness of many of the early spells and, like the OP, I'm not a fan of attempts to lock them down into more concrete definitions. As I've mentioned multiple times, I have never had issues with open-ended rules causing arguments or grinding games to a halt, not across a wide range of games, D&amp;D and otherwise, and even back in my early teens when you'd expect this kind of thing to be most likely to rear it's head. All that being the case, I really struggle to understand the perspective of people who consider disruptive, in-game disputes to be expected or normal behaviour if the rules aren't locked down with strict and utterly unambiguous language. I would much prefer open-ended language that leaves room for imaginative repurposing and player ideas beyond the scope of what the author originally envisaged.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SableWyvern, post: 9438254, member: 1008"] I wouldn't define the sort of thing we're talking about as vaguely or poorly written rules, I consider them written in an open-ended fashion, leaving room for interesting interpretations and GM adjudication on edge cases. This is a good thing, in my opinion, not a problem. But yes, I do consider the problem to be with the participants, not the rules. You are welcome to call them poorly written at any point you would like; I'm just likely to disagree with the point you're going to choose. I like the open-endedness of many of the early spells and, like the OP, I'm not a fan of attempts to lock them down into more concrete definitions. As I've mentioned multiple times, I have never had issues with open-ended rules causing arguments or grinding games to a halt, not across a wide range of games, D&D and otherwise, and even back in my early teens when you'd expect this kind of thing to be most likely to rear it's head. All that being the case, I really struggle to understand the perspective of people who consider disruptive, in-game disputes to be expected or normal behaviour if the rules aren't locked down with strict and utterly unambiguous language. I would much prefer open-ended language that leaves room for imaginative repurposing and player ideas beyond the scope of what the author originally envisaged. [/QUOTE]

Verification