Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jhyrryl" data-source="post: 1083198" data-attributes="member: 6406">If D&amp;D were a game that I was programming (and yes, that's what I do for a living), I'd agree that the abusability of contingency's unintended consequences would require providing a ruleset that more absolutely defines its abilities and limitations.&nbsp; But table-top D&amp;D is not a computer game.Because a D&amp;D group has a full-time arbiter (the DM), it shouldn't be necessary to make the restrictions that you and others have expressed in this thread - which was the point that I was expressing.&nbsp; It's a waste of his/her time if abuses never come up; and it places unnecessary restrictions on the spell that will limit the creativity of your players, and your game as a whole.&nbsp; In my opinion.But I absolutely recognize that different groups (and different individuals within a group) require different kinds of rulings from their DMs.&nbsp; What I've ruled for my groups may very well not be appropriate for your campaigns, just as I think that your rules would not useful to either of mine.For me, the most difficult players to deal with are the number crunchers; the ones who have a nack for finding optimal paths through the web of combat-related mechanics.&nbsp; If a given group were entirely composed of these individuals, then they wouldn't be a problem -- I crunch with the best of them.&nbsp; But I need to satisfy players (the majority of my players, in-fact) who want to be entertained with a story, and who want to contribute to that story, rather than win a game.Because of this, I can do things like give a 5th-level party ring gates &quot;on loan&quot; from the local regeant without worrying too much about the abuses they could find for such items.&nbsp; Likewise, giving a cubic gate to an 11th-level group that I'm currently running has proven to be an excellent deus ex machina for the overall campaign, despite its individual value equalling that of half the party's entire inventory.So yes, it works in my campaigns.&nbsp; My point was never that the spell couldn't be abused, simply that such abuses should be very easy to mitigate in any given situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jhyrryl, post: 1083198, member: 6406"] If D&D were a game that I was programming (and yes, that's what I do for a living), I'd agree that the abusability of [i]contingency's[/i] unintended consequences would require providing a ruleset that more absolutely defines its abilities and limitations. But table-top D&D is not a computer game. Because a D&D group has a full-time arbiter (the DM), it shouldn't be necessary to make the restrictions that you and others have expressed in this thread - which was the point that I was expressing. It's a waste of his/her time if abuses never come up; and it places unnecessary restrictions on the spell that will limit the creativity of your players, and your game as a whole. In my opinion. But I absolutely recognize that different groups (and different individuals within a group) require different kinds of rulings from their DMs. What I've ruled for my groups may very well not be appropriate for your campaigns, just as I think that your rules would not useful to either of mine. For me, the most difficult players to deal with are the number crunchers; the ones who have a nack for finding optimal paths through the web of combat-related mechanics. If a given group were entirely composed of these individuals, then they wouldn't be a problem -- I crunch with the best of them. But I need to satisfy players (the majority of my players, in-fact) who want to be entertained with a story, and who want to contribute to that story, rather than win a game. Because of this, I can do things like give a 5th-level party [i]ring gates[/i] "on loan" from the local regeant without worrying too much about the abuses they could find for such items. Likewise, giving a [i]cubic gate[/i] to an 11th-level group that I'm currently running has proven to be an excellent deus ex machina for the overall campaign, despite its individual value equalling that of half the party's entire inventory. So yes, it works in my campaigns. My point was never that the spell couldn't be abused, simply that such abuses should be very easy to mitigate in any given situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification