Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4863285" data-attributes="member: 3820">Absolutely. But if a player is having problems with a call he finds unfair, it is not entirely helpful to say "There are a lot of potentially unfair things in life." But we don't know that, either. And I have to agree with wayne62682 that having to provide a specific narrative in order to use one of your inherent character powers at all is not necessarily the most reasonable of GM calls, particularly if the GM is not wiling to let you use the power and then provide the narration himself. I honestly think you're reaching with that comment. No offense, but you come across as looking for a lot more criticism of the 4e rules in my commentary than is actually there — giving the GM every possible benefit of the doubt and the 4e rules system none whatsoever. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of, but I'm not convinced that I've said that 4e is "balanced on a dime," and certainly my play experience hasn't given me any reason to believe that. I do think it can be broken by certain GMing techniques, and one of the ways you can break it is by applying a consistent bias. Is there a reason you say "4e" and not "every RPG" here? I agree. That's why the context of the original call is one that makes me leery. Determining that a fighter cannot apply a push mechanic to a giant doesn't seem particularly accepting of the idea of the genuinely fantastic character sans magic. The devil that is in these particular details is that applying the push mechanic to a giant is not commonly agreed upon here as "implausible." If you have two separate GMs, and both of them have different ideas of "implausible," and they both run the same system, it is entirely likely that the gameplay experience will come out very different under each. I'm honestly not convinced that there's been any cogent argument against anything but a tendency to be over-literal when applying game terms. That's an issue regardless of system. Which is why the question of "do you think it's implausible for a fighter to push a giant" is the basic context. That's enough information to determine whether you agree with the basic call of "is it plausible" or not. I don't claim "you can have it both ways," I say that there there's more than just two ways to the situation. It is okay for the GM to have veto power, but that does not imply that all uses of said veto power are implicitly fair. I'm of the school that says GMs are human beings, and capable of making bad calls every once in a while. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the GM having power. I just don't believe that their power should be de facto absolute, or that they're incapable of using it poorly by dint of being GM.</blockquote>

Verification