Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6198079" data-attributes="member: 205">That's what negotiation is for.  Plus, the ability to manipulate the scene is often mediated by character resources.  See FATE points in FATE Core, for example.  You can spend one to gain a benefit based on the Aspects of the scene (Aspects being the driver of most of FATE's mechanics).  The DM can also attempt to complicate your life by compelling you based on your character's Aspects, but must grant you a FATE point if you accept the complication.And, in coming full circle, many people's problem with 3.X is that spellcasters are granted those abilities by RAW, and must be remediated by either Rule 0 or focused non-neutral scene framing.  Which is to say predetermined counter-measures, or focused enemy attention based on the presence of the spell effect, not necessarily the effects.  And remember, in enshrining an objective campaign world as the ideal, it's not trivial to determine where those countermeasures are coming from.  You can't just put them in ex post facto.  Not saying it's not doable, but it often requires your world to be reshaped around D&D spell assumptions.  I mean, just as an example, how do you stop a mid-level druid from destroying towns with Control Winds?  Is it tacit social contract, Rule 0 as to the spell effects, or an in-game countermeasure?</blockquote>