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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6226799" data-attributes="member: 22779">Funny.  Nothing but a shrug Ahn?  Really?So, what's the difference here?  What's the difference between the player with a passive ability that expects that ability to be used by the DM and a player with diplomacy who expects the DM to follow the rules for diplomacy, or a player with a spell who is following both the letter and the intent of the spell?  To me, there's no difference here.Why is okay for the DM to rewrite the rules for casters but, apparently not ok for this elf?  This is why I argue about Calvinball.  How is the player supposed to know when the DM is going to start playing silly buggers with the rules?  Sure, in extreme cases where the player is obviously not following the intent of the rules - such as unlimited wishes through Astral spells.  Ok, fine.  While that might be in keeping with the letter of the spell, it's certainly not in keeping with intent.  I think that unlimited wishes was never the intent for an Astral Projection spell and I think we can all agree on that.  But, then you get situations where the DM will either start futzing about with the mechanics, or, if that doesn't work, start manipulating the setting, all to achieve exactly what Shidaku above is trying to achieve - make the game play the way he wants it to play.  So, in the end, why are you not all jumping behind Shidaku here?  He's doing exactly what you all have been advocating for a hundred pages or more.  And, we've even got other DM's agreeing that the player is the problem.  Do you agree?  Is the player the problem?  Shidaku has followed your advice - taken ownership of the game and made sure that his vision of the game is the dominant one.  What's the problem?</blockquote>

Verification