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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dwimmerlied" data-source="post: 6147810" data-attributes="member: 6706967">I think what I'm trying to do discuss my feelings on this idea of taking away spells because they are too powerful. The argument made seems to be that they are over-powered because they potentially make a wizard more capable at any given party role or ability than anyone else. A counter was made that there are good reasons that a wizard won't choose these spells anyway if the role is filled by another character, and I agree with this. Further, and I think @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=27570" target="_blank">sheadunne</a> your point illustrates this for me; you need to be analysing the game on a certain level to be doing this stuff in the first place. I honestly didn't know that haste was the more economical spell on a damage breakdown. But I'm still a gamer. So that brings into question how much of a problem it really is for all gamers. No gamer I know offline knows anything about optimisation. They make wizards because they are cool. Some of them like to blast things with balls of flame. Surely you've all met the gamer who loves to play the creepy necromancer that can summon the undead. And honestly, its gonna kill that if its a bad choice because you should optimise. Even with my level of knowledge, character concepts I have would rarely get past the drawing board because they would not be at all optimised, and that sux.To address more of the debate as I understand it, if most people who game were optimisers, I'd suppose that it would be a good idea to limit character options, because then that would make most people happy. We'd have to stretch our suspension of disbelief to do so, but perhaps that would be necessary. Conversely, where most people don't play like this, I'd argue that you can put all the cool stuff in without being in fear of the optimiser population (who, mind you, will find ways to break everything anyway no matter what you do, because its what they do). And to make certain it all runs smoothly, because we KNOW creative rules will always result in unforseen combinations, we use the "dm fiat".Now, DM Fiat has never been a problem in my games, but I believe that in these debates, a few people are hijaking it and using it as a dirty word. Anyone who suggests its useful, well they say "nah. thats simply the dm being a power tripper." In fact in my time reading these boards (much longer than my membership), ive seen this argument over and over again. These people disregard the fact that most (admittedly not all) people who use dm fiat have clearly (and perhaps exasperatedly) said that they simply use it to make the game run smoother for everyone.I can understand the currency of narrative control. Its a nice thing to think about, and personally would not stand against it. I don't like unwieldy mechanics or nerfing imagination as its means to do so.</blockquote>

Verification