Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6230066" data-attributes="member: 85555">And this allowance for it being x or y depending on taste of group, GM interpretation, etc, to many, many people is a good thing not a bad thing. I am not saying doing it the other way is wrong. Certainly designers could be more explicit about what hazardous means if they wish, but there are perfectly good reasons for choosing to leave it vague.this sort of thing has come up with my own design team on a current project. On some spell entries, we debated leaving some things deliberately vague. Not because we couldn't be bothered to provide a clear answer, but because any decision we made would potentially reduce enjoyment of the game by one of the three player types we had in mind from the outset. We realized it was better to allow, in some key instances, for the gm and players to interpret what an aspect of the spell meant. And in playtests we saw that this worked better for our ourposes thaan when we were explicit. It allowed all the GMs to fit the spell to their style of play. There was no direct analog to your rope trick example, but this sort of thify did come up. I do understand, a player who wants perfect clarity and consistency wont like that. That doesn't make it bad design, unless they were our target audience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6230066, member: 85555"] And this allowance for it being x or y depending on taste of group, GM interpretation, etc, to many, many people is a good thing not a bad thing. I am not saying doing it the other way is wrong. Certainly designers could be more explicit about what hazardous means if they wish, but there are perfectly good reasons for choosing to leave it vague. this sort of thing has come up with my own design team on a current project. On some spell entries, we debated leaving some things deliberately vague. Not because we couldn't be bothered to provide a clear answer, but because any decision we made would potentially reduce enjoyment of the game by one of the three player types we had in mind from the outset. We realized it was better to allow, in some key instances, for the gm and players to interpret what an aspect of the spell meant. And in playtests we saw that this worked better for our ourposes thaan when we were explicit. It allowed all the GMs to fit the spell to their style of play. There was no direct analog to your rope trick example, but this sort of thify did come up. I do understand, a player who wants perfect clarity and consistency wont like that. That doesn't make it bad design, unless they were our target audience. [/QUOTE]

Verification