Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Melan" data-source="post: 4716349" data-attributes="member: 1713">arscott: well, in a game between strangers, there is often a lack of trust that should be assumed in a standard home game; conversely, there may be a tendency to emphasise unambiguous rules that can be left to the books instead of allowing DM interpretation (and thus the dreaded fiat). I suspect the RPGA, being WotC's main focus group, has pushed the game towards more spelled-out and compartmentalised rules and approaches, and for many of us, that sucks.As an example, here is how the command spell changed through the editions after it was introduced in 1e:There is a definite move towardsa) making the spell wording as precise as possible;b) narrowing its use down to combat ("encounter") applications.The consequence is standardisation and the elimination of its creative potential. What use is command if sliding the target 3 + Cha modifier squares doesn't quite cut it?Is the RPGA to blame for this? Probably not entirely. I suspect a wider feedback loop is in effect, where the RPGA serves as an echo chamber for misguided and harmful views on game design, which the current crop of WotC staff seem to possess. Then again, I am a self-confessed 4e hater, so FWIW, IMO and all those fancy acronyms apply.</blockquote>