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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5728387" data-attributes="member: 6685059">"I know the spell to solve the problem" assumes that the problem is static and absolute.Yes, you can eliminate the spell. But you can also change the problem or adapt to it.This is exactly the same dilemma as real-life "magic" (ie., technology) changing the way stories are told in film and novels. The solution is to a) tell stories set in the 1980's or earlier, or b) adapt the story to account for and adapt to fingerprinting and cell phones and Internet (which are different but equally interesting kinds of stories).In sci-fi, you get to decide whether you want "magic" like teleporting, plasma weapons, spaceships, etc. Good sci-fi asks what kinds of unique stories happen when people can teleport anywhere instead of driving to work? Authors that are afraid of these questions probably shouldn't be writing sci-fi novels.In D&D, I personally think the Knock spell is a little metagamey in a simulationist sense when I think about it, but I don't want to insulate the players against interesting magic based exclusively on the fear of stepping on toes and stealing the limelight (it is a factor to consider but not necessarily the primary one). When you go down that road, you might as well have a rule preventing 2 players from choosing the same class/build in the same party.I think that if the players want to roleplay a party of 3 rogues, then make a story with many locks (to make them feel justified for choosing 3 thieves) and obstacles that cannot be unlocked (to give them a challenge). If the players want a rogue and a utility wizard, then adapt the story just as well. In terms of game design, plenty of good ways for balancing interesting edgy magic have been suggested that don't throw out the baby with bathwater.</blockquote>

Verification