Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pentius" data-source="post: 5632984" data-attributes="member: 6676736">That's part of why I included &quot;narratively unsatisfying&quot;.&nbsp; I recognize that I'm fairly alone when it comes to not accepting &quot;But it's magic&quot; alone as something that hand-waves plausibility concerns.&nbsp; But if I were Bob or Betty, playing 3e when Jack insisted on Rope Tricking between battles, so that he could use all his spells to become an invisible giant remorhaz again, I'd be just as upset as when he insists on using wall of flame+push tactics in 4e, and for most of the same reasons(&quot;This is dumb, Jack.&nbsp; Dammit, you always do this.&quot;)Anyway, my point is not to argue one system against another either, just to point out that uses of mechanics in ways which jar people out of roleplaying and people who argue that they should be able to do it because it's in the rules is by no means an issue confined to one system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pentius, post: 5632984, member: 6676736"] That's part of why I included "narratively unsatisfying". I recognize that I'm fairly alone when it comes to not accepting "But it's magic" alone as something that hand-waves plausibility concerns. But if I were Bob or Betty, playing 3e when Jack insisted on Rope Tricking between battles, so that he could use all his spells to become an invisible giant remorhaz again, I'd be just as upset as when he insists on using wall of flame+push tactics in 4e, and for most of the same reasons("This is dumb, Jack. Dammit, you always do this.") Anyway, my point is not to argue one system against another either, just to point out that uses of mechanics in ways which jar people out of roleplaying and people who argue that they should be able to do it because it's in the rules is by no means an issue confined to one system. [/QUOTE]

Verification