Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7518422" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You don't think the below are HUGE PARTS OF THE PUZZLE in the majority of D&amp;D:a) the designers CHOSE (it didn't have to be done this way...plenty of systems don't...and they play VERY differently for it) to have a ridiculous number of codified spell effects covering an absurdly large number of broad, significantly gamestate-changing supernatural abilities (&quot;I can expressly accomplish a, b, c, d, e through one spell because of the broad and thorough spell text&quot; vs &quot;can I accomplish a as I'm not sure due to the low word count on this spell that relies on pithy thematic text meeting GM-mediation&quot;)...and b) the designers CHOSE (again, doesn't have to be this way...and huge impact on play) to have those spell effects require no fortune resolution in order to deploy (&quot;I cast this signifcant gamestate-changing ability&quot; vs &quot;I roll to cast this significant gamestate-changing ability&quot;)...andc)&nbsp; &lt;&quot;DMs arbitrate based on acceptable realism. Typically cinematic. The &quot;does this feel real?&quot; test.&quot;&gt; is a minefield of vagary that must be confronted on any individual action declaration and resolution (contrast with (a) and (b) where genre adjudication is bypassed by the system's choice to extensively codify ridiculously broad and significantly-gamestate-changing effects-by-fiat in spellcasting lists and spellcasting action resolution that is bereft of any test to actually will your supernatural effect upon the world).Seems to me, a/b/c do a lot of work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7518422, member: 6696971"] You don't think the below are HUGE PARTS OF THE PUZZLE in the majority of D&D: a) the designers CHOSE (it didn't have to be done this way...plenty of systems don't...and they play VERY differently for it) to have a ridiculous number of codified spell effects covering an absurdly large number of broad, significantly gamestate-changing supernatural abilities ("I can expressly accomplish [I]a, b, c, d, e[/I] through one spell because of the broad and thorough spell text" vs "can I accomplish [I]a[/I] as I'm not sure due to the low word count on this spell that relies on pithy thematic text meeting GM-mediation")... and b) the designers CHOSE (again, doesn't have to be this way...and huge impact on play) to have those spell effects require no fortune resolution in order to deploy ("I cast this signifcant gamestate-changing ability" vs "I roll to cast this significant gamestate-changing ability")... and c) <"DMs arbitrate based on acceptable realism. Typically cinematic. The "does this feel real?" test."> is a minefield of vagary that must be confronted on any individual action declaration and resolution (contrast with (a) and (b) where genre adjudication is bypassed by the system's choice to extensively codify ridiculously broad and significantly-gamestate-changing effects-by-fiat in spellcasting lists and spellcasting action resolution that is bereft of any test to actually will your supernatural effect upon the world). Seems to me, a/b/c do a lot of work. [/QUOTE]

Verification