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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8430366" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I've snipped your post down to this bit, because I think I've said enough about the other points you make in response to others. But this bit I've quoted here is maybe one that can shed some light on the discussion.There are so many examples of the players having authority throughout the book. Every spell and skill and feat and description of action declaration is the book giving the players power. They can do those things and expect them to work. I have a 3rd level spell slot remaining and fireball is one of my known spells, therefore I can cast fireball when it's my turn.Can the DM veto that? Can he say "no you cannot cast that spell now"? Generally speaking, no, he can't. Could there be an example of a reason? Sure; a previously established "anti-magic zone" or some such would be a sound reason. Can he simply introduce said anti-magic zone at the moment I declare that my character casts the spell? According to the letter of the rules, it seems so. But I literally don't care what the letter of the rules may say.I'm arguing that's a bad idea on his part to do so. Those passages in the books are not telling people to do that; they're not suggesting to anyone "this is the way to GM". That is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of the point of those comments. One that no one should actually follow. A GM should follow the rules of play just like the players should. Honor the players' choices and what limited authority the game gives them. Can you override it? Yes, of course. Should you? No, not without very good reason. The GM and the game is better served by allowing the players to have the authority granted to them by the rules, at the bare minimum. I would also argue to go even further and give them even more authority.</blockquote>

Verification