Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9274690" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think there could be a misunderstanding here in terms of what I was talking about. I didn't reference antagonism or necessarily even 'playing the opposition'. When I talked about using vague/generic spell descriptions, or ones lacking reference to firm general rules, as allowing players to 'play the GM' all I am invoking is the general Gygaxian role of the GM as putting limits on the player's options in order to present them with a challenge. A spell which suggests a dozen off-label corner-case uses in its very general description and fuzzy rules invites, INEVITABLY, the player to think along the lines of how to anticipate and overcome/bypass GM decisions about the limits or suitability of the application of the spell (and it would apply to other game elements as well, I just use spells as an example). Every player will think along these lines if they are at all 'worth their salt' in a game which focuses on any sort of challenge mastery model of play. 1000's of hours of AD&amp;D play amply bolsters my opinion. In play we literally compiled entire compendia of approaches to off-label or 'creative' use of spells. It was to the point where there are actual categories of approaches to getting around the typical kinds of obstacles GMs are likely to put in your path. Honestly, I don't consider this to be a problem at all, this can be argued to be what is INTENDED by TSR D&amp;D. I just like to focus more on character and story nowadays, so it isn't appealing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9274690, member: 82106"] I think there could be a misunderstanding here in terms of what I was talking about. I didn't reference antagonism or necessarily even 'playing the opposition'. When I talked about using vague/generic spell descriptions, or ones lacking reference to firm general rules, as allowing players to 'play the GM' all I am invoking is the general Gygaxian role of the GM as putting limits on the player's options in order to present them with a challenge. A spell which suggests a dozen off-label corner-case uses in its very general description and fuzzy rules invites, INEVITABLY, the player to think along the lines of how to anticipate and overcome/bypass GM decisions about the limits or suitability of the application of the spell (and it would apply to other game elements as well, I just use spells as an example). Every player will think along these lines if they are at all 'worth their salt' in a game which focuses on any sort of challenge mastery model of play. 1000's of hours of AD&D play amply bolsters my opinion. In play we literally compiled entire compendia of approaches to off-label or 'creative' use of spells. It was to the point where there are actual categories of approaches to getting around the typical kinds of obstacles GMs are likely to put in your path. Honestly, I don't consider this to be a problem at all, this can be argued to be what is INTENDED by TSR D&D. I just like to focus more on character and story nowadays, so it isn't appealing. [/QUOTE]

Verification