Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9241738" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I have flipped back and forth on this. My problem is that, in most cases where such problems arise, it isn't going to be anywhere near this clean--and even when they do, the effects are kind of...I guess &quot;disappointing&quot; more than deleterious per se?That is, nixing the entirety of Divination in order to have a fun intrigue game kinda sucks. There's a lot of cool spells in there that have little to nothing to do with busting up intrigue play. And there are other spells that are useful without being totally broken, like zone of truth, where you have to be very clever about how you use it in order to get useful effects. Further, both of these things are &quot;active&quot; by the standard set out for active vs passive support. It's just that what you call &quot;passively opposing&quot; is easy to get rid of, while what you call &quot;actively&quot; opposing is difficult or complex to get rid of.Hence why I'm kind of skeptical about calling it &quot;passive&quot; opposition. I guess, if we want to give a label to this, we could call it something like &quot;entrenched opposition&quot; vs &quot;trivial opposition&quot; or the like. Entrenched opposition requires uprooting significant portions of the system just to make something possible, let alone gameplay-worthy. Trivial opposition is, as you say, closer to a line-item veto.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9241738, member: 6790260"] I have flipped back and forth on this. My problem is that, in [I]most[/I] cases where such problems arise, it isn't going to be anywhere near this clean--and even when they [I]do[/I], the effects are kind of...I guess "disappointing" more than deleterious per se? That is, nixing the entirety of Divination in order to have a fun intrigue game kinda sucks. There's a lot of cool spells in there that have little to nothing to do with busting up intrigue play. And there are other spells that are [I]useful[/I] without being totally broken, like [I]zone of truth[/I], where you have to be very clever about how you use it in order to get useful effects. Further, both of these things are "active" by the standard set out for active vs passive support. It's just that what you call "passively opposing" is easy to get rid of, while what you call "actively" opposing is difficult or complex to get rid of. Hence why I'm kind of skeptical about calling it "passive" opposition. I guess, if we want to give a label to this, we could call it something like "entrenched opposition" vs "trivial opposition" or the like. Entrenched opposition requires uprooting significant portions of the system just to make something [I]possible[/I], let alone gameplay-worthy. Trivial opposition is, as you say, closer to a line-item veto. [/QUOTE]

Verification