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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Mhoram" data-source="post: 5803086" data-attributes="member: 4789">I'd like to answer this one too. My playstyle is sort of in between the two exremes. Rules or being book legal is secondary the game the GM runs. If the GM says "no teleportation in my world, it doesn't work" then there isn't teleportation and I am fine with that. It is the GMs world to create - his choice. The GM should have something that is his for the work that is put into runing the game.So if the "no 30 ft jumps" was a campaign ground rule for whatever reason, I'm perfectly fine with that.However if it was for a specific encounter, I would need a in story reason why an ability my character has used before cannot use it at this time, other than "I don't want it in this encounter" - for me that breaks the immersion of character and world.As a note, I play HERO a lot, and those rules are so flexible the let any player come up with just about any character concept they want. However being a point based system, with that flexibility it also leads to book legal character design that is patently stupid or overpowered.  The game relies on the GM to catch that and say "No you cannot play this in this game". I don't see any reason that should be any different in D&D.In a tourney or "encounters" style situations where it isn't a steady group - that is one thing. However around a table - GM has ultimate power on what is allowed in the game and world he came up with.I think that every table and every group should play just a little bit different in rules, rulings, style than just about anyone else's. Part of the reason I am looking forward to how the D&DNext modularity is going to work.</blockquote>

Verification