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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6355862" data-attributes="member: 42582">The authorship power is limited by a real-world constraint: the GM declaring that a short rest has been completed. In game, the question of whether or not the PC has rested for 5 minutes is determined by a whole host of things, of which the PC's choice to rest is only one.The idea that an ingame event causes a metagame event (refreshing an authorship power) makes no sense: the metagame event really happens, but the ingame events are purely imaginary and therefore cannot cause real things to happen.This is like me hesitating to call Gygax's Greyhawk game an RPG because it is basically all governed by "you the player" rather than the character.I don't understand this obsession of some RPGers to label RPGs they personally don't like "not really an RPG"Well, in many versions of D&D your skill as a tactician, as a mathematician, etc factor into how well you do.So why, then, is a check required to climb or balance (no opponent), to remember stuff (no opponent), to pick a lock or disable a trap (no opponent), etc?Why is "game playability" a reason not to require a check for wizards, but not a reason to allow various non-magical PCs to do stuff without checking. After all, the number of locks, narrow ledges etc is also going to be finite.Of course, this is exactly the argument for DoaM.I don't understand why, when it comes to wizards, considerations of balance and playability trump considerations of verisimilitude and modelling ingame processes, but when it comes to fighters the latter sorts of considerations trump the former. I believe this is what the OP meant by a "double standard".</blockquote>

Verification