Absolutely. Define the overall qualities, by all means...that it has to use words, probably ought to make at least a bit of sense, and so on. But don't micro-manage by forcing it into the pigeonhole of being a sonnet...you can *suggest* a length of 14 lines, for example (WotC did this with their so-called market research saying campaigns lasted 1-2 years), but if I want to write an 85+ line poem with my game (have a campaign that runs 10+ years) then so be it.
I don't think I've ever seen any Game Police stopping anyone from doing that.
People will take D&D and contort it into their own designs, and WotC is sympathetic to that (the constant mantra of it being YOUR game is quite prominent, and I don't see them saying much to the contrary).
The problem is, I shouldn't have to contort it in order to make it do something in the first place. Controting it will happen regardless -- but it should have an initial composition that can be reasonably baseline. Specificity isn't limiting, it's exemplifying. Just because there are only four actions listed doesn't mean that's the only possibility, it just means that those four actions are standard and if you want something different, it's up to your own creativity and impetus to come up with it, and WotC will help you as much as they can, but they're not going to do it for you.
Another way of looking at it from a design perspective would be to say that macro-management is the province of the game designers, while micro-management should be the province of the individual DM's. Of late, though, there seems to be a trend toward design micro-management through ever-more-restrictive rules and rulings (example: someone posted earlier the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 Command spell), and I suspect that's what's spawning threads like this.
I don't see the 3.5 spell as more restricting at all. I see it as more specific, giving more examples of what could possibly be done, more recommendations for it. I see it as exemplifying what a spell like Command should be able to do, giving me a hook on which to hang all sorts of spells that are variations on it, all sorts of spells that are power-ups of it, all sorts of different tweaks on it.
Some people will limit themselves to what is listed. Some people will be creative and use it as a launching point for variance. Some people will use what is listed to new and creative tactical ends, not changing the spell but using it in unexpected ways. Nothing about the spell states that the world is limited by it.
I don't have time to micromanage my campaign, nor do I have the interest to do so. I'd much rather make a campaign setting than rules for a non-specific spell. I'd much rather invent a new spell than try to figure out an old one. I'd much rather use a rule than ignore it. I'd much rather make a story than try to figure out how to tell it. I'd much rather macromanage -- develop big ideas, ongoing plots, motives, villains, memorable encounters, amazing scenery, and epic battles -- than micromanage -- fiddle with rules, get skill points right, invent uses for pointless abilities, worry about miniature's placement, drawing the map to accurate scale, etc. Mircomanaging is dull and boring and I'll gladly pay someone else to do it for me. But a monster's HD is not memorable to me. What's memorable is if that monster kidnapped an important member of royalty and is holding him for ransom.
I don't remember that an OM has
charm person. I remember that he can get people to cooperate. That could be an SLA, or it could be a high Intimidate skill or an impressive Diplomacy skill or a Bardic Music ability, or a magical helmet, or any one of a million different variations on how to get the same effect. I want to worry about the effect, and the designers can worry about how, excactly, that effect is achieved.
Often, this is true. Often, however, it is not...people come to the game *to* get their imaginations going, or out of curiosity.
Games aren't there to be inspirations, and they shouldn't try to be (beause they won't be good ones and still be good games). Inspirations can come from movies, music, books, TV, videogames, poetry, art, epics....not from the rules themselves. That makes D&D "too much like D&D," gets obssessed with the pointless minutae that has little reason for exisiting in the first place.
When given an ability that doesn't make sense for a monster, I don't bother to think "Ooooh, what can I do with this neat talent?" I just wonder why it's there and then never use it. Because I already HAVE an idea for the monster, otherwise I wouldn't be bothering to use it in the first place.
