Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6186009" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's a fair question.If you can't push the rules without running into this sort of issue, that's a problem for the sort of play I'm talking about. But I think it is possible to have rules that can be pushed hard without falling into this problem - ie where &quot;pushing the rules&quot; isn't pushing the limits of their interpretation, but rather exploiting the possibilities that they open up - 4e makes this a big part of play, both in combat (different players combining their PCs' abilities to make the whole more than the sum of its parts) and in skill challenges (using rituals, powers, skills etc in creative combinations to drive the narrative in desired ways - this is less of a team thing than 4e combat).The line between the two can sometimes be blurred - the main example I've had as a GM was in Rolemaster, where it seemed possible to use a False Scrying power to send cross-world messages (by using low level scrying spells that would pick up the False Scrying and therefore read the message that, in the False Scrying's image, was written on the subject's body). We dealt with that through a simple table agreement not to use the exploit, and that worked because it was a peripheral rather than core part of play.I find a strong, shared sense of genre at the table helps establish boundaries between permissible and exploitative, and to settle interpretive questions (eg long before the errata came out, my table had agreed that Weapon Focus et al in 4e didn't work when weapliment was used to cast a spell). Plus rules that allow plenty of opportunites for cleverness that are at the application rather than the inrepretation end of things.Any of that make sense?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6186009, member: 42582"] It's a fair question. If you can't push the rules without running into this sort of issue, that's a problem for the sort of play I'm talking about. But I think it is possible to have rules that can be pushed hard without falling into this problem - ie where "pushing the rules" isn't pushing the limits of their interpretation, but rather exploiting the possibilities that they open up - 4e makes this a big part of play, both in combat (different players combining their PCs' abilities to make the whole more than the sum of its parts) and in skill challenges (using rituals, powers, skills etc in creative combinations to drive the narrative in desired ways - this is less of a team thing than 4e combat). The line between the two can sometimes be blurred - the main example I've had as a GM was in Rolemaster, where it seemed possible to use a False Scrying power to send cross-world messages (by using low level scrying spells that would pick up the False Scrying and therefore read the message that, in the False Scrying's image, was written on the subject's body). We dealt with that through a simple table agreement not to use the exploit, and that worked because it was a peripheral rather than core part of play. I find a strong, shared sense of genre at the table helps establish boundaries between permissible and exploitative, and to settle interpretive questions (eg long before the errata came out, my table had agreed that Weapon Focus et al in 4e didn't work when weapliment was used to cast a spell). Plus rules that allow plenty of opportunites for cleverness that are at the application rather than the inrepretation end of things. Any of that make sense? [/QUOTE]

Verification