Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6113680" data-attributes="member: 78752">It's not a matter of explanations.&nbsp; A sufficiently creative mind can explain anything; I know that.&nbsp; And if that's how you want to run your game you should feel free, but those of us who /want/ to limit player control of the battlefield ought to have the tools to do so without being reduced to &quot;because I said so.&quot;I /understand/ the playstyle that believes that the fighter should have the ability to narrate the effects of startling an elephant, or sidestepping an iron golem.&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; But when that playstyle is the only one supported by the ruleset, it makes it very difficult for the DM to justify saying &quot;that doesn't work because {perfectly logical reason},&quot; which is important.I'll be perfectly honest -- I don't personally believe in compromise between the DM and the players.&nbsp; I'm an advocate of absolute DM authority.&nbsp; I think that's his role and I think it makes the game more fun (when it's done well).&nbsp; But at the very least, the rules have to permit narrative compromise, and dictating that a tactical &quot;power&quot; has a specific, non-negotiable effect on the battlefield interferes with narrative compromise just as much as leaving the effect of the &quot;power&quot; entirely up to DM fiat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 6113680, member: 78752"] It's not a matter of explanations. A sufficiently creative mind can explain anything; I know that. And if that's how you want to run your game you should feel free, but those of us who /want/ to limit player control of the battlefield ought to have the tools to do so without being reduced to "because I said so." I /understand/ the playstyle that believes that the fighter should have the ability to narrate the effects of startling an elephant, or sidestepping an iron golem. I do. But when that playstyle is the only one supported by the ruleset, it makes it very difficult for the DM to justify saying "that doesn't work because {perfectly logical reason}," which is important. I'll be perfectly honest -- I don't personally believe in compromise between the DM and the players. I'm an advocate of absolute DM authority. I think that's his role and I think it makes the game more fun (when it's done well). But at the very least, the rules have to permit narrative compromise, and dictating that a tactical "power" has a specific, non-negotiable effect on the battlefield interferes with narrative compromise just as much as leaving the effect of the "power" entirely up to DM fiat. [/QUOTE]

Verification