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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6092399" data-attributes="member: 22779">Abraxus, yeah, I suppose that's the pretty obvious answer isn't it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />-----Now, just to wrench myself back on topic, I do agree with Celebrim on the point that novel use of spells is often due to the reliable nature of the spell effects.  The player doesn't have to play "mother may I" with the DM to do things.  He can point to, as in the first example, the description of Improved Invisibility (Which, in this case would allow a Will save), the definition of Dust of Disappearance and the rules for Gaze Attack - all of which pretty much allow his plan to work (presuming the save is failed).  Where I disagree is with the rather passive aggressive characterization of players who want this.  It's not that players want to wrench control from the DM.  The players are simply choosing options that they know will reliably work.  It's not really different from choosing any other option - the players are presented with a challenge and then choose the best options to resolve that challenge.  Note, best in this sense doesn't necessarily mean the most likely to work.  Best could be any number of things from Coolness factor, to a sense of accurate portrayal of a character to whatever.  The criteria may vary, but, the idea that a rational player will choose the option that most makes sense to that player isn't terribly hard to imagine.The problem comes when the player wants to do something that isn't reliable.  DM's will very, very rarely take into account the math involved in trying to do something and will rule from a very conservative point of view.  Take a for instance:Player wants to swing across the bar room by the chandelier swinging his sword back and forth, attacking multiple targets.Now, this is way outside what is allowed in 3e and AD&D.  For one, you cannot move that much and make multiple attacks.  The player is flat out contradicting the rules here.  And, by and large, most DM's will not allow it.  Would you?  Honestly, I probably wouldn't.  Or, the DM will add in a number of skill checks, multiplying the chances of failure and make the option pretty much dead in the water.  Cut the rope, acrobatics check, make attacks, AOO's for moving through threatened squares, another acrobatics check to land, etc.  The odds of success are so low that most players won't even bother to bring it up.So, to sum up, I don't think it's about stealing narrative control.  It's about choosing options that are reliable.  When the DM starts chucking in check after check, that reduces the reliability.  In the centipede example, the cool, traveling across the desert becomes Keystone Kops as the cleric and fighter fall off the centipede time and again and winds up being far more of a PITA than if we had simply walked in the first place.  Players choose reliable options.  That's the logical thing to do.</blockquote>

Verification