Quote from: Kaldric;492572Problem I found with Shrink is that there is no save, and the range isn't touch, and the caster just needs to be able to see the target. I figured if I was going to change anything, it should be in the "how" of the spell - by changing the "instantly" changes size. Or just adding the common sense caveat that the spell doesn't work right if something is in the way.

Cranewings: I think that we expect a little too much of spell-writers. They're not ever, ever going to be able to think of every possible use that a spell might be put to, and as long as they continue to describe how a spell does what it does, there will be creative twistings of that. The intent of the system is that the DM be there to adjudicate, and fill the gaps between Rules as Written and Rules as Intended. This is not a case of "Just because a DM can fix it, doesn't mean it's not bad design." It's a case of "There is no way to design it so that a DM isn't necessary, without destroying what makes an RPG special".

As far as think shrink thing goes, either the clasp would break and the helmet would come off, maybe granting a -2 penalty to strike / ac for one round, or the spell would simply not work as the item is incapable of shrinking. That would be my answer to it if a player decided to shrink a helmet with a level 1 spell.

As far as the mass driver, I'd probably just have the gods steal the spell from the wizard's mind and let him pick another one instead.

I agree that the GM is there to handle the rules. I just think a lot of the spells are unnecessary. Shrink and enlarge are a couple. Assume large size or assume tiny size would be good spells, but the shifting somethings size 10% is kind of garbage. Dimension door is a monster ability. It shouldn't be a spell either. Suddenly the wizard is a ninja now? What D&D needs is the ham-handed fist of god to delete roughly half the word count in the book.

Quote from: Kaldric;492584Benoist: I allow "creative" spell use, to the point that it would end the game. And there is where I stop it.

I figured interpreting a rule in such a way as to functionally allow every 1st level caster an instant-kill no save, no roll, ranged at will death spell was a bad idea.

When that is going to happen, I say "Hey. Why hasn't anyone come up with this idea in the last 3000 years? It's not a like a steam engine, or an invention - it's just a normal application of this spell. Why isn't every wizard doing this? Why isn't it in the basic description of the spell?"

And the answer is always because "The guy who wrote the spell didn't realize players would try this, and assumed the DM would cover any weird convolutions he missed."

And I think, when the written rules fall down, it's the DM's job to step in and adjudicate the situation in a way that allows the game to remain fun.

I don't disagree with that principle at all, actually. It was you who talked about the reduction spell and the helmet right? I thought that was a pretty clever ruling, in the sense that if reduction allowed instant kills, that could become a huge problem rules-wise, and yet you *allowed it*, ruling that it did in fact do *some* damage, but not an instant kill.

From my position as a player at your table I'd be pretty satisfied with a ruling like that because I can *do stuff*, I can be inventive, and you welcome it, and yet I have the assurance that some combo isn't going to destroy the whole game for good.

What I totally would not appreciate is if the GM basically had the same concern you had with the instant kill reduction issue, but instead told me that "my character wouldn't think of it that way", or whatever other BS that would be used to camouflage the whole issue, thereby taking me for a fucking moron, pardon my French. It's just a way to say "no, because" in so many words.

What I really like in your approach is that you welcome the use. "Hey it's cool! Your experiment with reduction does work, but not as you expected it..." that fleshes out the world, that's consistent with the make believe, and yet, that allows players to try stuff and see where that leads them. That's awesome, dude!

Quote from: two_fishes;492552This s precisely another thing that bothers me, and what really prompted my first objection. This is tantamount to saying it's okay for the PCs to be clever when it's fairly pedestrian and banal, but if they think of something that could seriously impact the imagined world, suddenly it's all, Hands off! No! Stop! You're not allowed!

Fuck that. I mean, if the GM stopped at that point and said, "Hey, this could have serious impact on the world, and would lead to all sorts of consequences, and might change the direction of everything. Is everyone okay with taking the game down this road?" That would be one thing, and I could respect that, and be okay if the table decides against it. But someone just shutting the idea down because, "No! Your character wouldn't do that!" Forget about it.

Good point. I guess this would only be a problem if the PCs (and NPCs) keep coming up with ideas that could seriously change the world. Every other session breaks down into discussions of how spell use based on RL physics coupled with a healthy dose of verisimilitude, is going to change the imagined landscape and oh, yeah, is everyone is ok with this ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;492651Good point. I guess this would only be a problem if the PCs (and NPCs) keep coming up with ideas that could seriously change the world. Every other session breaks down into discussions of how spell use based on RL physics coupled with a healthy dose of verisimilitude, is going to change the imagined landscape and oh, yeah, is everyone is ok with this ?

Regards,
David R

A situation like that sounds like it might be symptomatic of larger problems. If the players are repeatedly making an effort to circumvent the spirit of the spells and subvert the tone of the campaign, maybe everyone needs to get on the same page about what kind of game they want to have. This makes me think of the discussion a couple threads over, where Cranewings is doing exactly this.

I hope my reply didn't come off sounding too snarky, Mark, but I think (as this thread shows) it's a little more complicated than the GM stifling the creativity of his or her players. There are certain expectations that are implicit when it comes to the setting and system. If a player chooses to wander off the reservation, not only has she got consider the other players but (yes, I'm going to get flamed for this) the integrity of the setting. This goes for the GM as well.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;492664I hope my reply didn't come off sounding too snarky, Mark, but I think (as this thread shows) it's a little more complicated than the GM stifling the creativity of his or her players. There are certain expectations that are implicit when it comes to the setting and system. If a player chooses to wander off the reservation, not only has she got consider the other players but (yes, I'm going to get flamed for this) the integrity of the setting. This goes for the GM as well.

Regards,
David R

It didn't, and I can understand those expectations. I was responding to a couple of things that got under my skin about the initial objection: co-opting player control of character perspective and keeping a lid on players' ability to have a large effect on the world. The flip side is that i'm not sure that guarding those expectations and integrity are solely the role of the GM. The setting belongs to the whole table, and while there is certainly a responsibility on the part of the players to act within its limits, they also have part ownership in setting them.

Quote from: David R;492664I hope my reply didn't come off sounding too snarky, Mark, but I think (as this thread shows) it's a little more complicated than the GM stifling the creativity of his or her players. There are certain expectations that are implicit when it comes to the setting and system. If a player chooses to wander off the reservation, not only has she got consider the other players but (yes, I'm going to get flamed for this) the integrity of the setting. This goes for the GM as well.

David, thanks for saying that. That's essentially my take on the whole matter, too. This notion that some here have that the players get to dictate to the GM how the game works is completely absurd.

Certainly the players have a say in what kind and style of game they want to play, but they can't tell the GM, "You HAVE to allow me to do this!"

Ug, long thread is long.

Quote from: greylond;491811To me the creative use of spells is the mark of a good Player. IMO, that's the WHOLE Point of playing a spellcaster, i.e. using Magic to accomplish/solve anything that comes up. Figuring out how to use a spell in a creative way, gets the job done...

And let me go one step farther and say that doing this kind of thing in general is the whole point of playing IN THE FIRST PLACE!