On 2009-04-18, Vincent wrote:
I wish we were talking about a real game, Ralph. I've posted some real rules from Storming the Wizard's Tower, we could talk about them instead. Otherwise I'm going to do the unattractive thing where I get more and more absolute.
So: Bob gives the GM some specs for the spell Bobnar's creating. The GM comes back with a spell that Bob thinks is unrealistic, acausal. What's Bob's recourse?
Well, in Storming the Wizard's Tower in particular, the game's world's internal logic and causality isn't communally owned, it's the GM's. Bob's obligation (his "recourse") is to reevaluate, from the ground up if necessary, his own sense of how the game's world works. To bring his own sense of reasonable causality into line with the GM's. At the very least to extend the GM every benefit of the doubt.
The rules DO set this up well. Bob shouldn't be blindsided by it - I'll be very surprised if it's a problem in even one game in a hundred.