Re: session re****t

In article <87mz46ncqt.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Thomas Lindgren  <***********@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>I can only agree; basically, the world should be 'in equilibrium' with
>respect to spells, effects, monsters and whatnot. An efficient market
>theory, if you will: the "societal shock" of introducing each spell
>etc should already have been accounted for, and/or compensated,
>because all the INT 18+ magic-users have already tried their hand at
>abusing the spells. The practical difficulty is for the poor GM to
>actually implement this equilibrium, of course. (Also, modern RPG
>publi****ng seems to thrive on supplements with cool new powers, which
>really drive things in the other direction.)

Probably my single biggest problem with D&D is that the
"default" campaign world, and indeed every D&D campaign world I
have seen firsthand (including my own, despite large scale
removals of spells and abilities) is in fact nowhere near
equilibrium, and is only protected by script immunity.  That
doesn't make it a terrible system, it's still fun as long as
you ignore the man behind the curtain, and the players all
agree to play according to the aesthetics of the genre,
and don't go around dropping whales on manor houses.

-- 
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
   that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."