Search results

I mean, there might be exceptions? But they're going to be VASTLY outnumbered by things that follow the pattern. Rules design is a really, really difficult thing. Hoping that your artists happened to send you art that worked for making good rules does not sound like a productive game plan, even...

Then people need to stop calling 5e a game, because it isn't a game by this standard. It's a game "system". Also the word "campaign" is now useless, since "this game [read: game system] applied to our specific interests" is...literally what "a campaign" has always meant. Seems to me like this...

When I say "almost all of the time", I mean so often that many people will never encounter an exception. Hence why, even in my original post, I said one-in-a-million. Exceptions are so rare, I've never seen one. Ever.

Okay but like...what do we DO with that? Because now that means discussing 5e is genuinely impossible. There is no such thing as "5e". There are a million different games which are fundamentally and inherently completely distinct from one another, because this game-as-artifact makes every table...

I don't see how this follows at all. "There is some other description, beyond 'the lock is now open'" says nothing whatever about the player having the freedom to invent whatever they want as that some-other-description. All it says is that the state of play has changed in some way more than...

Well, as noted, the difference lies in the player's behavior. In essentially every case I've ever seen or heard of where someone uses this phrase, it's only given after the harmful act has been completed; it's used as an excuse or justification, a "well I had no choice, I had to do it, my...

Exactly. If we take the "squint and they're similar enough" stance, easily half the classes of the game simply disappear in a puff of logic--all while genuinely reducing the number of well-supported archetypes the game contains. Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and Rogue could all be Fighter...

Well, except for the fact that there isn't a fey sorcerer, nor a fiendish sorcerer, nor hexblade, genie, undead, etc. Further, there isn't a clockwork warlock, nor a draconic warlock, nor lunar, storm, or shadow. At best you can argue that draconic is vaguely like genie and wild is vaguely...

Okay? And? Warlock and Sorcerer were invented in 3e and changed, drastically, in both 4e and 5e. Just because it's only had a particular name in a specific edition doesn't mean it can't exist further. Hence why I referenced Magus. And, importantly, there were a couple of base classes that match...

So D&D is a bad game then? Because the rules of D&D inherently are not specific to a single world, and never have been. That's why we talk about "implied" settings rather than inherent ones. All the way back to Gygax, we have had a D&D specifically engineered to NOT be specific to a single...

Perhaps. But I have found in every single case, in my own personal experience, where a player's response to others' ire is "but it's what my character would do!!", it is being used as a blatant fig-leaf excuse for behavior that was knowingly disruptive, harmful, and in violation of the group's...

While the various aspects of a "game-as-artifact" are relevant, taking such an absolutely holistic view makes it a hell of a lot harder to actually talk about design in any sense whatsoever. Because now "game" means so many completely disparate things that all have to be integrating together at...

It is one version of player agency, yes. There are others. To assert that this is the only possible form of player agency would be incorrect. Only if everyone at the table is agreed that such events are an acceptable part of the gameplay experience, and is of the specific mindset and approach...

Why "Rogue" and not "Thief" or "Blaggard" or "Burglar" or "Crook" or "Assassin"? Why "Fighter" and not "Warrior" or "Soldier" or "Battler" or "Hero" or "Trooper"? Why "Wizard" and not "Mage" or "Magus" or "Sorcerer" or "Magician" or "Thaumaturge" or "Warlock"? Why "Paladin"? The Palatine hill...

I don't see discussing what a term means being the same as throwing around a term that is extremely heavily charged, which essentially always going to get a huge and negative emotional response whenever it is thrown around as an accusation. And that's the problem with the above--throwing it...

Swordmage. The word you're looking for is "Swordmage". PF calls it "Magus" but I don't care for that name myself. Still works as a genuine "I use sword-and-spell" class though.

No, I don't think that. I just really, really don't like a lot of the messaging that surrounds the "traditional GM" position. It takes great pains at every turn to emphasize just how absolute, just how unquestionable, just how hegemonic and complete the power of the GM is. At seemingly every...

Sure, perfect language is impossible. I don't think that means it's now pointless to say "hey, that specific word? that one single specific word you keep using? Yeah that one that gets everyone REALLY worked up and emotional and attacking things totally unrelated to what you actually want to...

I mean, it did. 5e just chose not to implement it.

Plenty of things come and go with time. Druids in 2e, a least, didn't get the ability to change shape until 7th level. Now it's innate. Plus, elements of transformation have been present in the Sorcerer since there was such a thing. Remember the Dragon Disciple PrC? Yeah. That's literally what...