Search results

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...

My point was that this shows that talking about "metagaming"--using that word--is simply unhelpful. Those who use it intend it to be a boogeyman, something nobody would be willing to touch. But then for those places where, as you say, it's useful enough to accept? They'll either reject calling...

Sure, but that's exactly what I'm arguing. Almost all of us have one or two metagame things we excuse because they're useful, or helpful, or "aren't that disruptive", etc. Which is why the word "metagaming"--and the enormous stigma associated with it--really isn't very useful. We forgive...

That is merely adequate game design. Good game design rewards the player for playing in ways designed to be a good experience, and discourages players from playing in ways that would produce a bad experience. Good game design achieves the design goals which the designers set out for the game...

They suddenly gain spellcasting. That's a pretty dramatic shift. Sure they do. Consider the Beast Master Ranger, or the Valor Bard. Nnnnnnope! Like unless you have some FRESH new research that is completely different from the other stuff, that's literally not true, and the Warlock class...

Are you serious? I literally just asked for a rephrasing. That's now "hostile"? I'm not sure I'm going to have much more to say to you after this, if you're going to roll up into this with a "no YOU'RE hostile and I DEMAND that you prove how you aren't!!!" and nothing more. But to answer your...

...okay? Game design is not the same as game teaching. I understand that the people who enact rules (or laws) may or may not be perfect. I don't really...care? Not for this, anyway. My concern is categorizing what we make games for. Hence, why I have said every time "game-(design-)purposes"...

That's a really antagonistic and jaundiced view of what I wrote. Like that is actively reading the most hostile things into what I said. Are you sincerely believing that the things I wrote make that claim? Because I don't really feel like engaging with something that sounds like it's trying to...

It is absolutely metagaming. It is the insertion of an incredibly convenient captive in the very next room of the dungeon, not because that character should realistically be there, not because it is required for the game to function, but simply because it is a gameplay convenience. Doing...

So most Bards and Warlocks, some Sorcerers and Artificers, and all EKs and ATs are terrible and should never have existed? If your argument is "don't add armor proficiencies after level 1", the playtest Sorcerer didn't do that either, so that's irrelevant. Having gameplay shifts across a...

I did not. But I have now! Frustrated? Probably not, unless they were really insistent about something I had heard, given it a genuine effort, and said, "No, I don't think that can work, but we could try for something similar" or the like. I'm of the opinion that in very nearly 100% of cases...

I'm not saying metamagic should be removed from the Sorcerer. I'm saying that it has too little beyond that--and that the "your soul physically manifests as you draw on its strength" thing would have filled both the mechanical and thematic hole that the existing Sorcerer has.