Search results

I would prefer to instead actually make damage type matter. But I also prefer having actual choices, rather than pure calculations or non-choice "it just happens".

I guess? My issue here is that if we go that far, that's giving the Dragon Sorcerer something like 6 free sorcery points per day at level three. E.g., imagine a 4th-level character casts scorching ray with all of his 2nd-level slots and burning hands from all of his 1st-level slots, converting...

But doing this immediately admits that what is in question is not the actual, real contents of the real world. What matters is the "real world model", emphasis added. Or, as I would put it, the real-world-model. Because the real-world-model need not actually have much connection to the real...

While I think that that is a laudable goal...a frank evaluation of every edition of D&D that has ever been published makes it quite clear where the mechanical design priorities lie. Social things are given almost no attention, with barely more than spackle. Combat, in every edition--even...

By "context-free" I mean "nothing more than what the game itself is". As in, we're not starting from a pre-defined context and then evaluating whether a game fits that pre-defined thing or not. We are instead taking the game based on whatever it purports to do. I'm not really sure why this is...

Great idea. Perhaps as a 3rd-level stepping stone to Elemental Affinity at higher levels; first, you can make all your elemental spells your element (perhaps a number of times equal to your Prof bonus), and then later your in-element spells ignore resistance. Turns the Dragon Sorcerer into...

Then we would call them dragontharks.

Critical, overwhelming problem with this post: SEEMED LIKE. Meaning that is your personal perception of what is going on. It is not the singular objective analysis of what was done there. I have no interest in re-litigating this for the umpteenth time. Hence: Suffice it to say that this is...

Oh god, not this old chestnut again. Suffice it to say this is an extremely controversial take.

Yes, I think they would. Metamagic is a bit slim, but still solid, and 5.5e added Innate Sorcery which very much helps (and makes Sorcerers feel more aggressive than Wizards). Subclass features could be flavored as Wizard school effects, but many are a bit scattershot relative to Wizard schools...

I mean I don't think that's necessary in the slightest unless we're specifically trying to make a new sim game. Then, yes, we would need to do that. In a truly context-free case, we would simply be evaluating whether a game's mechanics serve the goals for which they were designed, or not. So a...

And I specifically said that if all someone is saying is personal preference, that would be fine. But several folks are not doing that. They are not saying "this makes me happy" or "I like how this works". They are saying things like "D&D is a really good simulation game". Or, IIRC, someone--it...

If you've never eaten a dish, does reading dozens of recipes for it tell you what it tastes like? It sounds to me like you're saying "I can have whatever opinion I want, I don't need to actually experience anything." Experience matters. I should think any fan of "simulation" would agree with at...

But if there is no such thing as "a simulation(istic) game", and no such thing as "supporting simulation(istic) play", then what on Earth have people even been talking about? Folks here have repeatedly asserted fundamental ideas, whether directly, or as a required element of some other...

Worthless? Maybe not, but it's probably not going to carry a lot of weight if they have no experience outside of one or two editions of a single game. Like, imagine the following examples. 1: Anime "Sword Art Online is one of the greatest fantasy anime shows ever made." "Er...what makes you...

That final bolded bit is....gonna be a real, real hard sell. Because now it means that we can functionally call ANY system "simulationist" in the second sense, if ANYONE has EVER used them for the purpose of "simulation-like activity", which is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. 52 Pickup...

Anyone playing a single game for more than a year is, almost by definition, not a casual player anymore. They're in it for the (very) long haul at that point. They've joined the D&D "club" if you will, rather than just attending an event.

Correction: These are actions which involve rules. Well, plus the (several) generic moves. Anything that doesn't involve rules is perfectly fair game. There just won't be any rolling involved because there won't be any need for it. You keep acting like DW and other such games just forbid...

Do those things get shown to players? In Dungeon World, the only things actually shown to players are that they need to have Bonds with stuff (typically, but not exclusively, other party members). That's it. Well, that and being told things like "if you want to use a move, talk about what...

More importantly, I think most people who play TTRPGs would be deeply confused why anyone would care that much about most of the things people who know what "simulationism" and "gamism" and "narrativism" mean. They just want a game that: Lets them have a cool (and often, humorous) fantastical...