Search results

At low levels, it doesn't matter that much. At mid to higher levels, once multiple attacks come into play, a wizard with only a crossbow and no spell slots might as well be sent into the kitchen to make the rest of the table nachos. Because they certainly aren't adding anything useful to the fight.

Less flippant observations. 1) I have never actually considered cantrips "unlimited". I have always considered them to take the same amount of energy out of the caster as swinging a sword (or using a shovel) would out of someone acting physically. So "unlimited" really means "as long as you can...

Casters can cast a number of cantrips equal to their Int score per short rest, or suffer a level of exhaustion Weapon users can make a number of weapon attacks equal to their Con score per short rest, or suffer a level of exhaustion. What? If you want to limit at will abilities, limit at will...

Greyhawk. Forgotten Realms USED to be a nice scoop of plain vanilla, but after decades of add-ons, retcons and edition changes...

Much like Indiana Jones, a revolver.

Clay tablets? Pffft. REAL gamers get all their rules information from cave paintings.

In some circles it's mandatory.

Is the character active and present and earning experience and treasure when the player is not present? Yes? They are fair game. Kill them if you would kill a present PC in the same circumstance. No? They disappear off screen for the duration into the same invincible narrative pocket dimension...

"Sides are not roles. Playing a fighter is playing a role." Why? I can be just as personally invested and add just as much personalization - if not more - to a country or faction in a board game than a bog standard pre-gen character in a D&D game. What makes playing a side "not roleplaying"...

By your definition of roleplaying, there is no problem, so there is no need of a solution. So, the question is not why I am discussing an open issue. The question is, why are you when you don't believe the issue even exists?

By that definition, all games are roleplaying games. Because you are playing a side. That side may be "Blue" or "Russia", but since you are describing what your side does you are roleplaying. No? To repeat myself a) I don't agree with that definition and b) Even if I did, it is not useful to...

"What we could say instead is that everyone's roleplaying, but some people prefer much of the game focused on bold adventurers confronting deadly perils whereas other people prefer more of the game focused on lower-stakes situations with a lot of intraparty interaction (for example). This seems...

It's not a value judgement to say some things are roleplaying, and some aren't, anymore than it is a value judgement to say some things are pears and some aren't.

Is it a better adventure post-editing?

If your definition is that, when playing an RPG, you are by definition roleplaying, then that is not a constructive way to approach the discussion. If everything is roleplaying, then nothing is not roleplaying. I would submit that describing your characters actions in purely mechanical terms...

There is a difference between role playing, and playing a game in which you have a role. sigh Nit-picking pedantry AND semantics. This will be a dark ride. I have only myself to blame.

"Roleplaying is just deciding what your character does." That's a subject for an entirely different forum argument. I absolutely disagree with that definition, but even if I agreed with it I don't think it's relevant to this conversation.

They are not mutually exclusive. They aren't mutually dependent either.

"If stakes like that stress people out, maybe there other games more to their liking." Pretty much anything PBTA, where interaction between yourself and your other group members is at least as important as your interaction with the world around you.