Search results

I know lots of people do it, I just don’t get how you don’t get bored.

No, I get it. I’ve done it before. But I think the distinction here is I perceive that external model as still being you. A set of mental heuristics you apply to “model” a fictional character is still, at its core, you.

You don't need immersion to play a role; that's the core distinction between a lot of our perspectives. Fitting a mechanical prompt seamlessly into my character's next statements and actions is just as much roleplaying.

Guilty as charged. Doing a ton of "prep work" as a GM is generally a waste of time.

I apologize for having gaming desires different than yours. I’ll strive to do better. “Actual roleplay” lol.

No, it’s you. That’s what having absolute agency over your character’s mental state means. Your character never feels or acts in a way that you don’t desire them to.

It’s always wild to me how different people’s play preferences are in this regard. I can’t even imagine a game going for 100+ sessions; the longest game I’ve ever done just wrapped up after 41 sessions. And that was going from levels 1-15 over about three years. And even 40 sessions felt way...

Fortunately, I’m not required to want or advocate for things that are practical. :)

Because there’s only one company doing RPGs at the scale that WotC is. I would rather see those production values turned towards novelty than towards continuing to till the already fallow design field of 5e.

Agree with this. To my mind, it’s similar to preferences between rolling for a character’s stats and doing point-buy. Some people have a preference for being in control, and others have a preference for giving up control. And some people enjoy both at different times.

But we DO think this. (At least, I do.) I might arrive at a decision I didn't expect when play started over a particular scenario, when playing in your "full-mental agency" model, but it's still going to be ultimately what I felt to be right in the moment. It doesn't leave the possibility...

I mean, I do think demonstration of character concept has become a pretty central of play goal of OC/neotrad-style play, the type of play that D&D 5e is most closely targeting.

But it can’t be out-of-character if we’re using play to determine who the character is.

It’s been a long time since someone has spoken that name…. :)

Yea, I agree with this. It’s trivial to narrate level 1 and 2 abilities as part of a character’s training backstory, just like the features they get from race and background. You would only use a level 1 or 2 character to model someone young who’s still learning the basics.

I think I’d also want to know what a corruption feat “means”, in the narrative. Is it a ritual the character does to gain that power? Is it just a grant from dark forces, hoping that the character will do something bad? Is it something the character sought out, or was it unwanted?

Yea, if you can get X number of feats for free without consequence, that’s what everyone will take. Corruption should fall into a “risky gamble” category, with each feat you take giving you a cumulatively increasing chance of acquiring a permanent physical or mental corruption.

Yea, that’s a fair critique. I’m definitely influenced by my play groups’ lack of desire to play classical heroic archetypes.

If the question is “Did Twosix mean to imply something disturbing and tawdry?”, the answer is pretty much always “Yes”. :)

Tim, the Seeker of Magic. Became obsessed with magic at a young age when he discovered he had a spark of inborn talent. (Sorcerer level). Turns out while he can grasp the essentials of spellcasting, he's utterly incapable of forming any complex magic, and can only do than the absolute basics...