Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9272446" data-attributes="member: 20323">Sure, I see what you're saying.I can imagine a detail-oriented wizard player's response to what you just said: "Formal training? What are you talking about? I'm 3rd level! My apprenticeship is behind me. How is this hard-hitting Arcane Blast suitable for a boring apprentice wizard? I want to be able to do that!"You can say "oh that doesn't come up at my table", which is great, but doesn't mean it cannot come up at another table. I've sat at both tables – the one where this would be a non-issue, and the one were it would be a sore point for a player.You can respond however you like to the player, maybe do a great job of it and mollify them. Or maybe it breaks the fourth wall like [USER=2067]@I'm A Banana[/USER] mentioned, and it's kinda awkward, and then you're passed the speed bump and onto the next thing. But why even design so that potential hiccup is possible? It's so easily avoidable with very minor design moves.EDIT: As an aside, I think to have a meaningful expansive conversation – in the sense that our thinking is more broadly applicable than just at our own tables – about anything in the game we have to assume the game is being used as presented, right? Otherwise I can solve anything with house rules, I can describe a cleric as an alchemist, I can call a monster a displacer beast but describe it as a hydra-like thing, I can change anything with flavor that I want to. But then we're no longer discussing the game-as-written, we're discussing the cool stuff that we implement as individual GMs. That's a cool sharing of ideas which I enjoy, but it's a very different type of conversation than discussing the written game.</blockquote>

Verification