Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5985829" data-attributes="member: 87792">They'd find ways to do that if you did it strongly.&nbsp; And my group has with one other player.&nbsp; On the other hand in order to make sure I'm not being a jerk I can't play a major character class I want to play in 3.X (the Wizard)and the character class I find most interesting (the Artificer).&nbsp; If I did beyond about level 2 I'd take over (hell, I've retired a level 4 4e wizard for being too much for the DM to handle).&nbsp;Also there may be no explicit rules for socialising well with people.&nbsp; But you bet there are ways to do it badly.&nbsp; And a broken game encourages such things.&nbsp; It puts the goals of the PCs in direct conflict with the goal of socialisation.&nbsp;&nbsp;You seem to be completely misreading me.&nbsp;1: I'm saying that a high level of Step On Up play is the major playstyle difference between D&amp;D and most other RPGs I can think of is that D&amp;D is based much more on Step On Up play.&nbsp; 5E rules therefore need to be able to accomodate this.&nbsp;2: Being able to cope with Step On Up play is one way to actually support rather than detract from individual social contracts.&nbsp; If you're using the social contract to patch holes in a set of rules that are not fit for purpose then you are putting unnecessary stress on the social contract at a given table.&nbsp;3: You are still talking about &quot;The Social Contract&quot;.&nbsp; No such thing.&nbsp; There are only social contracts - and most of them different.&nbsp; Some more fragile than others.&nbsp;Why is it important to you that D&amp;D next isn't able to cope with Step On Up play?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5985829, member: 87792"] They'd find ways to do that if you did it strongly. And my group has with one other player. On the other hand in order to make sure I'm not being a jerk I can't play a major character class I want to play in 3.X (the Wizard)and the character class I find most interesting (the Artificer). If I did beyond about level 2 I'd take over (hell, I've retired a level 4 [I]4e[/I] wizard for being too much for the DM to handle). Also there may be no explicit rules for socialising well with people. But you bet there are ways to do it badly. And a broken game [I]encourages[/I] such things. It puts the goals of the PCs in direct conflict with the goal of socialisation. You seem to be completely misreading me. 1: I'm saying that a high level of Step On Up play is the major playstyle difference between D&D and most other RPGs I can think of is that D&D is based much more on Step On Up play. 5E rules therefore need to be able to [I]accomodate[/I] this. 2: Being able to cope with Step On Up play is one way to actually support rather than detract from individual social contracts. If you're using the social contract to patch holes in a set of rules that are not fit for purpose then you are putting unnecessary stress on the social contract at a given table. 3: You are still talking about "The Social Contract". No such thing. There are only social contracts - and most of them different. Some more fragile than others. Why is it important to you that D&D next isn't able to cope with Step On Up play? [/QUOTE]

Verification