Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Underman" data-source="post: 5985854" data-attributes="member: 6696705">Hmm, if you really like to play wizards, why didn't you find a character concept that allowed you to be play a wizard without breaking it? Just relinquish the rules a little bit and do what is possible for that character instead of what the rules say are theoretically possible. That way, you get your fun wizard. In a game of imagination, it's not that hard to imagine ways to make this happen. After all, according to the &quot;rules&quot;, we're all potential presidents or CEOs or whatnot, but most of us aren't. There are many heroic fantasy concepts that don't require uber-powerful wizards. In fact, with step-on-up play, you're not even required to have system mastery of a wizard PC -- just like if you were playing a slightly unbalanced war board game, and you agree to a common houserule that evens the odds even though it disavantages you in terms of winning.&nbsp;That can be OK, as it happens all the time anyway. Just to take one minor example, I remember times where a PC wasn't given a great reason to start an adventure or join the party, but you find ways to make it happen for the goal of socialization.&nbsp;I see. Ya, no, I never said there was a &quot;The Social Contract&quot;. I said the social contract, ie the one at the table. In fact, I think I borrowed the term from somebody else entirely.&nbsp;I think 5E should cope up with Step On Up play to a certain point probably short of what you would like ideally. I seems to me that 5E is going there anyway, with the 15MAD being addressed by &quot;the social contract&quot; and not hardwired to the rules, at least not in the core rules. (add it to a Step On Up module, I don't mind).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Underman, post: 5985854, member: 6696705"] Hmm, if you really like to play wizards, why didn't you find a character concept that allowed you to be play a wizard without breaking it? Just relinquish the rules a little bit and do what is possible for that character instead of what the rules say are theoretically possible. That way, you get your fun wizard. In a game of imagination, it's not that hard to imagine ways to make this happen. After all, according to the "rules", we're all potential presidents or CEOs or whatnot, but most of us aren't. There are many heroic fantasy concepts that don't require uber-powerful wizards. In fact, with step-on-up play, you're not even required to have system mastery of a wizard PC -- just like if you were playing a slightly unbalanced war board game, and you agree to a common houserule that evens the odds even though it disavantages you in terms of winning. That can be OK, as it happens all the time anyway. Just to take one minor example, I remember times where a PC wasn't given a great reason to start an adventure or join the party, but you find ways to make it happen for the goal of socialization. I see. Ya, no, I never said there was a "The Social Contract". I said the social contract, ie the one at the table. In fact, I think I borrowed the term from somebody else entirely. I think 5E should cope up with Step On Up play to a certain point probably short of what you would like ideally. I seems to me that 5E is going there anyway, with the 15MAD being addressed by "the social contract" and not hardwired to the rules, at least not in the core rules. (add it to a Step On Up module, I don't mind). [/QUOTE]

Verification