Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 9786178" data-attributes="member: 957">Shrug&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see much you have offered here to actually make a point.But it seems that you are really more interested in collaborative storytelling.&nbsp; And thats great.But you don't really need SD for that.&nbsp; SD adds mechanics.I think the comparison to 5E is a red herring.If that is really&nbsp; 100% true that you just want the storytelling then I think my prior statement should apply to you.You don't need rangers or warlocks in the first place.&nbsp;&nbsp; Just describe your core four classes however you want.To me SD ADDS to the storytelling by providing just enough consistent mechanics to enforce ideas and concepts.I claim that those &quot;math&quot; things are there exclusively because they create fun in mechanically making the character manifest itself in the way expected.&nbsp; It is fun when the fighter is much better at feats of strength and the fun manifests when the mechanics make that true.In the end SD is still a mechanical game.&nbsp; We can all just sit around and do collaborative storytelling with no &quot;builds&quot;. For me, I love SD because it is a book full of mechanics that enhance my storytelling.&nbsp; And, still, the classes are purely mechanics.&nbsp; All of the &quot;character&quot; of every character comes from the player.&nbsp; The book doesn't provide that.&nbsp; The book provides the mechanics.That's why the question exists.And clearly there are people who also see the warlock not hitting the table.&nbsp; &nbsp; As you say, for some reason that haven't called out for actual play with anyone in your group either. The class doesn't need more power to make people go &quot;Awesome, I want to be that&quot;.&nbsp; But it does need something &quot;fun&quot; in the same way that fighters being great at feats of STR is fun.I absolutely LOVE the minimalist heart of SD.&nbsp; But I think ignoring and blanket hand waving away the simple whiteboard assessment is just a flawed as trying to be a whiteboard min/max payer in a SD game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 9786178, member: 957"] Shrug I don't see much you have offered here to actually make a point. But it seems that you are really more interested in collaborative storytelling. And thats great. But you don't really need SD for that. SD adds mechanics. I think the comparison to 5E is a red herring. If that is really 100% true that you just want the storytelling then I think my prior statement should apply to you. You don't need rangers or warlocks in the first place. Just describe your core four classes however you want. To me SD ADDS to the storytelling by providing just enough consistent mechanics to enforce ideas and concepts. I claim that those "math" things are there exclusively because they create fun in mechanically making the character manifest itself in the way expected. It is fun when the fighter is much better at feats of strength and the fun manifests when the mechanics make that true. In the end SD is still a mechanical game. We can all just sit around and do collaborative storytelling with no "builds". For me, I love SD because it is a book full of mechanics that enhance my storytelling. And, still, the classes are purely mechanics. All of the "character" of every character comes from the player. The book doesn't provide that. The book provides the mechanics. That's why the question exists. And clearly there are people who also see the warlock not hitting the table. As you say, for some reason that haven't called out for actual play with anyone in your group either. The class doesn't need more power to make people go "Awesome, I want to be that". But it does need something "fun" in the same way that fighters being great at feats of STR is fun. I absolutely LOVE the minimalist heart of SD. But I think ignoring and blanket hand waving away the simple whiteboard assessment is just a flawed as trying to be a whiteboard min/max payer in a SD game. [/QUOTE]

Verification