NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 9245951" data-attributes="member: 5142">I agree to an extent. Some of those drawbacks for arcane magic weren't all that fun for some people then and also now. However, I'm also of the opinion that while many of those drawbacks were removed, not a lot else was done for the overall power scope of mages to tune them down, and I don't necessarily think - and I understand here that your opinion differs from mine - that the solution rests in returning things to how they once were.I would generally prefer Druids to be their own thing apart from Wizards and Clerics. But I would also prefer Clerics (or their equivalent) to use Charisma rather than Wisdom.Part of the problem, IMHO, is how people commonly imagine social mechanics. Social mechanics can work for D&D but IMO this requires rethinking how we understand or design them. Again, there are a fair number of PbtA games where social mechanics certainly involve negotiation but also about PCs and NPCs revealing information: "what would it take to convince me/them/you to do this?"This seems at odds with how I am repeatedly reminded of the DIY kitbashing spirit that exists in the hobby where people are constantly houseruling, tinkering, and changing the game, especially when that game is D&D. Now people care about following the rules? But not for everything else where people had no problem changing/ignoring the rules to accomodate their own preferences? <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification