Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 3764142" data-attributes="member: 15999">No, that's NOT what I'm saying.&nbsp; I'm saying it's NOT unfun to be effective in bursts.&nbsp; I'm saying it's NOT unfun to resort to the daggers or just hang back.&nbsp; I did not feel my fun was limited. edit: Looks like you changed your text.&nbsp; Yes, I accept in a game my role is constrained.&nbsp; What's wrong with that?&nbsp; In baseball or soccer, I play a specific position.&nbsp; In poker, I get to call the game when I'm the dealer and not any other time.&nbsp; In a computer game, there are always some actions I can't do.&nbsp; The great thing about D&amp;D is that while some elements of the combat roles are constrained, the game really is wide-open on the roleplaying side.&nbsp; Any character can become a lord and rule a dominion, any character can open negotiations with the dragon in the cave, any player can do the mapping, any character can come up with a clever ruse or trick.No, my basis it is that it was a lot of fun.I completely disagree.&nbsp; As I said, I still play Monopoly, Scrabble, chess, baseball, card games, and nearly every other game as I learned them decades ago.&nbsp; Risk has one feature that is truly broken and makes the game unplayable, so we're always tinkering with fixes.&nbsp; I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why D&amp;D, as opposed to other games, is forced to go through this constant state of revolution where it evolves to something so completely unlike its earlier forms.To me, someone who says &quot;I want to play a wizard in D&amp;D but I don't want to ever run out of spells&quot; is like someone saying &quot;I want to be a goalie in soccer but I want to be able to carry the ball anywhere on the field.&quot;&nbsp; Umm, what?&nbsp; I'd tell the wizard wanna-be &quot;Look, maybe D&amp;D isn't the game for you, this is how wizards are in this particular game.&quot;&nbsp; Or in recent years &quot;Maybe you'd like to play a warlock.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 3764142, member: 15999"] No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying it's NOT unfun to be effective in bursts. I'm saying it's NOT unfun to resort to the daggers or just hang back. I did not feel my fun was limited. [I]edit:[/I] Looks like you changed your text. Yes, I accept in a game my role is constrained. What's wrong with that? In baseball or soccer, I play a specific position. In poker, I get to call the game when I'm the dealer and not any other time. In a computer game, there are always some actions I can't do. The great thing about D&D is that while some elements of the combat roles are constrained, the game really is wide-open on the roleplaying side. Any character can become a lord and rule a dominion, any character can open negotiations with the dragon in the cave, any player can do the mapping, any character can come up with a clever ruse or trick. No, my basis it is that it was a lot of fun. I completely disagree. As I said, I still play Monopoly, Scrabble, chess, baseball, card games, and nearly every other game as I learned them decades ago. Risk has one feature that is truly broken and makes the game unplayable, so we're always tinkering with fixes. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why D&D, as opposed to other games, is forced to go through this constant state of revolution where it evolves to something so completely unlike its earlier forms. To me, someone who says "I want to play a wizard in D&D but I don't want to ever run out of spells" is like someone saying "I want to be a goalie in soccer but I want to be able to carry the ball anywhere on the field." Umm, what? I'd tell the wizard wanna-be "Look, maybe D&D isn't the game for you, this is how wizards are in this particular game." Or in recent years "Maybe you'd like to play a warlock." [/QUOTE]

Verification