Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Not a Decepticon" data-source="post: 9765135" data-attributes="member: 7020527">You are missing the big difference between TTRPG and a video game. In video game when you die or lose, nothing happens. You died or you lost, load the save or checkpoint.If you die or lose in TTRPG, then a character you put so much work into is just gone. Yes, you can have ways to bring them back to life, but there is a huge contingent of people who despise how this cheapens the game and removes the stakes.Your approach may work for OSR type games, where you challenge the player and the character is disposable, but for a lot of modern players this isn't an rpg, but a wargame.Your entire point stems from trying to make fundamentally unrealistic game "more realistic".Your arguments sure sound like you are trying to fit D&D into a Warhammer shaped hole, so my question is - why not just play Warhammer?But you are also assuming people did not have this conversations, with others questioning "common wisdom" before. Which they did, and their arguments failed to really overthrow "common wisdom", and yours just sound like echoing them.That sounds like a problem with individual players, not game design.I attended a panel where a paramedic explained exactly severity of various types of wounds that can result from cuts, bites or burns, how extremely hard is to heal some of them and what long-lastinc consequences are, all cullminating with him answering question whenever rpgs should include mechanics reflecting all of that for the sake of realism with this:[ATTACH=full]418338[/ATTACH]Barbarian uses Rage, a resource they have limited number of uses. Rogue can only use sneak attack once a turn. Wizard cannot spam the same spell over and over and the spells are arbitrary divided in levels. Monk has limtied number of focus points, Sorcerer has literal metacurrency. Why other breaks from reality are acceptable but fighter is singled out for the sake of making the class, let's be honest, suck?That is flavor, and flavor is both free and disposable.They're not happy. Pretty much everyone I ever talked about who wants more compelx fighter absolutely despises that the only way to get it is to sacrifice the subclass and never feeling like they're playing a full class.We don't need two classes that fill a niche of being simple and dumb. You can reflavor barbarian for free, say they aren't Raging but enter "the zone" and focus on combat and you're good. Fighter can be something interesting now.Because your preferences block one of classes from actually being fun and interesting for the sake of something another class does better.If we deleted Fighter and replaced it with antoher name, say, a Knight, would you still be makign that demands?</blockquote>

Verification