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: 9771936" data-attributes="member: 7020527">Except of course when it comes to wizards running out of spells, then you want things to be like a video game, even when it realistically makes no sense why an archmage would suddenly forget how to do msot basic spells, othertwise the benefit of martials being able to attack each turn (which is THE ONLY benefit they have in this design scenario) vanishes.Listen, fighter fights, cleric prays, magic user USES MAGIC, othertwise they're not a magic user. If I have one game a week, likely after day of hard work and I want to forget hardships of my life and pretend to be a guy who controls magic, last thing I want is for some arbitrary reason to prevent me from using magic and tell me "no, you're joe schmoe, you don't matter, you're here to do menial tasks just like ones you do at your work, while other people get to have fun." This approach to design to me read as "we designed magic user wrong so he is no fun to play, because we cannot make people play fighter othertwise". Instead of, you know, making good Fighter.The answer for why people react this way is in here:You simutaniously want D&D to cater to mindset of rpg as a glorified wargame, while ALSO being simulationist...and both of those kinds of design are so fundamentally opposite of rpgs as collaborative storytelling approach, it gives an impression there will be simply no room left for it in a game that caters to first two.What I am saying is that an RPG can be form of collaborative storytelling, or a glorified wargame that challenges player and leaves character disposable, or the msot realistic simulation of the world. It can even be two of those at once. but a game that tries to be all 3 is a game that ends up being neither of them, just throwing half-baked plattitudes towards each without commitment.</blockquote>

Verification