Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Driddle" data-source="post: 2457783" data-attributes="member: 3447">Not exactly. A staff is an expensive prop not readily available to just anyone. There's a fair of recitation of spells, and the more effort a player puts into creativity and production of his craft, the greater the appreciation from peers and feedback from the GM.On the other hand, I s'pose a &quot;magically inclined&quot; player could just LARP the heck out of his part with the oh-so-exotic, &quot;I CAST FIREBALL!&quot; ... Yeah. That's a mage I want to hang with.The implied question, which I probably didn't clarify decently in my original poll, is that of performance comfort, not your own inherent class-like abilities.Anyone can swing a sword in battle with appropriate bloodthirsty growls and shrieks of fury. Thieves need only pretend to be sneaky -- it doesn't matter if you've got the physical attributes to carry it off, because in-game mechanics provide success/failure results. Act it out and you'll be fine.Clerics have it easier over mages, because they generally get to perform their divine spells in the calm *after* the battle. And most of us have been exposed to genuine clerical performances in our own houses of worship (real world) to be able to adapt a characterization -- for example, I could probably handle some good ol' down-home evangelical preachifying to riff a Healed-By-The-Power-Of-Jesus/Thor/Grothizar/Whoever praise prayer on the fly. (Do I hear an 'Amen?!')I'd really like to see a live-action improv wizard, though.So here's a follow-up question to those of you who say you'd feel most comfortable as a wizard: When you do the mage thing at a gaming table, how much effort do you put into the portrayal of spellcasting?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Driddle, post: 2457783, member: 3447"] Not exactly. A staff is an expensive prop not readily available to just anyone. There's a fair of recitation of spells, and the more effort a player puts into creativity and production of his craft, the greater the appreciation from peers and feedback from the GM. On the other hand, I s'pose a "magically inclined" player could just LARP the heck out of his part with the oh-so-exotic, "I CAST FIREBALL!" ... Yeah. That's a mage I want to hang with. The implied question, which I probably didn't clarify decently in my original poll, is that of performance comfort, not your own inherent class-like abilities. Anyone can swing a sword in battle with appropriate bloodthirsty growls and shrieks of fury. Thieves need only pretend to be sneaky -- it doesn't matter if you've got the physical attributes to carry it off, because in-game mechanics provide success/failure results. Act it out and you'll be fine. Clerics have it easier over mages, because they generally get to perform their divine spells in the calm *after* the battle. And most of us have been exposed to genuine clerical performances in our own houses of worship (real world) to be able to adapt a characterization -- for example, I could probably handle some good ol' down-home evangelical preachifying to riff a Healed-By-The-Power-Of-Jesus/Thor/Grothizar/Whoever praise prayer on the fly. (Do I hear an 'Amen?!') I'd really like to see a live-action improv wizard, though. So here's a follow-up question to those of you who say you'd feel most comfortable as a wizard: When you do the mage thing at a gaming table, how much effort do you put into the portrayal of spellcasting? [/QUOTE]

Verification