Search results

I watched the video of guy ordering hamburger without burger or bun. Now I want to see someone order pizza with no cheese.

One should always leave it directly behind the car that parked too close to you.

Then I think you don’t understand them nor me :)

But there always was and always has been rules that bind the GM.

When you look at how early d&d designed classes it was often based on a single fictional character they were trying to represent. I don’t think that’s the best way to design classes, but given 5e’s character options outside class and subclass we are almost there.

Exactly. Though I’d add alot also depends on the base system expectations. Early on d&d split out casting from its attribute system via int and wisdom and later on charisma as well. That informs and restricts alot of later design. It explains why merging the wizard and sorcerer doesnt work...

You seem to be confusing historical context for fantasy context. There’s many very popular games that have implemented monk classes as martial artist classes. I’m much less versed in fantasy literature so don’t know how well it applies there as well. Again, you too focused on history as...

I don’t disagree with why they are moving away from Paladin = holy warrior… but that’s still the identity most people associate with Paladin.

Won what?

I mean… See most every fantasy rpg ever? And yet even outside d&d, fantasy monk heroes are almost always associated with martial arts. wait, aren’t we talking about current 5e classes. Not sure why you talking early druids. And everyone that plays RPGs know Druid is almost always a nature...

I voted based on thematic identity. Ranger was my number 1 choice. Too much disagreement about what a ranger is/should be for it to have a strong identity. I also voted Paladin. All the other classes (except maybe ranger) anyone can tell you at a high level what they are without any 5e...

So umm, what’s the difference?

That begs the question - what are the players interacting with?

Not just semantics. You obviously mean something different. But I’m good at agreeing to disagree.

Okay, but it’s the foundation on which all rpg mechanics are based. If you’re not talking about playing a game where you primarily control your fictional character in some fictional world then whatever you are talking about isn’t an rpg.

I don’t think one can actually arbitrate for themselves. Doing that wouldn’t meet the definition or arbitrate IMO.

I’d suggest the GM is most often used by the game as a game mechanic (at least in d&d style games). AI generated answer - Game mechanics are the interactive elements of a game that modify the game state, governed by rules and producing consequences

I think players characters are essential and a world for them to exist in. Single player RPGs push back on the notion of needing someone to arbitrate on the mechanics I think. (Though I’ve not played one myself so could be wrong).

I don’t agree there. That would be core to a story game. RPG is more nuanced than that overly broad description.

I’d push back a bit there. There are many ways to distribute authority and transfer it that to me would look nothing like an rpg. I’d also say distribution of authority and transferring it is essential to all table top games. In monopoly I have authority over the car and you the dog. In magic...