Proposal - Forgotten Realms Player's Guide

SeaPainter · Mar 3, 2009

Where are we with the FR debate? Cross finally decided what he wants to be when he grows up...

Dunamin · Mar 3, 2009

Well, the only thing I see a real problem with is the Regional Benefits and it seems we have consensus just to drop them.

Haven't read through all the Swordmage, Dark Pact, and Spellscarred powers, but I think it'll be fine if we just keep the clause that parts of the book that turn out problematic can be excluded through their own proposals.

I don't think flavor discussions ought to hold things up, though. If the mechanics stay the same it doesn't matter if an earth genasi is flavored as a metal genasi, or a spellscarred as the infestation of a magical parasite.

renau1g · Mar 3, 2009

Agreed, let's get this show on the road

Lord Sessadore · Mar 3, 2009

I'm with Dunamin on the flavor thing. I think with a setting like this that's intended to be open-ended, you can find someplace for anything to fit, even if you make it up just for that element. As long as the mechanics are solid, I don't think fluff should have much of an impact on whether or not an element gets approved.

I don't think I've really chimed in on this much yet, but I'm all for dropping the regions as well. We've got our own regions system, and it's lower powered than the FR one, so including them would not be a good idea, IMO.

ukingsken · Mar 3, 2009

I'm with the general consensus. Drop regional and everything else is good to go. The only problem could have been the dark warlock but the addition of "willing allies" makes it no problem at all.

Let the voting commence?!

Dunamin · Mar 3, 2009

Alright, I’ll brave the first move again then.

NO: Regional Benefits. That is, the FRPG regional benefits, not our own L4W regional benefits!

YES: Forgotten Realm’s Player’s Guide, minus Regional Benefits. With the condition that Dark Pact warlock powers that damage allies require consent. Also, with the option for further potentially problematic elements to be excluded through standard proposal procedures.

garyh · Mar 3, 2009

Dunamin said:
Alright, I’ll brave the first move again then.

NO: Regional Benefits. That is, the FRPG regional benefits, not our own L4W regional benefits!

YES: Forgotten Realm’s Player’s Guide, minus Regional Benefits. With the condition that Dark Pact warlock powers that damage allies require consent. Also, with the option for further potentially problematic elements to be excluded through standard proposal procedures.

This is exactly my vote, and exactly my reasoning.

That's two Judges weighed in.

CaBaNa · Mar 3, 2009

Dunamin said:
Alright, I’ll brave the first move again then.

NO: Regional Benefits. That is, the FRPG regional benefits, not our own L4W regional benefits!

YES: Forgotten Realm’s Player’s Guide, minus Regional Benefits. With the condition that Dark Pact warlock powers that damage allies require consent. Also, with the option for further potentially problematic elements to be excluded through standard proposal procedures.

Clarification, OOC player consent, or IC ally consent? Makes for more fun in the role play, if the player consents, and the ally in character doesn't. Creates some nice tension in game, while relieving any out of game tension.

garyh · Mar 3, 2009

CaBaNa said:
Clarification, OOC player consent, or IC ally consent? Makes for more fun in the role play, if the player consents, and the ally in character doesn't. Creates some nice tension in game, while relieving any out of game tension.

Either IC or OOC works for me. Depends on what the players involved want to do.

covaithe · Mar 3, 2009

Player consent is what I care about, too, but I don't really feel the need to make the difference explicit in the rule text. With the rule text reading as-is, I think that players agree OOC to roleplay it as unwilling IC, it's well within the DM's purview to bend the rules that far IMO.