D&D 5E Justin Alexander's review of Shattered Obelisk is pretty scathing

[Mannahnin]

Sure. I just feel your second point is more important than than your first.

Whether or not you want to design fiction-first or math-first, you still need appropriate numbers. Even if you're designing a location to be whatever it is regardless of which PCs get to it when, do you want to inadvertently put in a trap or door lock suitable for 2nd level characters in an area full of monsters suitable for 9th level characters? Or vice versa?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whether or not you want to design fiction-first or math-first, you still need appropriate numbers. Even if you're designing a location to be whatever it is regardless of which PCs get to it when, do you want to inadvertently put in a trap or door lock suitable for 2nd level characters in an area full of monsters suitable for 9th level characters? Or vice versa?

Not inadvertently, I suppose, but I have no issue with such a thing existing. Why should locks just go up in DC to match the monsters?

 

[Ancalagon]

Tiefligs are hellspawn. They can be good. If that doesn’t satisfy, nothing will.

... could it be that you have confused tieflings and cambions?

 

[Mannahnin]

Not inadvertently, I suppose, but I have no issue with such a thing existing. Why should locks just go up in DC to match the monsters?

They certainly can be mixed, but if your intent is to challenge both combat and noncombat abilities...

 

[Ancalagon]

You’re playing a rogue? You must be greedy, slippery and untrustworthy.

A monk? You must be a disciplined, Asian-inspired dude that spouts koans.

A barbarian? You’re illiterate, right? And you are constantly about to fly off the handle even when you’re not raging.

This is the first time I hear of this cage of name concept and... why would you let yourself be trapped in that? If you want to play X that "isn't the stereotypical X"... then go ahead and do that. Who's enforcing this cage of name?!?!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This is the first time I hear of this cage of name concept and... why would you let yourself be trapped in that? If you want to play X that "isn't the stereotypical X"... then go ahead and do that. Who's enforcing this cage of name?!?!

It's an illusionary cage. I'd just walk through it.

 

[Mannahnin]

This is the first time I hear of this cage of name concept and... why would you let yourself be trapped in that? If you want to play X that "isn't the stereotypical X"... then go ahead and do that. Who's enforcing this cage of name?!?!

It's a conceptual thing.

It doesn't require deliberate enforcers. All the enforcement is in our preconceptions and prior experiences of the words.

I'm a fan of reskinning too, but the dark side downside of stereotypes and archetypes is that they sometimes contain baggage. While the upside is that they help us picture and conceptualize things quickly due to our prior knowledge of what certain words and names indicate.

It seems like FrozenNorth's DM in that 4E game got trapped in his conception of what a Rogue is and inadvertently trampled on FN's character concept, treating the PC as a Thief when that wasn't the intended character type.

 

[FrozenNorth]

This is the first time I hear of this cage of name concept and... why would you let yourself be trapped in that? If you want to play X that "isn't the stereotypical X"... then go ahead and do that. Who's enforcing this cage of name?!?!

People are people. It’s as silly as a grog who won’t play a bard because they can’t sing.

Frankly, players and GMs who « enforce » the box are more annoying than a player who isn’t willing to play anything except well-worn tropes (after all, it’s their character).

Note that notwithstanding the example I provided above, both GMs and other players can be guilty of this. GMs, by dint of having more power, simply are better able to enforce their preconceptions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's a conceptual thing.

It doesn't require deliberate enforcers. All the enforcement is in our preconceptions and prior experiences of the words.

I'm a fan of reskinning too, but the dark side downside of stereotypes and archetypes is that they sometimes contain baggage. While the upside is that they help us picture and conceptualize things quickly due to our prior knowledge of what certain words and names indicate.

It seems like FrozenNorth's DM in that 4E game got trapped in his conception of what a Rogue is and inadvertently trampled on FN's character concept, treating the PC as a Thief when that wasn't the intended character type.

This is one of the advantages of the Fighter and Rogue in 5E... their class names are generic and the real identifier is the subclass name-- a Samurai, a Scout, an Inquisitive, a Banneret. So @FrozenNorth 's PC had it played in 5E would have probably been identified as an intended Rogue Scout, and thus the other players and DM would have known the character to be that from the beginning (and thus not defaulted to Thief.) The other 5E classes mostly are identified as their Class names, with the subclass being merely a different thing they focus on or way they play within that. You're a Wizard, but you go to various schools, your Bard goes to different colleges, your Cleric has a god from various domains, etc.

It's possible to reskin those classes too... but the identifiers aren't built in like they are for the Fighter and Rogue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They certainly can be mixed, but if your intent is to challenge both combat and noncombat abilities...

My intent is to provide a fantastic world with consistency and plausibility. Presenting level appropriate challenges is a secondary, but not unimportant concern.