Search results

And? What's the threat here if I do silo other people? What are the consequences that would prevent me from doing so?

So it's wrong to categorize experiences and preferences? If that was any kind of issue then the OSR movement wouldn't have existed. Neotrad culture is grouping of playstyles where the thing that matters most is fulfilling the character fantasy that the player chose, usually through plot and...

Communities exist, marketing exists, audiences exist. Complete atomization is no different than complete homogeneity and wouldn't have lead to the creation of other type of games than houseruled DnD from ever existing.

Why can't you accept that I read the article, read the Neotrad/OC section and realized of my own volition that it speaks to my experiences and what I like.

Nah, it's relatively accurate for except for NordicLARP. No more an issue then calling people 'Killers, Explorers, Achievers' etc, etc.

Do you mean fully heal? Then an 8 hour rest in 5e RAW and PF2e it's done for convenience sake. Exact same amount of meat, but the PC has more meat so less comparatively Only if the player want a cool scar

No more a mess then most other opiniated blogpost about categorizing players/groups. And as someone that is a self-avowed Neotrad player, why should I consider losing my class powers be ever an appropriate consequence to someone that has no care about verisimilitude?

You can join a table where a Fighter arbritarily levels up according to the DMs whims, You can find a table where levels up are goal/story beat specific, you can join a table where they follow XP suggestions.

Glad I can play a Barlock in your table

Don't think I can lose focus as a monk by eating a feast all day and I'm pretty sure you can be a Bard even if you're blinded, deaf and a quad amputee. Also here's my character John, he's a Barlock. He uses the same emchanics as a warlock but it's because he was a scholar and graduated magic...

So? Just make up a reason in fiction why they are different. Or not, I don't care.

Yes it does; It's like arguing that a pencil is good enough for book manufacturing because a writer uses it to write a book.

Because they're not player characters; They're not meant to be used by a human that controls only one being(maybe 2-3 if they have pets), they're there either as a game piece among a handful by the GM or a specific challenge that the party faces--There's no need to restrict NPCs to a PCs mechanic.

Yes. This is good.

Here's another way to see TN other than a want to control or distance both(or all four sides) the other alignment; A singular obsession that trumps anything else. The mad scholar recording all knowledge, A warrior who only cares about their swordsmanship, the severe addict can be considered True...

An example of a non-baseline design for Humans is how In 'His Majesty The Worm', Humans are treated as super nationalistic about their clan/House that they gain advantage when their motto or sigil is dramatically appropriate.

Like I said before, as someone that considers himself a modern player, I'd be more accepting if Humans aren't also designed to be the default so that they are also class restricted in some way; They're only allowed to be magical because the only type of humans who are willing and able to do...

I use worldbuilding arguments but I don't actually care about worldbuilding, I'm just aesthetically against limiting classes with race because I consider believability lesser concern compared to making a character one likes.

For Race as Classes, normal classes don't need races to exist so a player can just decide to be a fighter that's a turtle person. In Race and Classes I think it's perfectly fine to have a no baseline/Jack-Of-all race, just like it's fine that there's no baseline/Jack-of-all class...

Yes but only barely and only pond-level at best that will quickly become 'slap on some prosthetics' IMO