Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 9379290" data-attributes="member: 205">The general issue here is that restrictions on behavior were actual hindrances on behavior back in the dungeon crawling days of OD&amp;D/AD&amp;D 1e, when the focus of the game was exploring and defeating dungeons by any methods necessary.&nbsp; Being restricted in your types of hirelings, or only having 10 (10!) magic items, or not being able to use poison made the actual task of defeating dungeons harder and riskier, and thus justified giving strong benefits in exchange.But in modern games, where the focus on &quot;defeating dungeons&quot; is at best secondary, and inhabiting a character is primary, there's a general expectation that every character is going to limit themselves to actions that fit within their character's methods.&nbsp; Paladins don't need hooks to do the &quot;right thing&quot;, the player should be actively engaged in portraying the character as doing the right thing as part of their concept.(Are there power fantasy games where players don't actually limit themselves to concepts, and just do whatever and don't roleplay ANY concept?&nbsp; Of course!&nbsp; But that type of play doesn't invalidate the actual standard of modern play.)If you really want to invoke setting diegesis into your class mechanics, it should really be as a hook, not a restriction or a punishment mechanic.&nbsp; Players, in my experience, don't generally mind self-restricting, but they do chafe when the DM attempts to arbitrate their behavior against some assumed standard.&nbsp; (Like saying if a character is actually following their oath, or obeying their patron.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 9379290, member: 205"] The general issue here is that restrictions on behavior were actual hindrances on behavior back in the dungeon crawling days of OD&D/AD&D 1e, when the focus of the game was exploring and defeating dungeons by any methods necessary. Being restricted in your types of hirelings, or only having 10 (10!) magic items, or not being able to use poison made the actual task of defeating dungeons harder and riskier, and thus justified giving strong benefits in exchange. But in modern games, where the focus on "defeating dungeons" is at best secondary, and inhabiting a character is primary, there's a general expectation that every character is going to limit themselves to actions that fit within their character's methods. Paladins don't need hooks to do the "right thing", the player should be actively engaged in portraying the character as doing the right thing as part of their concept. (Are there power fantasy games where players don't actually limit themselves to concepts, and just do whatever and don't roleplay ANY concept? Of course! But that type of play doesn't invalidate the actual standard of modern play.) If you really want to invoke setting diegesis into your class mechanics, it should really be as a hook, not a restriction or a punishment mechanic. Players, in my experience, don't generally mind self-restricting, but they do chafe when the DM attempts to arbitrate their behavior against some assumed standard. (Like saying if a character is actually following their oath, or obeying their patron.) [/QUOTE]

Verification