Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6077485" data-attributes="member: 85870">For some reason, I still can't get some variation of the following exchange out of my head: GM: "Well, your character really cares about fighting evil, eh? Maybe you should play a paladin then, because they get to smite evil, and be heroic and valiant! You'll also get to explore really cool paladin narrative themes, like doing good in the face of evil, and the true meaning of justice!" Player: "But I don't want to wield a sword and shield. I want to fight with a bow, and be shifty." GM: "Okay . . . so, play a refluffed [Insert Class Here], and just say you're a paladin." Player: "But you just told me that if I want to explore thematic 'paladin' narratives, I need to play a paladin character. But I hate the way a paladin fights in combat, I don't want to fight that way." GM: "Well crap man, what do you want? This is D&D! You have to pick a class!" Player: *frowning* "Fine, whatever, I'll just play a ranger and shoot things. Even though I'm not really interested in exploring themes of natural balance, hunter / hunted, the power of nature, and the way of the wilderness."I don't think there's a problem with asserting that "When a player plays a 4e class pretty much according script, certain 'thematic' elements will naturally arise." I think one can equally assert that for many, many groups that it's not a terribly compelling feature of 4e, since they prefer to build "thematics" in other ways. I think I can also safely assert that it can be problematic for some types of players that want more control over their character concept. </blockquote>

Verification