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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6078775" data-attributes="member: 336">If they can be ignored, you admit you have done it, and the game can still be played without "breaking" the majority of it, then they are not that important to the game as written.  There are not that many mechanical knock-on effects to alignment.  Meaning that they can be ignored, or altered and very little breaks.  I'd prefer if there were no knock-on effects at all, but that's just me.  3.X made the great wheel the default cosmology.  In OD&D there was no default cosmology.  I remember that in 1e, the great wheel was originally nothing more than an example cosmology.  So it was not that important to the game as originally written, for mechanic reasons.  It is important for flavor reasons.  Which I can agree is important, but not mechanically.I understand the need to weigh if the amount of work is worth it, but the majority of the work is on mechanics, not flavor.  Mechanics can have repercussions.  If I remove AoA, from 3.x there are a lot of mechanical knock-on effects, but it can be done.  It's just a matter of the degree of work required.  If I remove ALL magic items from 3.x there are also mechanical effects that make it difficult.  If I decide to remove all divine classes, I have a rather large mechanical undertaking in my hands.  The flavor of Dark Sun, for example, would not be easily recreated in 3.x without some major shifts, or new rules.However, in 4e I can easily drop all divine classes from the mix, and the game can still be played.  So are divine classes an important part of 4e?  For flavor purposes, yes - obviously not, for mechanical reasons.  What is important is what those classes uniquely brought mechanically to the table in pre-4e - mainly healing and boosting.  Since those mechanics were divorced from the classes in 4e,  4e Dark Sun could easily drop divine classes, and the game can be played without issue.   My car won't run without a fuel, so I can't just remove it and go on my merry way.  That is a key component of my car.  Wind Shield wipers are not as critical, but still important if I'm in a rain storm; the radio, not so much.  I can easily drop it and the car will continue to function without any mechanical repercussions.My assertion with respect to alignment restrictions has always been that those are flavor restrictions, not mechanical restrictions.  I'd rather not have them.  I can see them as sidebar examples just as I can see examples of dwarves hating orcs being an RP flavor example.  It don't want that to be a mechanical restriction.  It assumes that in whatever campaign I'm going to be running/playing dwarves will hate orcs.  If it goes further and makes mechanics such as a "favored enemy - orcs" bonus for dwarves it starts to dictate the "flavor" of my game.  If in my campaign I have an alliance between dwarves and orcs that is flavor, if I have to start changing mechanics because of my flavor it is more work for me.I think they are "poor" design, if not necessarily bad, just like I think that mechanical rewards for RP penalties are "poor" design.  There are game systems that at character creation give benefits based on taking RP penalties.  I've seen game systems like that "gamed" to a level that I don't appreciate.  The RP penalties hardly ever come into fruition, making the rewards simply a free reward.If flavor is to "dictate" in any way, I want it to be broad enough, or unimportant enough that I can eliminate it or change it without having to put a lot of effort into it.</blockquote>

Verification