Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8385614" data-attributes="member: 7031982">I just want to point out that all of the above can be true in a given game world (and, indeed, are usually true in my game worlds) but might not be true in others' worlds.&nbsp; So any argument predicated upon treating these opinions as truths isn't going to be very strong.As far as I can tell, this argument about &quot;playing against type&quot; comes down to perception and preference.&nbsp; That is, it's easier to image a Dwarf wizard being &quot;against type&quot; if there's something about the rules that suggest that Dwarves tend not to be Wizards.&nbsp; Therefore it's easier to imagine NPCs (whether friend or foe) being surprised by one.&nbsp; And maybe even easier for the other players to imagine their characters being surprised.(This also describes the thing we discussed earlier in the thread, that some people find it easier to imagine elves as a species being more dextrous if the rules for PC creation have a Dexterity bonus.)But in general I don't think I give much weight to the argument that the rules should be a certain way because it makes it easier for me to imagine the game world in the way I prefer.&nbsp; (If so, I'd be arguing to get rid of rapiers and tinker gnomes.). Or, if I'm weighing arguments between one player who wants a rule because it allows them to mechanically create a character they want, and another player who doesn't want that rule because...even though it doesn't force them to do anything new, or prevent them from doing anything they used to do...it just doesn't fit their mental image of the game world, I think I'm usually going to side with the first player.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8385614, member: 7031982"] I just want to point out that all of the above can be true in a given game world (and, indeed, are usually true in my game worlds) but might not be true in others' worlds. So any argument predicated upon treating these opinions as truths isn't going to be very strong. As far as I can tell, this argument about "playing against type" comes down to perception and preference. That is, it's easier to image a Dwarf wizard being "against type" if there's something about the rules that suggest that Dwarves tend not to be Wizards. Therefore it's easier to imagine NPCs (whether friend or foe) being surprised by one. And maybe even easier for the other players to imagine their characters being surprised. (This also describes the thing we discussed earlier in the thread, that some people find it easier to imagine elves as a species being more dextrous if the rules for PC creation have a Dexterity bonus.) But in general I don't think I give much weight to the argument that the rules should be a certain way because it makes it easier for me to imagine the game world in the way I prefer. (If so, I'd be arguing to get rid of rapiers and tinker gnomes.). Or, if I'm weighing arguments between one player who wants a rule because it allows them to mechanically create a character they want, and another player who doesn't want that rule because...even though it doesn't force them to do anything new, or prevent them from doing anything they used to do...it just doesn't fit their mental image of the game world, I think I'm usually going to side with the first player. [/QUOTE]

Verification