Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Character Options
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6680077" data-attributes="member: 6799649"><p>+1 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>'To play' may not be the <em>only</em> point of playing. Beyond such ephemerals as 'spending time with your mates', games may offer more specific points. Take CCGs for example. You have to build a deck from your collection of cards, then (separately) play it against someone else's deck. <em>Both</em> things are 'the point' of the game, both require different but related skills, both are fun (though you may prefer one over the other), but being good at deck building really helps your play versus an opponent. Sure, it's possible to play the starter deck straight out of the box and never change it, but if you insist that <em>all</em> players must do this then you're taking half the game away, and that half is enjoyed by most players.</p><p></p><p>To play D&D, you are first expected to create a character, then to play it. Both things are enjoyable. In 35+ years of role-playing, I must have created 20 unplayed characters for each 1 that I've played. I enjoy it. Some people don't. But half of the game would be lost to me if I were forced to only play pre-gens just because one player couldn't be bothered to make his own. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>BTW, you can't stack <em>hex/hunter's mark</em> because each requires your concentration.</p><p></p><p>Which illustrates that the DM is required to check these things out. It's work, but that's part of the DM job.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's why I hated BECMI! I once joined an ongoing game at a club, decided to play an elf (a fighter/mage by default), and since there was already an elf in the party and realising that it takes effort to make two elves (or ANY class in that game) different from one another, I asked her what weapon she was using so that I could make sure to choose different weapons. Her answer? "I don't know what weapon I'm using, but it does 1d8 damage".</p><p></p><p>Somebody gave me the D&D Rules Cyclopaedia, and then I saw the rules for weapons that basically gave each weapon different stats and abilities as you put more proficiencies into it. That's a great idea, but by the time I got that book, nobody played it and there were better games anyway.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're not telling them they're wrong, you're just <strong>forbidding</strong> them from playing the game 'their own way'! I'm not convinced that this is better! </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The use of feats/MCing in the game does not prevent arguing over Dolly Parton's boots.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Me too, actually. Which illustrates that characterisation and optimisation are unrelated, therefore demonstrating the fallacy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In what way would it be better to prevent the rogue getting that fighter level? How does it negatively impact the fun of anyone else? Banning it would hurt one player but not help anyone.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No-one bullied her, they pointed out the option and its effects. She could still have chosen the +2 Str, and I would not have let anyone bully her.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The nature of the game is that there are limits. Making even more limits does have an effect.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, instead of letting the good players have fun at the expense of the poor players, you're now letting the poor have fun at the expense of the good.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't expect control of my environment or the adventure. I do expect to be able to play the (legal) character I want.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My first 5E character is a good example. When I first read the 5E PHB I was excited that I could finally play a Dex-based swashbuckler right out of the box. So I chose fighter to build toward Battlemaster so I could choose parry/riposte. I wanted to be unarmoured (to match the archtype), chose the Magic Initiate feat at 1st (variant human), chose <em>mage armour, prestidigitation & ray of frost</em>. This meant I could be unarmoured without committing suicide, could look good at all times, and gave me an idea to connect an attack cantrip to match the silver dragon trinket I rolled.</p><p></p><p>Ideas inform mechanics which then inform more ideas which then suggest more mechanics which then present some ideas....and so on until I'm happy with my character in both characterisation and my ability to execute the kinds of moves I envision my PC doing.</p><p></p><p>When I get another feat I'll choose Defensive Duelist. It perfectly fits my concept. Why would the game be better if my DM banned it? How would anyone else be hurt if I chose that feat instead of +2 Cha?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 6680077, member: 6799649"] +1 :) 'To play' may not be the [I]only[/I] point of playing. Beyond such ephemerals as 'spending time with your mates', games may offer more specific points. Take CCGs for example. You have to build a deck from your collection of cards, then (separately) play it against someone else's deck. [I]Both[/I] things are 'the point' of the game, both require different but related skills, both are fun (though you may prefer one over the other), but being good at deck building really helps your play versus an opponent. Sure, it's possible to play the starter deck straight out of the box and never change it, but if you insist that [I]all[/I] players must do this then you're taking half the game away, and that half is enjoyed by most players. To play D&D, you are first expected to create a character, then to play it. Both things are enjoyable. In 35+ years of role-playing, I must have created 20 unplayed characters for each 1 that I've played. I enjoy it. Some people don't. But half of the game would be lost to me if I were forced to only play pre-gens just because one player couldn't be bothered to make his own. BTW, you can't stack [I]hex/hunter's mark[/I] because each requires your concentration. Which illustrates that the DM is required to check these things out. It's work, but that's part of the DM job. That's why I hated BECMI! I once joined an ongoing game at a club, decided to play an elf (a fighter/mage by default), and since there was already an elf in the party and realising that it takes effort to make two elves (or ANY class in that game) different from one another, I asked her what weapon she was using so that I could make sure to choose different weapons. Her answer? "I don't know what weapon I'm using, but it does 1d8 damage". Somebody gave me the D&D Rules Cyclopaedia, and then I saw the rules for weapons that basically gave each weapon different stats and abilities as you put more proficiencies into it. That's a great idea, but by the time I got that book, nobody played it and there were better games anyway. You're not telling them they're wrong, you're just [B]forbidding[/B] them from playing the game 'their own way'! I'm not convinced that this is better! The use of feats/MCing in the game does not prevent arguing over Dolly Parton's boots. Me too, actually. Which illustrates that characterisation and optimisation are unrelated, therefore demonstrating the fallacy. In what way would it be better to prevent the rogue getting that fighter level? How does it negatively impact the fun of anyone else? Banning it would hurt one player but not help anyone. No-one bullied her, they pointed out the option and its effects. She could still have chosen the +2 Str, and I would not have let anyone bully her. The nature of the game is that there are limits. Making even more limits does have an effect. So, instead of letting the good players have fun at the expense of the poor players, you're now letting the poor have fun at the expense of the good. I don't expect control of my environment or the adventure. I do expect to be able to play the (legal) character I want. My first 5E character is a good example. When I first read the 5E PHB I was excited that I could finally play a Dex-based swashbuckler right out of the box. So I chose fighter to build toward Battlemaster so I could choose parry/riposte. I wanted to be unarmoured (to match the archtype), chose the Magic Initiate feat at 1st (variant human), chose [I]mage armour, prestidigitation & ray of frost[/I]. This meant I could be unarmoured without committing suicide, could look good at all times, and gave me an idea to connect an attack cantrip to match the silver dragon trinket I rolled. Ideas inform mechanics which then inform more ideas which then suggest more mechanics which then present some ideas....and so on until I'm happy with my character in both characterisation and my ability to execute the kinds of moves I envision my PC doing. When I get another feat I'll choose Defensive Duelist. It perfectly fits my concept. Why would the game be better if my DM banned it? How would anyone else be hurt if I chose that feat instead of +2 Cha? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Character Options
Top