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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6421819" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, the thing is, the magic that is "a character resource" is set up as a player resource.  It's that way to specifically BE a player resource.  There is zero difference, other than it's restricted to certain classes.  Again, explain why clerics get Water Breathing.  Or Continual light/Flame.  Or various forms of transportation spells.  The entire utility bracket of spells is a player resource sugar coated as a class resource.  If we had "Lucky" points back in the early days, the claim would be that "Lucky" points are a in game character resource.  As someone who started RPGing in 1979, I saw, back then, all the things that you claim you never saw.  Can we keep playing duelling anecdotes?  That's sure fun.  I suppose you did start a whole four years before I did, but, wow, I'm really having a tough time believing that in all that time, you never saw players doing the kinds of things I'm talking about.  We certainly did.Then again, by 1983 we started playing the James Bond RPG, and that specifically HAD Bond points which allowed you to do exactly what I'm talking about here.  Guess that just fell out of the sky whole cloth because apparently no one could possibly have had that idea before then.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />Two things.  Firstly, go back and reread those threads where you claim you saw me write things and read them again.  You'll find that I've been pretty consistent.  DM's, IMO, should not veto player choices when the only objection is that the DM doesn't like the player's choice.  "I don't like Elves" is not a good enough reason to veto elves, again, IMO.  You'll find though, that I'm perfectly behind the idea of DM's veto'ing chargen options for a plethora of other reasons.  This particular straw man argument is something that I've managed to inherit because I do say that DM's should back down in a very limited circumstance.  Somehow that's gotten blown up to this idea that I said that DM's should never say no.  Anyway.  The second thing is, I have zero interest in playing with a DM who is going to worry about only controlling 99.99% of the game world and is going to feel that that other .01%, which comprises the party's character's is something the DM needs direct control over.  It's apples and oranges.  There's a million ways that a DM can indirectly influence the PC's anyway.  He doesn't need direct input.  The reason you see players come to the table with Man with No Name characters, orphans who don't know anyone and have no ties to the community because they just arrived a week ago, is a direct result of controlling DM's who want to start futzing about with someone's character.  This is a space where a very light tread is a good thing.  The DM doesn't need to be able to rewrite minor details on a player's character in order to advance a scenario.  Are you honestly going to tell me that you think that claiming a beard on an NPC that wasn't described beforehand is the same as declaring the undefined appearance of someone's character?  If the player doesn't describe his character's hair, for example, would you, as the DM declare that he has long blond hair?  Why?  What goal is this furthering?  The only reason the player is adding facial hair to the NPC is because it pushes the player's plans forward.  It keeps the game going forward.  What possible use would the DM doing the same thing to a PC have?</blockquote>

Verification