Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6934918" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think how Rufus is presented says more about the argument his presenter is making. A low Str fighter can be perfectly viable in D&amp;D. Especially in 5E where there are alternate paths for characters built into the game. Rufus will simply have to try to succeed by relying on something other than his strength...whether it be his dexterity, husband tactical skill, or his teammates. There's no reason such a character MUST be some kind of burden.&nbsp;And even if that does play an element...is that the worst thing? I mean, do we need to search far to find a group of characters...a fellowship, let's say...where every member contributes meaningfully to their eventual success despite not all of them being physically capable individuals? My personal style lies lies somewhere in between, and my guess is most others do as well. There is nothing wrong with playing D&amp;D as a tactical minis game. There's nothing wrong with playing it as pure role play. I personally think that either extreme suffers without the other element to balance it. You can also go back and look at the characters they created, and the stories they told. Yes, the characters started out as simple cyphers...mostly with a name that was a pun on the player's name and so on. But a whole mythology built up around these early characters. So it seems that Gygax and Arneson and Kuntz and all their players quickly added that element to the game. They were building a story, not just playing a tactical game.It's why we know a ton about Mordenkainen and Bigby and Rigby....but we have no idea what kind of tank Gary liked to use when playing war games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 6934918, member: 6785785"] I think how Rufus is presented says more about the argument his presenter is making. A low Str fighter can be perfectly viable in D&D. Especially in 5E where there are alternate paths for characters built into the game. Rufus will simply have to try to succeed by relying on something other than his strength...whether it be his dexterity, husband tactical skill, or his teammates. There's no reason such a character MUST be some kind of burden. And even if that does play an element...is that the worst thing? I mean, do we need to search far to find a group of characters...a fellowship, let's say...where every member contributes meaningfully to their eventual success despite not all of them being physically capable individuals? My personal style lies lies somewhere in between, and my guess is most others do as well. There is nothing wrong with playing D&D as a tactical minis game. There's nothing wrong with playing it as pure role play. I personally think that either extreme suffers without the other element to balance it. You can also go back and look at the characters they created, and the stories they told. Yes, the characters started out as simple cyphers...mostly with a name that was a pun on the player's name and so on. But a whole mythology built up around these early characters. So it seems that Gygax and Arneson and Kuntz and all their players quickly added that element to the game. They were building a story, not just playing a tactical game. It's why we know a ton about Mordenkainen and Bigby and Rigby....but we have no idea what kind of tank Gary liked to use when playing war games. [/QUOTE]

Verification