Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kabouter Games" data-source="post: 7048534" data-attributes="member: 6788812">Which goes back to what I wrote earlier. There already exists a variety of games/systems/editions which fully embrace mechanically unique character generation.Very true. I was reminded of the weapon type vs. armor type tables in a thread here the other day. [shudder] Nevertheless, it was a class-based system. You were a Fighter, or Magic-User, or Thief. You could switch careers, but it was switching careers, not "dipping" for class benefits.That is interesting. I hadn't considered that. Thank you!  Frankly, I'd think less of 5e's designers if they hadn't. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I think they realized they could never satisfy that extreme without maintaining the system as it existed, which made a new edition ... wouldn't be new. And let's face it, there was (and is) a very vocal community of grognards who bitch at the R in OSR, who hate everything that GGG didn't supervise. These are the same people who think TSR and WotC are money-grubbing weasels, and probably haven't left their mother's basement since the release of the AD&D Monster Manual except to go to Radio Shack to get that spiffy new 14.4 modem.  Agreed. I prefer 5e to PF, because of my background in AD&D; 5e's class-based system is simpler to me than the bewildering constellation of feats and abilities and stuff in PF. But PF is still a really awesome game. I enjoy playing it from time to time, though I don't think I've mastered it enough to confidently referee.True. *grumble* <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I wasn't going to go down this road, but now it's been mentioned twice (that I've noticed), so I'm going to address it.That puts a great and unnecessary onus on the DM. In my considered opinion, a good DM doesn't say "No" to a player if he or she can help it. A good DM works with a player to successfully complete the thing the player wants to do, whether it's character design or that character performing an action in-game. When the game company puts out oodles of splat, and the DM wants to do things simply, there's no clean way for the DM to get what she wants out of the game without saying "No." Let's use the example from up-thread, where I talked about Samurai. Situation A. Someone comes into your game wanting to play a Samurai. You can say, "Great! Let's get out the Basic Rules PDF and talk about how we can do that." Situation B. Someone comes into your game wanting to play a Samurai, waving a class guide they've bought from DMs Guild.* Or, worse, which they've specifically gone out and paid at lot more of their hard-earned for Volo's Guide to Kara-Tur or some other official splat to make their character.In A, player and DM positively respond to each other and collaborate to create something. In B, the player presents the DM with a fait accompli, putting the onus entirely on the DM to either work like hell to integrate a very non-standard character, or be compelled to say, "No." I think you can guess which I find preferable. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> To be sure, that's an expectations thing: Players and DMs should be discussing such things at chargen (what I call "Session Zero"). I do understand that a DM can choose not to allow anything at his or her table. But that really sucks, both for the DM - who denies the request - and the player - whose request is denied. I just think B is not necessary. If something in the core rules is broken, splat away; fix it, with my compliments. If it ain't broke, you're putting out new stuff for the sake of putting out new stuff. If that new stuff makes my life more complicated, UR DOIN IT RONG, Wizards/TSR/Paizo.Hell, that's why I went back to 1e AD&D after 2e went off the rails with splat - not because the game got more complicated, but because I couldn't keep up with the sheer volume of splat output. At least not enough to confidently referee the %#$%@ game. It was easier to just say, "Sod it, let's go back to last year at this time" and completely reset.Again, all the above is my opinion only. Everyone should play like it makes them happy. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />Cheers,Bob<a href="http://www.r-p-davis.com" target="_blank">www.r-p-davis.com</a>* It's hard for me to knock DMs Guild, because I have stuff up there myself. But having seen some of the classes and archetypes on offer there, and how piss-poor the ratings system is, all I can say is caveat emptor, because there's some real dreck.</blockquote>

Verification