Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 5871953" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Two counter viewpoints.  Some gaming groups play a free for all structure, and that works fine for them.  Others pick options and those are the options for the game as a whole, and that works fine for that group.A lot depends on how modules are implemented.  If they are structured to be campaign wide and mixing modules is not tested for balance, mix & match may be an issue.It's interesting, though, that we suggest we ca just have each player choose their own style of magic.  Let's assume we also have a module for the historical standard that armor and shield reduce your chances of being hit, and one for the common suggestion that it instead reduce the damage taken from a hit.  Would we be OK with the Fighter deciding he prefers his armor absorb damage, but the Cleric deciding he prefers his armor to reduce the likelihood of being hit?  Does the GM then pick separately for each opponent as well?Finally, sometimes excessive flexibility runs counter to the tone/theme/feel of a specific campaign or setting.  If this is an Arabian Nights setting, a heavily armored warrior is a poor fit.  settings where certain magic styles work and others don't aren't really that hard to imagine.A very common example across many editions - evil player characters.</blockquote>