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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6765437" data-attributes="member: 16814">And yet I have all of those hooks and clues present without requiring specific classes for membership or even requiring that specific classes MUST have membership.  My organizations offer benefits unique to the organizations -- membership has rewards.  They don't exist as bland faceless things that you seem to assume because I don't force classes to belong to them.I get that you feel that you get more by requiring players to be members of specific organizations as part of their class, but that strikes me as dictating to the player their concept.  Want to be an abjurerer?  You must be a member of XXX organization.  No.  I'd rather players have the option to invest in an organization that matches their character's goals, not because they chose a bag of mechanics and are therefore locked into it.You phrasing was that your way develops a deeper play experience.  That means it's deeper that some other play experience, and since we're comparing play experiences and you didn't provide a third option as your baseline, yeah, your phrasing did imply you think your play experience is deeper than mine.  I'll gladly accept that you meant something else, but I'm not the least bit guilty that I took it the way it read. And then you torpedo that by saying that I can offer an counter-anecdote, presumably from my play experience, to refute your claim that you have a deeper play experience.  Perhaps you'd like to rephrase before I again assume that you mean what you say?Also, I can believe you're an honest actor and actually believe you have a deeper play experience than I do.  Honest actor doesn't mean you can't think yourself better than others.  So that's a true non-starter of a guilt trip attempt.  I believed you meant what you said and never once thought you were engaging dishonestly.Yes, you keep saying this, but you're circling the fallacy of the excluded middle.  A class system that is entirely tied to the fiction or a classless system totally untethered from the fiction are not the only options.  Classless systems tend to be detailed and crunch-heavy systems that take considerable system mastery to get the best out of (and often, with system mastery, are very breakable).  I'm not interested in running GURPs or Champion at this point in my hobby-life.  Too much work.  I like the 5e system: it's clean, easy to use, and does what I want.  So I take the middle ground -- a classed system because it behaves better and is quick and easy to pick up while still doing a decent job of being flexible to multiple character concepts.  I don't have to go 'I need a classless system because I don't like the 5e class fluff,' I can just ditch/rewrite the fluff I don't like and keep the ease of the mechanics.And, in doing so, I can supply just as much fluff and depth as I want.Fluff and mechanics.  You still seem to confuse the line when responding to me.  You could refluff the counterspell spell any way you wanted, so long as the mechanics remained the same:  it costs a spell slot of the appropriate level, the components of the spell must be used, and the spell functions within it's specified range and effect.  If you can reliably reskin that in a way that doesn't change the mechanics, bully!  Pass it over and let's see how we can work that into the existing fiction of the game (it may not fit, but it probably will).  If your refluff changes mechanics, though, I'm going to first ask if you really need that change to model your concept, and if the answer is yes, I'll sit down with you and work through it to see what the ramifications are.  If I don't like the ramifications, I'll nix it, and you can try again with a different tack or change your concept.  The purpose of using the 5e ruleset is that it's consistent and works.  The purpose of allowing refluffs isn't to change the mechanical function of the abilities, it's to allow for those abilities to model the widest possible range of stuff.  Can that occasionally cause problems?  Yes, which is why I, as the DM, retain final editorial power including the 'no' word.  I try not to use it, but I also want a coherent experience in my game world (it's deep, remember).Speculation that everyone agrees with you is reaffirming, I suppose.  I generally don't bother, but if it floats your boat....No, it's probably because fighters and rogues have lost out on the mechanical power curve.  I'm pretty sure it's not because they didn't have ready made fictional memberships in game worlds premade for them.  I mean, I suppose it's possible, but I can't see how it would be so.You'd make a game that directly caters only to your interpretations and desires, and screw the rest of the fans that might have a different opinion?  Sure, reaffirming and powerful, but forgive me if I'm thankful you don't.  I'd much rather a game where you can play your way (requiring players to adhere to preset fictions for at least part of their character concepts) and I can play mine (where I do the heinous act of daring to ignore fluff).</blockquote>

Verification