Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 8069596">First, I totally agree that this is all a matter of philosophical and aesthetic preference.&nbsp; As I keep saying, it comes down to whether you think it's desirable for Orc wizards to be rare, or undesirable.&nbsp; Arguing about whether it's really true they are rare is just a waste of time.I will, however, quibble with your analogy.&nbsp; Not to be argumentative (although I won't deny I love a good argument) but for illustrative purposes.Earlier somebody said that games are all about playing within constraints.&nbsp; And I agree!&nbsp; It's good that you have to choose between casting mighty spells and attacking multiple times in a round.&nbsp; It's good that you can't make all your scores 20.&nbsp; It's good that you can't have Halfling Luck, Relenteless Edurance, and Fey Ancestry, all at the same time.&nbsp; All those decisions are trade-offs between mechanical advantages.But the &quot;constraints&quot; (whether voluntary or otherwise) on race/class combinations are not like that.&nbsp; The trade-off they introduce isn't between two different powers; it's between powers and story.&nbsp; You CAN get &quot;both&quot; powers (meaning, the class abilities plus the ASI that improve them) you just have to choose race X.&nbsp; So, yes, I totally agree that an important part of games is forcing players to make trade-offs.&nbsp; Otherwise there's no point in playing games.&nbsp; But not all trade-offs are of the same type.So going back to the first point, the aesthetic difference in opinion seems to be not whether trade-offs and constraints are good...we all agree they are...but whether the particular trade-off we are talking about is one of the good ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 8069596"] First, I totally agree that this is all a matter of philosophical and aesthetic preference. As I keep saying, it comes down to whether you think it's desirable for Orc wizards to be rare, or undesirable. Arguing about whether it's really true they are rare is just a waste of time. I will, however, quibble with your analogy. Not to be argumentative (although I won't deny I love a good argument) but for illustrative purposes. Earlier somebody said that games are all about playing within constraints. And I agree! It's good that you have to choose between casting mighty spells and attacking multiple times in a round. It's good that you can't make all your scores 20. It's good that you can't have Halfling Luck, Relenteless Edurance, and Fey Ancestry, all at the same time. All those decisions are trade-offs between mechanical advantages. But the "constraints" (whether voluntary or otherwise) on race/class combinations are not like that. The trade-off they introduce isn't between two different powers; it's between powers and story. You CAN get "both" powers (meaning, the class abilities plus the ASI that improve them) you just have to choose race X. So, yes, I totally agree that an important part of games is forcing players to make trade-offs. Otherwise there's no point in playing games. But not all trade-offs are of the same type. So going back to the first point, the aesthetic difference in opinion seems to be not whether trade-offs and constraints are good...we all agree they are...but whether the particular trade-off we are talking about is one of the good ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification