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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6024174" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Sorry about that; probably my fault.We also like M&M 2e, but it wouldn't ever take over our Fantasy itch. Again, we use my RPG to scratch the "want to play a lot more concepts" itch. But yeah. Sometimes, to fit your concept, you want to be bad at something. My players have also lowered Con to 5 and Str to 3, so... yeah. It's not a "you need bad stats to roleplay." It's a "I really like the idea of being a sickly old bard who goes out and does stuff anyways because he feels like he wasted his youth" and "I love my super weak, really fat inventor with a wife he constantly bickers with." It's all just part of building a concept, you know? (And having the mechanics match the fiction is important to us.)I missed something... how does the part of my post that you quoted lead you to this conclusion?Agree about the "so be it" sentiment, if it truly is better that way. However, when designing a game, if the goal is to make two pieces easily and intuitively swappable, it might be best to try to design with that in mind. In this case, that'd mean acquiring specialty and background pieces at the same rate.You can fit quite a bit in, from my experience in formatting my RPG. But yeah, classes / races / specialties / backgrounds / etc. all take up room. Then again, my RPG has a 50 page "Running a Game" section, the skills section is over 50 pages long, Magic is just over 50 pages, Combat is just over 30, etc., and it's still only 325 pages long. We'll see how they do. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification