Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 4763917" data-attributes="member: 4892">Which is exactly how things were in 1E AD&amp;D. At best you could roll on the Profession chart in the DMG, but it had no mechanical effect on your PC. We used our imaginations to determine what the differences between our characters were and I saw some of the most creative backgrounds back then. It wasn't until late in 1E that optional books tried to even codify what skills your PC possessed. And 2E started the habit of trying to codify game benefits for different backgrounds in the form of kits.I think that was the beginning of the crutch to character development that led to the current phenomenon of people being stuck in a box because of the name of something. For example, some people &quot;can't&quot; make a samurai unless there is a class called Samurai. Others cling onto the default fluff of the Barbarian so much that they have houserules that forbid you from &quot;becoming&quot; a barbarian later in life.Fluff and roleplaying are malleable and were the most fun for me when they were left to the imagination of the players and the DM. I think 4E has made strides to move back towards that model. That's why I get a 1E feel from the game even though the combat rules are so drastically different.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vyvyan Basterd, post: 4763917, member: 4892"] Which is [I]exactly[/I] how things were in 1E AD&D. At best you could roll on the Profession chart in the DMG, but it had no mechanical effect on your PC. We used our imaginations to determine what the differences between our characters were and I saw some of the most creative backgrounds back then. It wasn't until late in 1E that optional books tried to even codify what skills your PC possessed. And 2E started the habit of trying to codify game benefits for different backgrounds in the form of kits. I think that was the beginning of the crutch to character development that led to the current phenomenon of people being stuck in a box because of the name of something. For example, some people "can't" make a samurai unless there is a class called Samurai. Others cling onto the default fluff of the Barbarian so much that they have houserules that forbid you from "becoming" a barbarian later in life. Fluff and roleplaying are malleable and were the most fun for me when they were left to the imagination of the players and the DM. I think 4E has made strides to move back towards that model. That's why I get a 1E feel from the game even though the combat rules are so drastically different. [/QUOTE]

Verification