Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 4764025" data-attributes="member: 50304">I think the key principle that goes overlooked is that Classes are a vehicle to Restrict characters - not Empower them. I think people get caught up in the names too much and allow the combat suite of powers to start dictating the role the character plays outside of combat. This leads to concepts of out-of-combat roles conflicting with combat roles due to class clashes.For example, the holy warrior of an elven deity who favors the bow, uses animals as enforcers, and has nature as a domain. His or her chosen warrior-saints could largely play in combat as Rangers and Druids. From an out-of-combat role, the character is a Paladin or Cleric. If you insist on the character taking &quot;Paladin&quot; as the character class his or her combat shticks completely cross up his out-of-combat motif.This is why a character should not have all (or even most) of his out-of-combat functions tied to his battlefield role (IE - character class).One of the keys elements of role-playing is understanding boundaries. Character sheets and printed mechanics make boundaries easier to establish. This assures players that their bright ideas are fair game and likewise give the DM a simple means of arbitration as well as broad grounds to deny anything that slips off the rails of mechanics. However, I find that most significant role-playing demands the training wheels of &quot;roll-playing&quot; come off. It puts extra demands on the DM to be interactive, adaptive, and consistent, something that may not fit the bill for every DM and every table.That's why, in the end, you are stuck when it comes to core rules on role-playing. You either leave things extremely free form or you wind up piling up restrictions on the characters or the DM with mechanics.Guidelines are good. The &quot;Rule of Cool,&quot; is something that can't be emphasized enough. Ever time I hear a DM say something like, &quot;The rules don't say anything about being able to use a fire spell to ignite paper. You can't do that,&quot; or &quot;The rules say you need [Trait X] and [class Y] doesn't get [Trait X] so you can't do [mundane task Z],&quot; it just inspires me to frown.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 4764025, member: 50304"] I think the key principle that goes overlooked is that Classes are a vehicle to [B]Restrict[/B] characters - not [B]Empower[/B] them. I think people get caught up in the names too much and allow the combat suite of powers to start dictating the role the character plays outside of combat. This leads to concepts of out-of-combat roles conflicting with combat roles due to class clashes. For example, the holy warrior of an elven deity who favors the bow, uses animals as enforcers, and has nature as a domain. His or her chosen warrior-saints could largely play in combat as Rangers and Druids. From an out-of-combat role, the character is a Paladin or Cleric. If you insist on the character taking "Paladin" as the character class his or her combat shticks completely cross up his out-of-combat motif. This is why a character should not have all (or even most) of his out-of-combat functions tied to his battlefield role (IE - character class). One of the keys elements of role-playing is understanding boundaries. Character sheets and printed mechanics make boundaries easier to establish. This assures players that their bright ideas are fair game and likewise give the DM a simple means of arbitration as well as broad grounds to deny anything that slips off the rails of mechanics. However, I find that most significant role-playing demands the training wheels of "roll-playing" come off. It puts extra demands on the DM to be interactive, adaptive, and consistent, something that may not fit the bill for every DM and every table. That's why, in the end, you are stuck when it comes to core rules on role-playing. You either leave things extremely free form or you wind up piling up restrictions on the characters or the DM with mechanics. Guidelines are good. The "Rule of Cool," is something that can't be emphasized enough. Ever time I hear a DM say something like, "The rules don't say anything about being able to use a fire spell to ignite paper. You can't do that," or "The rules say you need [Trait X] and [class Y] doesn't get [Trait X] so you can't do [mundane task Z]," it just inspires me to frown. - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification