Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coroc" data-source="post: 7906175" data-attributes="member: 6895991">@ all above , do not want to cite everyone:I play a different system also, namely  DSA. It is much more roleplay focused and it has got the mechanics and lore for it. It is normally mega-true to canon, but that is normally no problem because the canon is helpful for the RP part.It is low magic in a way. It has a very detailed skill system, you can play basically every "class" you like, be it a baker or a dancer.It has got humans, dwarves and elves with several subcultures for each race, humans have the most of them.Many people only play human, I recently started a dwarf which is quite similar to the D&D dwarf (that subculture at least), this is not so difficult to rp still it is more challenge than a human.The elves in that system also have similarities to D&D in that they are longlived, natureloving and great artists and singers. They even have a kind of  song-language.The guy who is the DM for this campaign got 20 years experience with that system, and profound system mastery. He is an expert roleplayer, he does dialogues between NPCs using different voices and such.Still he says he does not know, if he really could roleplay an elf correctly, in really as intended.And that is the beef I sometimes have with those people (not my players, they prefer humans quite often anyway, because they like being true in their roleplaying): If they at least would admit, that the reason for their choice is more often for mechanical reasons or for liking the look or flair of a race, which they still play like a human instead of accusing the DM being not flexible.There is no problem with someone not feeling good at RP but still wanting to play an elf or dragonborn, but there is a problem if someone claims the DM is single viewed for disallowing one or more of the races in his campaign, even if they are part of the core 4 or PHB. Those books are neither the law nor the bible.</blockquote>

Verification