Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7186745" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I don't disagree with 5e backgrounds being a good addition to the system, precisely for the reason you cite. However, I was referring to the other end of things. That is, many classes in D&amp;D are packaged with too much narrative fluff, which has people looking to fill in narrative stuff with additional classes, when, mechanically speaking, an existing class could easily have been used to fill that purpose. I would find that acceptable, if not good. I think I might suggest a more generalized advancement scheme. That way, the former acolyte could reject his priesthood and pick up a new direction in life as he climbs the role-playing ladder. I think that would be a good place to have RP requirements for many of them.I like the idea a lot. That way, you sort of particulate mechanical and narrative functions in a way that lets people splice them together to form their own character.&nbsp; However, I suspect it works better (or is more easily designed) because combat is a relatively small portion of that game's mechanics. It doesn't have scads of picayune tactical detail. Instead, you sorta pick a strategy, make an appropriate roll and see how it turned out. That lightweight combat (I mean a fight could be one roll) frees up a lot of design space.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 7186745, member: 6688937"] I don't disagree with 5e backgrounds being a good addition to the system, precisely for the reason you cite. However, I was referring to the other end of things. That is, many classes in D&D are packaged with too much narrative fluff, which has people looking to fill in narrative stuff with additional classes, when, mechanically speaking, an existing class could easily have been used to fill that purpose. I would find that acceptable, if not good. I think I might suggest a more generalized advancement scheme. That way, the former acolyte could reject his priesthood and pick up a new direction in life as he climbs the role-playing ladder. I think that would be a good place to have RP requirements for many of them. I like the idea a lot. That way, you sort of particulate mechanical and narrative functions in a way that lets people splice them together to form their own character. However, I suspect it works better (or is more easily designed) because combat is a relatively small portion of that game's mechanics. It doesn't have scads of picayune tactical detail. Instead, you sorta pick a strategy, make an appropriate roll and see how it turned out. That lightweight combat (I mean a fight could be one roll) frees up a lot of design space. [/QUOTE]

Verification