Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cronocke" data-source="post: 6348171" data-attributes="member: 63379">I applaud your sense of priority. It doesn't apply to the characters that were discussed previously - &quot;why should a dervish swordsman be worse than a BSF&quot; - but still.That said, why not play a character who's still good in combat but in ways that other characters don't cover? For example, your character is terrible as a swordsman but is skilled at persuasion and can talk their enemies down better than the other characters, provided they don't get stabbed to death first. No, you're not doing damage to their HP, but you're still contributing at all times.Conversely, why should the guy who's good at combat be useless outside of combat? Noble warriors of many cultures were as much philosophers and poets as they were deadly combatants. Why can't I play that, and instead if I want to be good at swordplay I must play Grok the Sword Orc, whose most complex thought this week boiled down to what he wanted for lunch one day?Every character should have something to contribute at every &quot;section&quot; of the RPG. If the RPG is as simple as having &quot;combat&quot; and &quot;non-combat&quot;, then all characters should be good at both. If it's divided further into &quot;physicality&quot;, &quot;socializing&quot;, &quot;education&quot;, &quot;mysticism&quot;, and &quot;subterfuge&quot; then it's harder, but everyone should still have something to do at any given time. Sitting at a table for an hour, watching other people do things while you wait for the narrative to move back in your direction, tends to not be very fun for most people.You may have fun being the party's wheelbarrow, but that's probably not something most people enjoy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cronocke, post: 6348171, member: 63379"] I applaud your sense of priority. It doesn't apply to the characters that were discussed previously - "why should a dervish swordsman be worse than a BSF" - but still. That said, why not play a character who's still good in combat but in ways that other characters don't cover? For example, your character is terrible as a swordsman but is skilled at persuasion and can talk their enemies down better than the other characters, provided they don't get stabbed to death first. No, you're not doing damage to their HP, but you're still contributing at all times. Conversely, why should the guy who's good at combat be useless outside of combat? Noble warriors of many cultures were as much philosophers and poets as they were deadly combatants. Why can't I play that, and instead if I want to be good at swordplay I must play Grok the Sword Orc, whose most complex thought this week boiled down to what he wanted for lunch one day? Every character should have something to contribute at every "section" of the RPG. If the RPG is as simple as having "combat" and "non-combat", then all characters should be good at both. If it's divided further into "physicality", "socializing", "education", "mysticism", and "subterfuge" then it's harder, but everyone should still have something to do at any given time. Sitting at a table for an hour, watching other people do things while you wait for the narrative to move back in your direction, tends to not be very fun for most people. You may have fun being the party's wheelbarrow, but that's probably not something most people enjoy. [/QUOTE]

Verification