Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jayoungr" data-source="post: 6836965" data-attributes="member: 6702445">It's a matter of spectrum and degree.  The amount of bearing the class has is somewhere between everything and nothing, and we're placing our pegs in different places.  I think it's also true that most examples of class interaction are not quite so fraught with implications as paladin vs assassin--and let's also take into account the impact of alignment.And it's awesome when it happens through roleplay.  Less awesome when you're on the receiving end of it being mandated by mechanics.  I also think the goals of loyal friendship and so on that you mentioned are noble goals to have in a game, and I'd enjoy playing them out.  But it's ... how to say it ... declaring one person to be the gallant leader through mechanics, when the player doesn't have to do anything to earn it except to hand out buffs in battle, feels worse than fake or cheap to me.  I'm afraid the only word I can come up with is manipulative, and I apologize because that's already been a little contentious in this thread, but it's the word that fits best.It's also interesting that you mention Túrin.  He's my least favorite character in Tolkien for precisely that reason:  characters are always falling all over themselves to declare their love and loyalty to him and beg him to lead them, and he does nothing to deserve or even to explain their reactions.  At least with Aragorn, Gandalf, etc., I can understand why people respond positively to them, but I just have to take Tolkien's word for it (in defiance of all evidence) that Túrin is magnetic and people naturally love him.  It's all "Tell, don't show."  Which I think also relates to the problem with mechanical inspiration.My familiarity with X-Men is limited.  Could you summarize?The reason I don't like "personality" is because it puts too much emphasis on the PC and his/her player, in isolation from the rest of the group.  You can decide your PC's personality while sitting alone in your room; you can't, or shouldn't be able to, decide by yourself how your PC will fit in with the rest of the group.  That should, IMHO, be up to the players of the other characters.Okay, we agree on that.  So in this hypothetical game we're talking about, what if Boromir's player chose the class first and then played the character as bossy (etc.) at the table?Well, yes and no.  There are people out there--I've seen the threads on discussion boards like this one--who would like to use Persuade, Intimidate, etc. for PC vs PC social conflict.  Problems arise when they try to do this to players who don't agree that this is an appropriate use of the skills.See, I disagree.  If the bard has 18 CHA and is trained in Persuasion, I think that means she has an excellent chance of getting any NPC to do exactly what she wants, with the roll of a die.  But within the party, she is on equal footing with everyone else and dice will not be rolled unless both players agree in advance to abide by the result.  Also, it is up to the players of the other characters to decide whether their characters find the bard charming, annoying, pathetic, "just not my type," or whatever.  Their relationships will be responses to the bard's character as it emerges in play, and on her interactions with the other PCs.  Unless a PC takes an instant dislike to the charming bard for no reason whatsoever, I don't think this would be seen as unpleasant.Quite possibly not.  Or at minimum, they'd have a discussion beforehand and make sure they're all okay with it.Ha, so do I!  Comrade!  But I don't think promotion in a bureaucracy is much like leading a team of fantasy adventurers.  And even then, people who get promoted in a bureaucracy get it because they have demonstrated skills that are important for the job.  In leading a fantasy adventuring party, surely motivation and/or tactics are vital skills for the job?Okay, I'll try saying it another way:  Player A's Warlord does mechanical stuff during combat that carries with it implications about how Player B's character should relate to Player A's character all the time, not just during combat.  Player B, therefore, may feel that an unfair burden is being placed on him/her.I challenge "dominant understanding."  We have a very small and far from unanimous sample size of opinions here.Why does anything have to happen, at least on a regular and predictable basis?YES.  Yesyesyesyesyes.  And Y-E-S.  Both in and out of the fiction.  That's what this whole discussion is about.I'd be content not to have inspiration mechanics.  I think they're a bigger headache than they're worth.  For people who want to have non-magical healing, I'd rather have different fluff for how they do it.</blockquote>

Verification