NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fredramsey" data-source="post: 2386104" data-attributes="member: 20274">And the rules lite fans would respond, "So what?"  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> It's funny, but I had this same discussion when 1st Edition D&D came out, about the Paladin, Ranger, etc. I said at the time, is it really necessary to have rules about a specific kind of Fighter, when you could just play your Fighter as a noble knight instead of a mercenary?Granted, the Paladin and the Ranger had spells (and why the Ranger had spells is still a head scratcher, but I digress). But the point still stands: Do you really need rules for every aspect of a character? There was nothing stopping you in Basic D&D from playing a noble knight or an outdoorsman ranger. It did require imagination...If you do, fine, there are systems out there that codify damn near everything. But if you are more interested in faster play, and (arguably) greater fun, then there are systems out there that allow that as well.And any GM worth his salt will find a way to incorporate your "vision" into his rules lite game. How? Because the game doesn't dictate every single aspect. Now if you're wanting to play a diety in a low-magic, gritty game, then that's going beyond what is reasonable. But if confronted with that request, I would say, "That's a cool concept. How about a son of a diety, so I can better fit you in the story?"It all comes down to style, in the end.</blockquote>

Verification