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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5756442" data-attributes="member: 58197">To me, the idea that a rule "displays itself" in the game universe has it backward. The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first. The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.In my ideal world, players should not say, "I have a fighter with Come and Get It. How do I describe this in the game world?" They should say, "I have a big guy with a sword, who likes to bait opponents into traps. What class and powers do I use to describe him in the rules?"In practice, of course, it has never been that clear-cut. Even before 4E, players would often start with a class and then build a character concept around it. I do this as much as anyone else, especially in cases where the campaign world is fuzzy and ill-defined, offering little in the way of character inspiration. And "crunch-heavy" games like 3E push a mechanics-first approach in practice, simply because concept-first is likely to lead you into a trap where your mechanical character struggles to fulfill your vision. If your concept leads you to pick the monk class, for example, or to pick up the Toughness feat, the results are apt to be underwhelming.But I see that aspect of 3E as a bug rather than a feature, and I'm certainly not willing to take mechanics-first as the default stance and extend it through the entire game. All else being equal, the better the game supports concept-first play, the happier I'll be.</blockquote>

Verification