The last AD&D 2nd ed game I played in - which was around 30 years ago - I played a character that was, mechanically, a Skills & Powers cleric but was, in the fiction, essentially a paladin (heavy arms and armour, noble background (maybe a Cavalier kit?), able to heal with a touch, etc).
I portrayed my character as a holy warrior. The other players played their PCs - to a lesser or greater extent - as responding to my PC being a holy warrior. But as far as the game was concerned, it would have made no difference if my character was a swashbuckler or a mage or whatever.
When I GMed 4e D&D, two of the characters were paladins - one literally (a CHA paladin of the Raven Queen) and one by dint of build (a fighter/cleric multiclass with a cleric paragon path, devoted to Moradin). Both players portrayed their characters as holy warriors. The other players played their PCs as responding to those two PCs being holy warriors. And the game would have been different had those two PCs been swashbucklers or mages. It would not have been the game that it was - a game about the relationship between the gods and their mortal servants, about what fidelity to a god means and demands in the mortal world, about defeating Orcus, etc.
4e D&D was not the first FRPG that I GMed where the game was not independent of the PCs. I GMed some AD&D along similar lines; and I GMed a lot of Rolemaster along similar lines. But 4e D&D did it better, both because of some aspects of its PC build rules, and many aspects of its action resolution rules. 4e was the first RPG I played where I would say the rules actively supported rather than occasionally impeded play-to-find-out [who these characters are, what happens to them as characters] RPGing.
I portrayed my character as a holy warrior. The other players played their PCs - to a lesser or greater extent - as responding to my PC being a holy warrior. But as far as the game was concerned, it would have made no difference if my character was a swashbuckler or a mage or whatever.
When I GMed 4e D&D, two of the characters were paladins - one literally (a CHA paladin of the Raven Queen) and one by dint of build (a fighter/cleric multiclass with a cleric paragon path, devoted to Moradin). Both players portrayed their characters as holy warriors. The other players played their PCs as responding to those two PCs being holy warriors. And the game would have been different had those two PCs been swashbucklers or mages. It would not have been the game that it was - a game about the relationship between the gods and their mortal servants, about what fidelity to a god means and demands in the mortal world, about defeating Orcus, etc.
4e D&D was not the first FRPG that I GMed where the game was not independent of the PCs. I GMed some AD&D along similar lines; and I GMed a lot of Rolemaster along similar lines. But 4e D&D did it better, both because of some aspects of its PC build rules, and many aspects of its action resolution rules. 4e was the first RPG I played where I would say the rules actively supported rather than occasionally impeded play-to-find-out [who these characters are, what happens to them as characters] RPGing.
