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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 3925859" data-attributes="member: 6533">Well, I can certainly see that any GM wants players to be creative in interpreting their role in the party.But, at the same time, this is like a teacher trying to help kids through a basic essay.You want students to be creative when using the essay, but you don't really want an epic narrative poem.  And since you don't want that you do have to provide students with some instruction.Now, players aren't students - at least not when they're at the table - but they are co-writers and any group of co-writers needs a clear understanding of what everyone is working on.So it's not that the guy who chooses Cleric needs to play the cleric certain specific hardcoded into the rules way, it's that the rest of the party needs to know what that choice means to them.Mearls did say that the roles are there to help understanding and that they don't have mechanical reflection.So I think you should absolutely hate what you should hate, but I hate it too.  First party I ever ran for 3E had a paladin who's player left the table saying, "I cast detect evil on everything we meet, when I do detect evil I smite it, and I'll be back in a half hour."  But I've also had players who just couldn't understand why we kept getting TPKed when his fighter would abandon the rest of the party. In both cases the player isn't being responsible.I find some hope in what Mearl's was talking about versus what we would like to avoid, and some hope that that second player would now understand that playing a striker would suit that play-style better.</blockquote>

Verification