NOW LIVE FOR 14 DAYS ONLY! -- Enchanted Trinkets II for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! More enchanted trinkets for your 5th Edition game in a new softcover compilation!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7631611" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Your throwing out a bit too much nuance there in order that you may paint my position as nonsense.  In fact, your leaving so much out I'm going to go ahead and label this a flat out mischaracterization...Of course it did.  Making the point for why mechanics are necessary and speaking for their accurate role cannot be placing to much focus on them.  It's exactly the right amount of focus.Of course you can.  But if you conceptualize your character a certain way and then that gets put at stake, then you risk the whole character conceptualize breaking.  I'm not talking about mechanical permission.  It's like your not even listening to me.  Total mischaracterization again.  I'm not asking for permission or for my PC to have protection.  The mechanics are there simply as boundaries so that my character conception doesn't get broken mid game.  It's not about protecting my PC from anything.  It's about protecting me as the player.  There's a great difference there.   The game mechanics or session 0 need to tell me what kinds of characters can't be created by the rules.  Some are obviously explicit rules.  Some are implicit, like the character that never loses a fight cannot be made in a D&D game (that's because the mechanics don't support such a concept.  I'm not aware of any game that supports that concept).You are misunderstanding.  I'm not talking about playing a character that THINKS he is too strong to lose a fight.  I'm talking about the literal god given truth of a character that is to strong/lucky/whatever to lose a fight.  Your point above is about a PC that THINKS he is too strong to lose a fight and I agree those can be played in any system (well, not in ones that put PC thoughts at stake). Either way, the point is irrelevant to the concept I'm referring to.</blockquote>

Verification