Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9250942" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly here.Take the thematically-rich 4e Fighter (relentless vanguard who dominates the melee, protecting comrades and punishing enemies at potential great cost with martial prowess), Avenger (burdened with divine cause, this relentless assassin chases their faith's enemies to the ends of the earth), and 5e Diviner (possessed of supernatural insight, this seer sees the future and uses those visions to thwart enemy and guide ally).&nbsp; It seems to me this Tragedy Bard makes use of kind of an obliquely reskinned 5e Diviner's Portent ability.The features that work in concert for all of these PC archetypes create a thematically-rich portrait of a PC.&nbsp; However, thematically-rich play does not necessarily equal premise-driven play.&nbsp; Thematically-rich play can only be a bulwark of and facilitator of premise-driven play so long as (a) the player has means to assert that play be coherently goal-directed as it relates to PC theme and (b) the GM is obliged to oppose their thematic goals with consistent and potent antagonism.&nbsp; Without those means (however they might be instantiated in a given system), you have thematically-rich but premise-impotent play.Of course, thematically-rich play where the GM or AP delivers invests play with a premise which doesn't engage with the questions embedded in, and related to, character theme might be plenty of player input at most tables out there (and indeed, my guess is this is the majority of play in the wild with a wide range of values for &quot;thematically-rich&quot;).EDIT - Eg a D&amp;D 5e game where the Diviner player's game never comes close to touching questions about &quot;the dangers of messing around with fate and becoming entangled with future possibilities/rewriting timeline&quot; (or anything remotely kindred) but they sure do read the signs and employ that power and it feels and looks the part in the play!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9250942, member: 6696971"] Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly here. Take the thematically-rich 4e Fighter (relentless vanguard who dominates the melee, protecting comrades and punishing enemies at potential great cost with martial prowess), Avenger (burdened with divine cause, this relentless assassin chases their faith's enemies to the ends of the earth), and 5e Diviner (possessed of supernatural insight, this seer sees the future and uses those visions to thwart enemy and guide ally). It seems to me this Tragedy Bard makes use of kind of an obliquely reskinned 5e Diviner's Portent ability. The features that work in concert for all of these PC archetypes create a thematically-rich portrait of a PC. However, [B][I]thematically-rich play does not necessarily equal premise-driven play. [/I][/B]Thematically-rich play can only be a bulwark of and facilitator of premise-driven play so long as (a) the player has means to assert that play be coherently goal-directed as it relates to PC theme and (b) the GM is obliged to oppose their thematic goals with consistent and potent antagonism. Without those means (however they might be instantiated in a given system), you have thematically-rich but premise-impotent play. Of course, [I]thematically-rich play where the GM or AP delivers invests play with a premise which doesn't engage with the questions embedded in, and related to, character theme[/I] might be plenty of player input at most tables out there (and indeed, my guess is this is the majority of play in the wild with a wide range of values for "thematically-rich"). EDIT - Eg a D&D 5e game where the Diviner player's game never comes close to touching questions about "the dangers of messing around with fate and becoming entangled with future possibilities/rewriting timeline" (or anything remotely kindred) but they sure do read the signs and employ that power and [I]it feels and looks the part in the play[/I]! [/QUOTE]

Verification