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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6121255" data-attributes="member: 6688858">I identify my preferred mode of play as gamist in GNS terms, so  according to that I would say a Paladin is like a toolbox of game  abilities with some strengths and some weaknesses. In this sense, I  don't mind the idea of balancing mechanical power with a roleplaying  restriction. I think most other D&D gamists are more used to  3e-style gamism, where it's kind of boxed in to the charop subgame  ("building a hot rod"), and the rest of the game is more story-oriented.  In that case, I can see why using roleplaying restrictions as a  balancing factor feels like mixing oil and water. I like 1e-style  gamism, where you're scraping and clawing for advantage throughout the  whole game however you can, mechanically and in terms of interacting  with NPCs. There's less of a distinction made between mechanical gamism  and role-playing gamism.That said, using GNS terms tends to  paint people with a broad brush and make their preferences seem more  hardcore and extreme than they are. I do like the flavor of the paladin  class and in those terms I think of it as more of an archetype rather  than an element for building to a concept, yes. I don't see the appeal of multiclassing here. As opposed to adding more classes instead.As I've been saying, I can make sense of this if you want to use your additional freedom to develop a more interesting character, but that would still involve the DM "watching over" how you play, and in fact judging the quality of your contribution to the game, and maybe concluding that it was trite or inane or insensitive or melodramatic--maybe it's just me but I feel like this sort of judgement is if anything more personal and intrusive than just the judgement of a referee watching to see whether or not you break a game rule.I think if a player just wants to pretend to be a Paladin with no reponsibilities at all to the other people in the game, they should do that on their own time. That's not a game.Oh  yeah! I recall that comment. Looking it up it's in the Story Now essay,  but yep that's a good example. They could totally do something like  that for D&D--"Clobberin' Time" is the dungeon crawl.I'm thinking of three things: his infamous (to people who dislike charop  gamism) "Ivory Tower Game Design" article, where he admits that he and  the other designers of 3e intentionally seeded the feats with "trap"  options that look more powerful than they are in order to reward system  mastery (looks like it's been deleted from his site :/). Also his <a href="http://www.dungeonaday.com/categories/assumptions" target="_blank">Dungeon-a-Day megadungeon design assumptions</a>, and one of the <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111004" target="_blank">earlier Legends & Lore articles</a>  for Next where he talks about magic items (especially "Those that  succeed at greater challenges will be more powerful than  those that  don't. That seems to be a bit of the heart and soul of  D&D that has  somehow become lost.").</blockquote>

Verification