NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9245200" data-attributes="member: 7023840">While I understand the point that you're making, I don't think you fully appreciate the alternative argument.This exact issue isn't just one about social mechanics now; it's arguably the single oldest issue in the game itself. You can trace its lineage in D&D to the first great schism when it comes to skills; the introduction of the thief class, both in terms of the original class (which used more of an MU framework) and the adapted Gygax version. The debate was essentially that the presence of these specified rules for the thief meant that characters who formerly just did these things could no longer do them unless they were thieves. The presence of these rules meant that only characters who specifically chose the thief class could do these things. Contrast that with the original thief, McDuck, in Arneson's campaign, who was a thief not because of enumerated skills (rules) but because of what he did.But you could go further back if you wanted. If you look to the ur-TTRPG, the original divide was (yeah, you know what's coming) between Kriegsspiel and Free Kriegsspiel, and the divide occurred because of ... rules. Because of the question of whether or not you should have, as you call it, a structured play system. In effect, people aren't arguing over preferences (although, let's face it, they are). They are arguing over defaults. I think most people wouldn't begrudge other people what they want ... at least, I hope that's the case. I have to admit, I do question that sometimes. Still, I think that people who prefer a more freeform method are worried that if more advanced social mechanics rules become default and adopted, then that will gradually take over the game. In the same way that once the thief class was the class that could hide in shadows and pick pockets and find traps, then the fighter no longer could (in TSR-era D&D). On the other hand, I would have no objection (as I'm sure no one would) with an optional supplement, or even an optional section in the DMG*, that specified the bestest and greatest social mechanics you can want! Because I want people to get what they want. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />*Of course, much like any number of rules in the DMG, it is questionable if anyone will know of their existence in order to forestall possible debates, because ... oh, nevermind. Sometimes I wonder if people think the DMG is just a bunch of magic items surrounded by blank pages.</blockquote>

Verification