Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3176165" data-attributes="member: 172">I see this argument constantly, but I really don't buy into it because...1) Excessive flexibility in chargen is as often abused as used effectively. (Back in 2e, I had a player who wanted to play a particular elven race with a human only kit, because they were AWESOME together. It was obvious to me when he suggested the character what the intent was.)2) Players often aren't so flexible and creative as they think they are. Even if you are creative, I've heard authors tell me their best work is not when they had a blank slate, but a goal.3) Even if they are, often their concepts are an ill fit with the game world. By selecting classes and options that FIT the concept of the world, the shared vision can be that much better.If all you are talking about is different flavor for a given mechanic, that's fine. What I speak up here is the creation of credible, cohesive concepts. Class abilities that fit with the premise for the class and skills that support the class abilities are all good things to build a self-consistent, believable concept. If I wed these aspects as a designer, I am more likely to make the right call WRT &quot;faith to concept&quot; than if I am a player who is scraping by for points and has to choose between getting my attack bonus as high as I want it or if my character really needs a climb bonus because his concept says it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 3176165, member: 172"] I see this argument constantly, but I really don't buy into it because... 1) Excessive flexibility in chargen is as often abused as used effectively. (Back in 2e, I had a player who wanted to play a particular elven race with a human only kit, because they were AWESOME together. It was obvious to me when he suggested the character what the intent was.) 2) Players often aren't so flexible and creative as they think they are. Even if you are creative, I've heard authors tell me their best work is not when they had a blank slate, but a goal. 3) Even if they are, often their concepts are an ill fit with the game world. By selecting classes and options that FIT the concept of the world, the shared vision can be that much better. If all you are talking about is different flavor for a given mechanic, that's fine. What I speak up here is the creation of credible, cohesive concepts. Class abilities that fit with the premise for the class and skills that support the class abilities are all good things to build a self-consistent, believable concept. If I wed these aspects as a designer, I am more likely to make the right call WRT "faith to concept" than if I am a player who is scraping by for points and has to choose between getting my attack bonus as high as I want it or if my character really needs a climb bonus because his concept says it. [/QUOTE]

Verification