Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5970948" data-attributes="member: 54877">Wait, you guys are apparently reading more into this than what I said. In the context of what I was replying to, where we discussing having a fighter that is just like you want and a more mythic &quot;fighter&quot; (probably with some other class label). The disagreement was about whether this belonged in the core or in a supplement, and a mentioned as an aside that some people did not want it in the rules at all. It is this last group that is poison.&nbsp;It is not only not poison to want a &quot;mundane&quot; fighter, it's perfectly reasonable. &quot;I want to be able to play the game such that the fighters don't do anything remotely wahoo,&quot; is a playstyle like any other, and deserves to be catered to.&nbsp;Now, if someone say something like, &quot;I can't run a game with &quot;mundane&quot; fighters because this other &quot;mythic fighter&quot; class over there is so appealing, it circumvents my authority--so it needs to be left out so that I can run my game,&quot; then they need to take a deep breath and think a second time. Basically, that is a claim for playstyle preference to supersede others' playstyle preferences, because the speaker can't grow a backbone. But even that's not poison.&nbsp;If someone says, essentially, &quot;Don't waste any time catering to these other preferences (i.e. not mine), because they don't really matter anyway. You can put the B-team developers on a supplement, in a few years, as long as you don't waste too many resources on it or infect the main system with it...&quot; then that deserves no consideration whatsoever. &nbsp;Also, I reject the notion that it is always easier to add than to take away. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. The various kludges that have been D&amp;D supplements since it started pretty much show the full range. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5970948, member: 54877"] Wait, you guys are apparently reading more into this than what I said. In the context of what I was replying to, where we discussing having a fighter that is just like you want [B]and[/B] a more mythic "fighter" (probably with some other class label). The disagreement was about whether this belonged in the core or in a supplement, and a mentioned as an aside that some people did not want it in the rules at all. It is this last group that is poison. It is not only not poison to want a "mundane" fighter, it's perfectly reasonable. "I want to be able to play the game such that the fighters don't do anything remotely wahoo," is a playstyle like any other, and deserves to be catered to. Now, if someone say something like, "I can't run a game with "mundane" fighters because this other "mythic fighter" class over there is so appealing, it circumvents my authority--so it needs to be left out so that I can run my game," then they need to take a deep breath and think a second time. Basically, that is a claim for playstyle preference to supersede others' playstyle preferences, because the speaker can't grow a backbone. But even that's not poison. If someone says, essentially, "Don't waste any time catering to these other preferences (i.e. not mine), because they don't really matter anyway. You can put the B-team developers on a supplement, in a few years, as long as you don't waste too many resources on it or infect the main system with it..." then that deserves no consideration whatsoever. Also, I reject the notion that it is always easier to add than to take away. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. The various kludges that have been D&D supplements since it started pretty much show the full range. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification