Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7628418"><p>Ok, I'm not quite done yet...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, you DO seem to get it, after all. If I'm parsing the above correctly, you understand about 95% of the argument I'm making, and your conclusion is "But you can decline the benefit, so there's no loss of player agency."</p><p></p><p>Yes, that's true. And I probably shouldn't have gone down the road of countering that argument with "...but I don't want to be a jerk."</p><p></p><p>The better answer is that I shouldn't have to. That the entire reason I'm opposed the Warlord (or, at least, the version that's fluffed so that he has non-magical influence over his peers) is that I don't think this theme fits well with the D&D idea of "ensemble of co-equals". (I'm still not sure of the difference between "co-equals" and "equals", but we'll save that for another long thread.) So, yeah, I can refuse to include that option. I can refuse to play at tables that include it. I can refuse to allow the abilities to affect me when I do.</p><p></p><p>But I probably wouldn't do any of those things. I'd probably just roll my eyes and deal with it. </p><p></p><p>Because the real point is that I don't think that particular concept should be in D&D. Again, not with that particular fluff.</p><p></p><p>You know, a good analogue might really be the rapier. I can't stand the rapier. Yes, I think it doesn't fit thematically, but that's not the real reason. Yes, I'm sick of dual-wielding dexadins, but that's not the reason. The real reason is that it's the poster child for the interchangeability of Dexterity and Strength, which I think was a bad change in the game. I wish rapiers weren't in the game. If they weren't, and people on the forums were demanding their return, I would chime in and say, "Hey, I think this is a bad idea." And I wouldn't be doing it to selfishly impose my will on others. I would be doing it because I think they would represent a change in the underlying philosophy of the game that would make me enjoy it less.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said above, I don't think that arguing against something that one believes represents a detrimental philosophical shift in the game is being a jerk, or that it's imposing one's preferences on others.* Especially since the horse has long ago left the barn, and I have no influence over WotC anyway. I'm sorry that some of you see it another way.</p><p></p><p>*EDIT: Heck I'm being GENEROUS by trying to save you all from catastrophic consequences you apparently are unable to see. Maybe I should change my username to Cassandra.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7628418"] Ok, I'm not quite done yet... So, you DO seem to get it, after all. If I'm parsing the above correctly, you understand about 95% of the argument I'm making, and your conclusion is "But you can decline the benefit, so there's no loss of player agency." Yes, that's true. And I probably shouldn't have gone down the road of countering that argument with "...but I don't want to be a jerk." The better answer is that I shouldn't have to. That the entire reason I'm opposed the Warlord (or, at least, the version that's fluffed so that he has non-magical influence over his peers) is that I don't think this theme fits well with the D&D idea of "ensemble of co-equals". (I'm still not sure of the difference between "co-equals" and "equals", but we'll save that for another long thread.) So, yeah, I can refuse to include that option. I can refuse to play at tables that include it. I can refuse to allow the abilities to affect me when I do. But I probably wouldn't do any of those things. I'd probably just roll my eyes and deal with it. Because the real point is that I don't think that particular concept should be in D&D. Again, not with that particular fluff. You know, a good analogue might really be the rapier. I can't stand the rapier. Yes, I think it doesn't fit thematically, but that's not the real reason. Yes, I'm sick of dual-wielding dexadins, but that's not the reason. The real reason is that it's the poster child for the interchangeability of Dexterity and Strength, which I think was a bad change in the game. I wish rapiers weren't in the game. If they weren't, and people on the forums were demanding their return, I would chime in and say, "Hey, I think this is a bad idea." And I wouldn't be doing it to selfishly impose my will on others. I would be doing it because I think they would represent a change in the underlying philosophy of the game that would make me enjoy it less. As I said above, I don't think that arguing against something that one believes represents a detrimental philosophical shift in the game is being a jerk, or that it's imposing one's preferences on others.* Especially since the horse has long ago left the barn, and I have no influence over WotC anyway. I'm sorry that some of you see it another way. *EDIT: Heck I'm being GENEROUS by trying to save you all from catastrophic consequences you apparently are unable to see. Maybe I should change my username to Cassandra. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
Top