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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 9861662" data-attributes="member: 205">It's not really the transformation that's problematic.  It isn't even really about invoking a consequence.  It's more about the idea that the GM is evaluating your play, finding it lacking, and then administering punishment.  It's deep in the DNA of the game, with paladins getting forced back into fighter, or behaviors being judged for alignment change that then gives an XP penalty, or even not awarding XP to a dual-class character who uses abilities from their starting class.  That framework of judgment is still common in the mindsets of players of the earlier generations (myself included), and is where the primary pushback comes from.A secondary concern is that for games in a neotrad framework, like 5e is typically played, character concept and visualization is a primary play goal.  Having that visualization disrupted by an undesired consequence (like a conversion to Oathbreaker) can violate those play goals.  Personally, I like leaving my characters open to change through play, even drastic transformations (that's one of the parts of OSR play I enjoy), but there's a large swathe of players, the ones who drop $50 on a HeroForge mini or work on detailed backstories, who absolutely do not want something that grossly interrupts their character's assumed arc.(Yes, the obvious rejoinder is that players shouldn't assume their characters will progress as they hope, but if we can have plenty of groups who run adventure paths from start to finish, we can have players that assume their characters will get to experience that entire adventure arc.)</blockquote>

Verification