Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6834419" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Look.  I don't know you.  You don't know me.  I'm pretty sure both of us would like to keep it that way.  So if you could stay away from the passive-aggressive, motive-hunting, moderation-baiting snark and solely respond to the content of my posts as it pertains to the subject at hand (as you do directly below and then I do, politely, in kind), that would be really great. I'm not sure what point you're making that I'm side-stepping.  Is it that TTRPG systems which silo suites of resources under broad archetypes (which can then be modified through "build" to capture further specificity) only do so under vocation with no consideration for behavioral portfolio?  Behavioral portfolio that is likely intrinsic to that broad archetype?  Such as:Rangers are:Rugged, tough, self-sufficient, industrious, cannyPaladins are:Devoutly religious, deeply driven, sincere, duty-bound, sacrificingEtc, etc.  We are at a chicken and the egg or nature vs nurture scenario.  Recent class-based systems such as D&D4e, 13th Age, Dungeon World, Cortex + (its various genre systems including Hacker's Guide which has Heroic Fantasy), Apocalypse World all contain a class/playbook for the archetype of "heart of the fellowship" or "battle captain" or outright "warlord" in the modern conventional sense (the Hardholder in AW).  Just like the Ranger and Paladin, they have a "base personality mesh".  Theirs is a behavioral portfolio in which they all have some overlap:  extroversion, cool, resolve, mettle, resourcefulness, presence, charismatic, empathetic, awareness, accountability, elocution.  Players don't have to have their PCs relating to other PCs if there is a lack of coherency in the roleplaying (in the same way that a player would, through their PC, choose to not relate to a Paladin who is played as insincere or self-preserving...or who might better relate to a Fighter who exhibits those traits).  Further, they don't have to have their PC accept the Warlord buff (be it action economy or statistical), same as in 4e.  But shouldn't most of this stuff be handled at the social contract level?  "Bob, your dude expects more from us than he does from himself.  He isn't 'cool under fire'.  You seem to want to do your own thing.  Neither your roleplaying nor your activation of your dude's abilities expresses resourcefulness or tactical awareness that we can believe will see us through danger.  Maybe, Bob, you should just play a Fighter?"  Sounds a lot like the incoherently-played Paladin archetype issue!Regardless of its persuasiveness, does that better address your point (if that indeed was your point)?</blockquote>

Verification