It is a non-answer for the purposes of the survey. Please try not to call people outright liars when it isn't really called for, okay?
D&D 5E What classes should be restricted?
It is a non-answer for the purposes of the survey. Please try not to call people outright liars when it isn't really called for, okay?
Tony Vargas
Legend
No campaign settings rife with themes of cynicism, cowardice, greed, and/or pragmatism?
But that's when you need some heroes! The contrast of the bright flame of heroism against the dark and wizened narrative skin of the setting creates a certain frisson.
No, you have it backwards.
I think "the PCs are heroes" is a setting conceit the GM could apply - not that all settings are such. And, IF the GM does make that conceit, then "does not fit the setting" already applies.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Ah, I get it now.
Bacon Bits
Hero
That was not my intended meaning. If that is how it read, then I apologise for the confusion. I'm not calling them a liar. I'm saying they are equivocating or "being intellectual dishonesty". It's a statement about the argument they are making and not about them. I'm trying to say they're avoiding the question by not answering the question fairly, and I'm trying to call them on it.
I did not and do not intend anything to be a personal attack.
pogre
Legend
For my 5E campaign I have definitely gotten soft in my old age and try to allow everything but 3PPs.
Somewhere along the line I embraced the weird in D&D. I tolerate quirky, goofy characters that I would bounce right out of other rpgs I run. I blame my teenage sons - they seem to love the weird stuff in races and classes - so I go with the flow.
The closest I come to controlling any aspect of PC creation is asking players to re-skin certain races and classes to fit my campaign world. For ex: I have a player that wants to do the samurai thing from one of the splat books and I said fine - just change the historical reference to fit my campaign and keep all the fun bits.
Somewhere along the line I embraced the weird in D&D. I tolerate quirky, goofy characters that I would bounce right out of other rpgs I run. I blame my teenage sons - they seem to love the weird stuff in races and classes - so I go with the flow.
The closest I come to controlling any aspect of PC creation is asking players to re-skin certain races and classes to fit my campaign world. For ex: I have a player that wants to do the samurai thing from one of the splat books and I said fine - just change the historical reference to fit my campaign and keep all the fun bits.
So... intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty - in other words, lying.
The other point is... it wasn't intellectual dishonesty - which is defined as supporting a position you know to be false. "Knowingly supporting a position that is non-informative to the poll in question," is not dishonest. It is just kind of pretentious, or pedantic, or threadcrappy, or something like that.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
We must have a completely different idea of what a class even is, in terms of interaction with the game world.
And also what the game is, because this mindset is a full Owen Wilson "wow" for me.
But as for what a class is, could you possibly explain how the inclusion of a class builds the setting?
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Same. I try to find out what is appealing about the option in question, and then determine a place that option could live in the setting. I talk it over with the player, and we figure something out.
Usually this process helps build the world, because we are building a satisfying place for this character to come from and for the player to be invested in. I can't imagine my world changing based on the simple pressence or lack of presence of the ranger, or warlord, or warlock.
