Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7886843" data-attributes="member: 7006">To me, classes consist of two things... a package of narrative identities (the fluff of the class) and a package of game mechanics (the crunch).&nbsp; We as players have become so accustomed to how the two connect that we now assume one builds off the other to create a whole.What does that mean?&nbsp; It means that even when there is overlap on one side of the two between two or more classes, most of us will still treat the classes as different, separate, and potentially necessary/core to the game.&nbsp; And where you fall says a lot about what you find important when it comes to classes and how necessary you see them.And it is this necessity that for me helps define which point I voted for, which was the &quot;doesn't fit the game world setting&quot;.&nbsp; To me mechanics are mechanics-- they are all a necessary evil to make the game a game, rather than a complete improv exercise.&nbsp; Now the combination of certain mechanics from different classes produce results that make it more of a pain on my end as the DM to challenge them... but I don't outright disallow something simply because of mechanics.&nbsp; If the mechanics make things more difficult for me... I see it as my job to work around them and take them into account.However... if a particular game I am running has a particular flavor and narrative focus, and there are classes whose fluff runs counter to that focus... I have absolutely no problem just not including them in that particular campaign.&nbsp; If its a game with no gods, then not including the cleric is a simple concession to the game that causes no issue.&nbsp; And the reason it causes no issue is because my players know that I am a DM who cares much, much more about the fluff of a campaign than I do the crunch, and thus I have curated a group of players to match.&nbsp; They won't bother requesting to play things that don't fit the story, because they care about fitting into the world as much as I do and wouldn't ever even think to ask.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7886843, member: 7006"] To me, classes consist of two things... a package of narrative identities (the fluff of the class) and a package of game mechanics (the crunch). We as players have become so accustomed to how the two connect that we now assume one builds off the other to create a whole. What does that mean? It means that even when there is overlap on one side of the two between two or more classes, most of us will still treat the classes as different, separate, and potentially necessary/core to the game. And where you fall says a lot about what you find important when it comes to classes and how necessary you see them. And it is this necessity that for me helps define which point I voted for, which was the "doesn't fit the game world setting". To me mechanics are mechanics-- they are all a necessary evil to make the game [I]a game[/I], rather than a complete improv exercise. Now the combination of certain mechanics from different classes produce results that make it more of a pain on my end as the DM to challenge them... but I don't outright disallow something simply because of mechanics. If the mechanics make things more difficult for me... I see it as my job to work around them and take them into account. However... if a particular game I am running has a particular flavor and narrative focus, and there are classes whose fluff runs counter to that focus... I have absolutely no problem just not including them in that particular campaign. If its a game with no gods, then not including the cleric is a simple concession to the game that causes no issue. And the reason it causes no issue is because my players know that I am a DM who cares much, much more about the fluff of a campaign than I do the crunch, and thus I have curated a group of players to match. They won't bother requesting to play things that don't fit the story, because they care about fitting into the world as much as I do and wouldn't ever even think to ask. [/QUOTE]

Verification