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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7508922" data-attributes="member: 42582">Quite a way upthread I contrasted actions with do or don't put the motorcycle at stake.I'm just guessing, but it's probably because of the mechanical features of the class. One consequence of having a mechanically crunchy system with a largely arbitrary overlay of flavour over those mechanics (eg there's no reason why a class with the them of a warlock couldn't be mechanically structured as a wizard, and vice versa) is that you will have players who care for the mechanics but are less excited by the flavour.But, assuming it's not compulsory for the player to play a warlock, then it seems you could have enjoyed the game without that relationship. So what harm does it do to have the player play the mechanics of a warlock but not add any more flavour than a "man with no name" fighter?But what if the player wanted to play a "man with no name" fighter instead? Would you and/or your other players forbid that because it's too boring?How? How is the player (eg) declaiming, at the table, "This is what my patron wants from me - mwahahhaha!" playing lone theatre?And if the player never says such things, so that everyone is left guessing what the PC's motivation and relationship to the patron was, well how is that any different from the relationship between the wizard and his/her mentor which never comes up in play?Let's consider a different example which doesn't bring any game book text with it: I decide that, at home in the village, my PC's dear old dad is waiting for my return at the end of my quest. (Like Samwise Gamgee's Gaffer.) If the GM decides that my dad is in fact a serial killer, that is playing an NPC in a way that brutally treads on the concept of my character.Now let's go to a cleric example. If I decide to play a follower of the Lord of Battle (true example - I'm playing such a character in an active campaign) and my conception of the Lord of Battle is noble knights, honour, defend the innocent, uphold the right, blah blah blah; and if the GM decides that the Lord of Battle directs my PC to enter an inn under cover of darkness and assassinate the innocent innkeeper sleeping in her bed; then the GM is brutally treading on my character concept.I don't think these sorts of examples are very hard to understand.</blockquote>

Verification