Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1542361" data-attributes="member: 177">Hm.&nbsp; Have you actually read either of the 3.X DMGs?&nbsp; All that stuff is in there.I think that avoiding over-specifying racial characteristics is an aid to real role-play.&nbsp; If you laden a race with &quot;typical&quot; behavior, you replace creative role-play with following a script.&nbsp; &quot;I do X because I'm a dwarf, and dwarves do this sort of thing&quot; instead of &quot;I do X because I'm Sam the Indominable, and it's the sort of thing that I, and unique and intersesting individual, do&quot;.It was not seen in the kits.&nbsp; The kits were horrible.&nbsp; They didn't encourage role-play.&nbsp; They encouraged trading meaningless &quot;role-play restrictions&quot; (that were commonly ignored in play) for in-game power. &quot;Take this kit, be more powerful, and act just as you woudl have anyway&quot;.&nbsp; That's not encouraging role-play.&nbsp; Same can be said for Skills and Powers. I think the kits, specifically, were what lead to the philosophy that when considering game balance, you don't trade rules-power for role-play restriction.&nbsp; And I find that balanced classes do a lot more to encourage role-play than cookie-cutter role-play restrictions seen in kits.I don't use published settings, but as I understand them, those things are in the Forgotten Realms, and in the settings WotC has opened to others, and it's seen in the 3rd party publisher's settings.&nbsp; &nbsp;Funny, though. Everywhere you say it isn't, I can find examples of it.&nbsp; I encourage you to go back and reread the DMG.&nbsp; It has a lot of stuff that isn't about min-maxing and stats and encounter ratings.&nbsp; There's sections about laws and cultures and styles of play, and a lot of things which are about story, rather than about dice rolls.&nbsp; If the DM is following the DMG's advice,the players would be rather forced to role-play, because they'd be dealign wiht things other than monsters and traps.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 1542361, member: 177"] Hm. Have you actually read either of the 3.X DMGs? All that stuff is in there. I think that avoiding over-specifying racial characteristics is an aid to real role-play. If you laden a race with "typical" behavior, you replace creative role-play with following a script. "I do X because I'm a dwarf, and dwarves do this sort of thing" instead of "I do X because I'm Sam the Indominable, and it's the sort of thing that I, and unique and intersesting individual, do". It was not seen in the kits. The kits were horrible. They didn't encourage role-play. They encouraged trading meaningless "role-play restrictions" (that were commonly ignored in play) for in-game power. "Take this kit, be more powerful, and act just as you woudl have anyway". That's not encouraging role-play. Same can be said for Skills and Powers. I think the kits, specifically, were what lead to the philosophy that when considering game balance, you don't trade rules-power for role-play restriction. And I find that balanced classes do a lot more to encourage role-play than cookie-cutter role-play restrictions seen in kits. I don't use published settings, but as I understand them, those things are in the Forgotten Realms, and in the settings WotC has opened to others, and it's seen in the 3rd party publisher's settings. Funny, though. Everywhere you say it isn't, I can find examples of it. I encourage you to go back and reread the DMG. It has a lot of stuff that isn't about min-maxing and stats and encounter ratings. There's sections about laws and cultures and styles of play, and a lot of things which are about story, rather than about dice rolls. If the DM is following the DMG's advice,the players would be rather forced to role-play, because they'd be dealign wiht things other than monsters and traps. [/QUOTE]

Verification