Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9280229" data-attributes="member: 6801228">The OP did not ask about DnD 5e. The closest they got to that is in point #2 where they said everyone should have a recognizable player-facing class, a point they broke as soon as they got to point #9 and talked about transforming a class into a [cultist] or [Chosen Prophet] which are not something I recognize from the PHB. And if you want to claim my suggestions fail the OP on this point, then yours do the exact same by insisting on backgrounds and statblocks instead of classes.This isn't about being DnD 5e. This is about building a setting. Settings are not built to be edition specific.Right, and having a background level and give nothing but proficiency bonus increases disregards what the concept of a level up MEANS for most people. And if you start giving new abilities on top of the proficiency, then your background is functioning as though it were a class.Right, level up through non-combat encounters, gain non-combat abilities. But then why insist on this idea of a combat class and that it is the lionshare of what is going on? If you are leveling, and gaining abilities, then you have a class. That it is a non-combat class is irrelevant, and in fact likely a good thing. If everyone was capable of fighting at a high level, then what use would their be for soldiers, guards and adventurers?And no, a statblock is not a better use for the story element. You can't have two people sitting at a bar, and one of them says "I am a level five warrior, guarding that caravan heading out east." and the other guy says "My statblock says I am Carl the Farmer" this conversation immediately becomes warped, because they can't compare to each other, they aren't having the same conversation. And before you say, "No one would want to play-" stop. Both of these people are NPCs, characters in the setting and the story, not controlled by any player at any theoretical table.Who cares what is viable for playing DnD 5e? Are you referring to character in terms of player character, or in terms of a story element? Because I'll go ahead and let you know, having a Ancient Dragon who is also an Archmage and in charge of an entire guild of artificers and weapon smiths is "unbalanced" in terms of player characters, and I'd never let someone play that in a game... but it is perfectly fine in Ravnica for that character to exist as part of the setting.And this is why I keep saying what you are saying makes no sense. Whether or not a farmer is unbalanced in combat versus an elite soldier is not a concern when determining whether or not a farmer or an elite soldier EXIST WITHIN THE SETTINGAnd we don't care about mechanics. We are talking story elements. You are making a problem that does not exist. NPCs and their place in the story does not need to balance against players that may or may not even exist. Settings can be used for more than a game of DnD, so when you are building a setting, you cannot, should not, and have absolutely no reason to consider whether or not every single possible character in that setting is balanced in combat against a theoretical Player Character.You are only partially correct. Stories like the Wandering Inn, Primal Hunter, and Azarinth Healer would actually not make for good games, yet they are pretty good examples of the LitRPG concepts. The point isn't to make a playable game, but to use the language and aesthetic of game mechanics to tell the story.As an example, in the story "The Weight of it All" a high level King uses his powerful 5th level ability to make a decree, and this decree acts like a curse. Anyone who defies the decree slowly wastes away, their health and energy draining until they obey the King's orders. This would be a horrific game design element. It would make for a naughty word game, if the players could just, with no warning, have their abilities locked and their health drained because some King made a royal decree that they were required to follow. But as a story element? It works. It created an interesting story, with interesting stakes and solutions.If you truly need to think about it as a game, think of it as an MMORPG that has combat, crafting, political, entertainment, ect ect gameplay goals. Someone can play and have fun as a merchant, while someone else can play the monster-slaying part. The point is that the tools each person has, fits what they are.Again, not really. Sure, they should be coherent, but there does not need to be a viable game that can be played. Take Azarinth Healer. You could, in theory, make a game that could handle the main character being able to manipulate ash, fight barehanded, fly, heal themselves or others, cause damage with magic, teleport, and regenerate from having their head cut off, but it would be a very difficult game to make. And something like capturing how her skills allow her to instinctively react to blows and counter-attack might be modelable, but would have a very different feel in a game than they do in the story.If Game of Thrones was a LitRPG, then their behavior is part of the story. If you wrote a story where the behavior of the characters contradicts the rules you established for the story, you wrote a bad story.And keep in mind, in the setting of the Dungeons and Dragons movie, Honor Among Thieves, none of them referred to those statblocks. So saying that is what you should use to represent the classes within the setting is ludicrous. Sure, they made statblocks for the game mechanics to use them in the game, but they didn't use statblocks within the setting to represent the story. You are presenting this like it is a counter-point to what I am proposing, but in doing so you reveal the same misconception I keep harping on. Simon isn't a statblock within the setting of Faerun in the movie. He is a sorcerer. The statblock is only used at the table, by a DM, who is attempting to run Simon in combat. That isn't the setting. You don't build a setting with the tools you expect DMs to use at the table.</blockquote>

Verification