Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6728260">Oh, no, not everyone is being dismissive and/or pedantic.  Some have managed to both disagree and be respectful.The irony about our inability to meet in the middle, of course, is that I think it's pretty clear the "Warlord" some folks are asking for is just never going to happen.  So it's not like I need to *do* anything to keep the Warlord out of the game.  But you'd think the proponents would have figured that out by now and would be eager to embrace half-way solutions that the community could get behind, rather than stiff-arming anybody who tries to offer input, further convincing the devs that there's no middle ground.But, foolish me, I'll try again, with a new attempt to explain...Some people think that if the DM says your character wouldn't know about trolls, you should roleplay being ignorant.  That's a totally valid way to play, but to me that crosses the line of impinging on my roleplaying prerogative.  Fortunately there's no rule about how to handle this; it's up to each table to decide how they do it.Some people think that NPCs or even other players should be able to use Intimidate, Persuade, and Deceive on Player Characters, by rolling the skill, and that after a successful role the player should roleplay the result.  That's a totally valid way to play, but to me that's impinging on my roleplaying prerogative.  Fortunately it's up to each table to interpret this for themselves.If there were a class in the game that, by nature of it's abilities and their descriptions, seemed to dictate anything about my character's relationship toward or feelings about that first character, then that would likewise be infringing on my player agency in a way that would bother me just as much as being told, "Well, you've been Persuaded, so act that way."   But, if it were in a class, it wouldn't be a matter of table interpretation.  It would be in the rules.Being given a description of a persona (motivations, sensitivities, emotional state etc.) and being instructed to act it out faithfully is certainly a kind of roleplaying.  But it's a different sort...a very different sort...than having a scene described and being given free license with the persona.  And the former does not interest me; the latter does. So when somebody says, "No, you're wrong" or "Your opinions are incorrect" or something of that nature, I kind of scratch my head.  That's like being told, "No, you're incorrect, Politician X does not offend you. You're just misinterpreting him/her."When I came back to D&D during Next Playtest and...like the poor fellow who started this thread...wandered into the Warlord debate, my gut reaction was "What?  No...that's just wrong.  You can't have a class that does that!"  It's taken me a while to put my finger on why the concept was so immediately jarring, and I've genuinely done the best job I can explaining it.  At the moment I don't know how to make it more clear.I started that whole thread about Deception, Intimidation, etc. because I thought that might help shed light on a relevant root difference in playstyle, and lo and behold it has.  It has helped me understand why more people don't share my specific reservations about the Warlord...because some people, apparently, also aren't bothered by having NPCs Persuade or Deceive them.  Just like some people think it's fun to be told, "No, you don't have that information, so roleplay ignorance."  Mystifying to me, but 100% valid.So, yes, the class would bother me less if it were called the "Damsel" and all the abilities were based on helplessness and need of rescue, but that core mechanic of "my character is given some buff because of his strong emotions toward that other character" would still be there, and I truly believe that variant of roleplaying should not be canonized in the rules.If y'all have any interest in winning over my support I'd love to brainstorm more ideas that I could get behind.  It probably won't be the "Warlord" or even be called that.  But if you want to keep the wagons circled and wait for Mike Mearles to come around to your way of seeing things...well, I'll try to lob some Twinkies in so at least you won't starve.</blockquote>

Verification