Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7321647">It occurs to me that the conflict here comes down to two mutually exclusive preferences in &quot;narrative aesthetics&quot; (for lack of a better term).The Warlord proponents want a class whose mechanics don't rely on magic. I don't want anybody to tell me what my character thinks, feels, and does.The problem is that in order to explain how some of these non-magical mechanics work requires a narrative in which my character thinks/feels/does something in response to somebody else's character.&nbsp; And sure while I could say, &quot;Yeah...that doesn't work on my character, sorry.&nbsp; Give somebody else an extra attack.&quot; that's just kinda being a dick and I don't want to have to do that.Personally...although I try to suppress this opinion...I think the non-magical requirement is asking too much in a game based on magic.&nbsp; But, they, that's their/your preference.&nbsp; So although I've probed at this preference (and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=8900" target="_blank">Tony</a>Vargas in particular has an elaborate justification for it) I avoid persuading others that they should just get over it magic and play a Bard or Paladin or Bard/Paladin or whatever gives them the mechanics they want. Because we are each entitled to our own aesthetic biases.Where I wish these conversations would end up is some of the Warlord proponents saying, &quot;Yeah...if that's important to you then I can see how a Warlord would be a wet blanket in your game.&nbsp; Nothing personal, but I hope Mike Mearles eventually sees it our way, not yours.&quot;&nbsp; (@Bawylie is one who has somewhat acknowledged the validity of my concerns.)Instead it's this unrelenting insistence that I'm simply wrong.&nbsp; And that I want to impose my preferences on others, but not vice-versa.&nbsp; That the Warlord is not an inspiring leader issuing orders, despite bountiful evidence to the contrary.Why do I care?&nbsp; Because I actually like the idea of a Fighter who trades some brute force for cleverness.&nbsp; I really do like the idea of building an Odysseus-like character.&nbsp; And I'd love to brainstorm how to make that happen in a way that avoids this &quot;officer&quot; stuff.&nbsp; But it feels like the Warlord proponents have entrenched themselves with a list of demands, and anything less than full capitulation by WotC is unacceptable.By the way, the one name I really like for the concept is &quot;Warden&quot;, but apparently the name has baggage from 3.5/4.0 and therefore can't be used.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7321647"] It occurs to me that the conflict here comes down to two mutually exclusive preferences in "narrative aesthetics" (for lack of a better term). The Warlord proponents want a class whose mechanics don't rely on magic. I don't want anybody to tell me what my character thinks, feels, and does. The problem is that in order to explain how some of these non-magical mechanics work requires a narrative in which my character thinks/feels/does something in response to somebody else's character. And sure while I could say, "Yeah...that doesn't work on my character, sorry. Give somebody else an extra attack." that's just kinda being a dick and I don't want to have to do that. Personally...although I try to suppress this opinion...I think the non-magical requirement is asking too much in a game based on magic. But, they, that's their/your preference. So although I've probed at this preference (and @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=8900"]Tony[/URL][/U][/B][/I]Vargas in particular has an elaborate justification for it) I avoid persuading others that they should just get over it magic and play a Bard or Paladin or Bard/Paladin or whatever gives them the mechanics they want. Because we are each entitled to our own aesthetic biases. Where I wish these conversations would end up is some of the Warlord proponents saying, "Yeah...if that's important to you then I can see how a Warlord would be a wet blanket in your game. Nothing personal, but I hope Mike Mearles eventually sees it our way, not yours." (@Bawylie is one who has somewhat acknowledged the validity of my concerns.) Instead it's this unrelenting insistence that I'm simply [I]wrong[/I]. And that I want to impose my preferences on others, but not vice-versa. That the Warlord is not an inspiring leader issuing orders, despite bountiful evidence to the contrary. Why do I care? Because I actually [I]like[/I] the idea of a Fighter who trades some brute force for cleverness. I really do like the idea of building an Odysseus-like character. And I'd love to brainstorm how to make that happen in a way that avoids this "officer" stuff. But it feels like the Warlord proponents have entrenched themselves with a list of demands, and anything less than full capitulation by WotC is unacceptable. By the way, the one name I really like for the concept is "Warden", but apparently the name has baggage from 3.5/4.0 and therefore can't be used. [/QUOTE]

Verification