Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8572764" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Oh good, on top of the already contentious animate dead rules we dropped druid armor in? Oh well, they are a pair of unique outliers, in that the deliberately leave open-ended consequences (not actually something that stops something from being a rule), but more importantly dictate character decision. This too does not stop them from being rules (5e does not have a fluff-crunch distinction in the same way that 4e does. If it is words printed in the books, they are all rules, and theoretically all have the same weight). That said-- they really grate. Earlier editions had these in spades -- much of the basic/classic characters were class-limited to certain weapons with no answers to 'but what if they have to?'; AD&amp;D Rangers and Paladins and Barbarians had to follow certain edicts regarding with whom they could associate or what treasure they could own (here the xp to level and cost to train rules did show some consequences to playing a class against type, but otherwise it was mostly just 'they wouldn't do so'). All in all, games (D&amp;D especially) have moved away from this, and towards a 'you can attempt anything, here are the consequences...' model with things like penalties for non-proficient weapons, losing spellcasting ability, and so on.&nbsp; I tend to prefer the new model, as it gives players autonomy -- if nothing else, they can always make their character's decisions (barring mind-control, which is supposed to be an extreme personal violation), even if they can't succeed at a given endeavor. These two outliers seem like throwbacks to an earlier age (although I think the real reason was to be deliberately wishy-washy, so that DMs would feel empowered to change these rules more readily than others).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8572764, member: 6799660"] Oh good, on top of the already contentious animate dead rules we dropped druid armor in? Oh well, they are a pair of unique outliers, in that the deliberately leave open-ended consequences (not actually something that stops something from being a rule), but more importantly dictate character decision. This too does not stop them from being rules (5e does not have a fluff-crunch distinction in the same way that 4e does. If it is words printed in the books, they are all rules, and theoretically all have the same weight). That said-- they really grate. Earlier editions had these in spades -- much of the basic/classic characters were class-limited to certain weapons with no answers to 'but what if they have to?'; AD&D Rangers and Paladins and Barbarians had to follow certain edicts regarding with whom they could associate or what treasure they could own (here the xp to level and cost to train rules did show some consequences to playing a class against type, but otherwise it was mostly just 'they wouldn't do so'). All in all, games (D&D especially) have moved away from this, and towards a 'you can attempt anything, here are the consequences...' model with things like penalties for non-proficient weapons, losing spellcasting ability, and so on. I tend to prefer the new model, as it gives players autonomy -- if nothing else, they can always make their character's decisions (barring mind-control, which is [I]supposed [/I]to be an extreme personal violation), even if they can't succeed at a given endeavor. These two outliers seem like throwbacks to an earlier age (although I think the real reason was to be deliberately wishy-washy, so that DMs would feel empowered to change these rules more readily than others). [/QUOTE]

Verification