Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?

[Darth Solo]

I understand where you're coming from but I'm just answering the OP's question: to me, theme is only relevant at the metagame level. My gametime decisions would be made entirely in character, which means they'd be based on what best-accomplishes the character's goals (staying alive is a primary consideration though not the only consideration), not on theme.

I like your approach and it makes great sense.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Campaign theme could be "Lord of the Rings," in which hobbits don't use magic, wizards are demi-gods, and elves, apparently, do whatever they want. It seems, however, that the rules allow halflings to use wizards-staves. Do you go for it?

Or "supernatural World War Two" in which most characters are supposed to be firearm-wielding soldiers. You discover that you can unlock a psychic blast power (if you take the right perquisites), and use it more effectively than your machine gun, despite the game not being X-men themed.

For Ring Lords and Hobbit Staves, that might feel like a loophole. Personally, I would mention it to the DM to see if it was intended or allowed. If it's fine with them*, then should I be interested in that character I would make one.

For Supernatural WWII, having an infantryman who discovers psychic abilities seems really on point. If a few games in it is too good an ability, I wouldn't object to the DM telling me they have to dial it back a bit.*

In general, I expect the rules to support the theme of the game. For something like GURPS or HERO, I would expect the theme to be specified and informed of any rules that were either modified or not used. If it is an unforeseen loophole or complication (Stun spells are amazingly superior in this milieu) then either this discovery is cool with the DM or they will address it if it is disruptive. To answer the question "Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?", there really isn't a difference. Anything outside the theme isn't allowed to begin with.

* An example of "second-order design"?

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you were playing in a Dragon Ball Z type game, would you attack the opponent while they're transforming?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Would that even be an option? I mean, monologues are free actions. I don't know much about DBZ but it seems similar.

 

[Lanefan]

Pineapple pizza should be a cursed item, not a material component.

Perhaps, but I'd rather use it up in the casting of spells than expect people to eat it.

 

[Umbran]

It's not that cut-and-dried, as @Darth Solo 's post points out. Further, the action-economy consideration is not insignificant: Stun takes longer to cast, and a lot can happen in just a few actions. But the question remains...

If one choice is not clearly win, then the question isn't, "Maintain campaign theme or win?"

 

[overgeeked]

Campaign theme could be "Lord of the Rings," in which hobbits don't use magic, wizards are demi-gods, and elves, apparently, do whatever they want. It seems, however, that the rules allow halflings to use wizards-staves. Do you go for it?

Or "supernatural World War Two" in which most characters are supposed to be firearm-wielding soldiers. You discover that you can unlock a psychic blast power (if you take the right perquisites), and use it more effectively than your machine gun, despite the game not being X-men themed.

As asked earlier: if it's allowed by the rules why is it out of theme? Or, if it's out of theme, why is it allowed by the rules?

It comes down to why a person is playing and what their style is. Are they a gamer? They'll choose to win. Are they a roleplayer? They'll choose to stay with theme. Are they a gamer that likes to pretend to be a roleplayer? Then they'll get super creative in justifying how their "win" choice is really the "thematic" choice.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Have you heard of GURPS?

Personally, I don't know that the GURPS comment specifically helps this discussion in regards to the designers not culling spells and effects from the system. GURPS is designed, as in the name, to be a generic roleplaying system. If systems are thought of as toolboxes - you have an engineering toolkit, a mechanical toolkit, a first aid kit etc - GURPS instead would be, I think, a well-stocked generic lab that can do science research, repair cars,and work as a makeshift ER.

Even in GURPS, you deal in power levels and what's appropriate for one fantasy game will not be thematic and appropriate for another. I'm not sure a game heavy on realism is taking too well to my swordmaster who gets two attacks and two parries in the span of a round - which if I recall right is a second.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, but also, I have questions about the cohesion of the setting. Is my character special in some way that makes it reasonable I have access to this spell and other people don't?

If I am supposed to be representative of wizards in setting, and the setting has wizards using Fire, why is this not reflected mechanically?

I just don't think it's on the player to make the proposed setting and system cohere. That's a design and/or worldbuilding question.

I'll go as far as to say that if the mechanical incentives push you away from what would normally be expected in the setting, there needs to be a social or practical reason the expectation is different there (and even those aren't a completely free pass, because practical selection tends to trump pointless (as compared to practical) taboos sooner or later (so the social one is not normally a stable situation) and if there's a practical one that doesn't show in some fashion on a mechanical level, that's the sign of the mechanics probably being too limited.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Have you heard of GURPS?

One of the necessary tasks when using a generic system for a specific setting with specific themes is to adjust the game to fit the setting. Otherwise you have a game who's mechanics do not reflect the setting properly, and that includes incentives and limits.