Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DrunkonDuty" data-source="post: 7921887" data-attributes="member: 54364">I see the 2 parts (mechanical and role play) as integrated. One sits down and role plays their character. Now and then the game requires that one use dice to decide the outcome of the choices made during the role play. Odds are good that one has made choices during role play that play to the mechanical strengths of the character. The outcomes from the mechanical test can then inform your next RP decision.  RP leads into mechanics leads back into RP. Due to the limits of language I am having to describe this as distinct parts moving back and forth but this is not how I feel it is happening at the table. It's much more integrated.I completely agree that the theme is the game. I think we disagree on how the theme is set. I don't much care what the rule books say about characterisation, whether based on class or race. Now don't get me wrong - this is an attitude I came to over time. Back in the early 80's I was as guilty as everyone else for thinking that Paladins MUST be played as described in the PHB. But I eventually decided that that way of doing things was too restrictive for the games I wanted. If someone wants to be a Paladin of Chaotic Good I'm happy to let them. If someone wants to play a character that has smiting and healing and decent melee bonus, but has no interest in playing them a champion of any ethos, that's cool too. Just let me know ahead of time so I don't come in with incorrect assumptions.I DO care about what my table says about characterisation. We need to be on the same page (Thematically, setting-wise, tone, etc.) when playing the game. And that's something we sort out in session 0 when setting campaign assumptions. Obviously, in real life, there will be misunderstandings and disagreements later at the table. That's cool, we'll sort them out as they come up.</blockquote>

Verification