Search results

Fair enough, but as I see it that's the problem right there. Playing someone else for a while seems to me to be the obvious solution.

If the whole point of play from a player perspective is to explore your OC's "story", it would be quite easy to prioritize what you want for your PC over the desires of the other players, or the GM. I suspect this is why the pitfalls of Neo-Trad are being emphasized. Sometimes, it's hard not...

I don't see why the player of the duck can't just run another character until the transmogrification can be corrected. From my perspective this is too deep a commitment to a single PC.

Yeah it is. Rule of cool is great, but by itself it's just not enough to allow something otherwise nonsensical. Unlikely, sure.

Yeah, I just don't accept "it makes a better story" as an acceptable reason for going around the rules on its own.

Honestly, this point is to me probably the most important factor in my enjoyment of the game. It has to make sense within the context of the setting (the setting, mind you, not the story).

But if they do as you suggest, in what way are they reinforcing the brand and pushing present and future products featuring those options?

Is what's important in a game the ability to multiclass? 😉

I don't see an issue with that. People want a differing amount of detail in their settings. My preference is for more rather than less. If I'm using someone else's setting, I want a lot of detail. I can always change it I don't like it, but it's a lot more work to invent it if it ain't there.

The background features are basically the only thing in the entire core rules that straight-up allows the player to decide things about the world (such as the presence of messengers and/or allies) without the DM's say-so or input. To my mind, that makes it at least an outlier from the game's...

Precisely. This is why actual setting books tend to have details that a story set in those settings likely wouldn't need, because the designers don't know what the players will need for their game, and because that information would in most cases logically exist, whether or not a particular...

If you're right, then by saying they plan to do it after 5.2 comes out they are at least being intentionally disingenuous, if not outright lying to the public. Is that your claim?

I don't know about that. I'm sure some orcs in 3.5 were better wizards than some humans.

The core idea is the same, I suppose, but I see a difference between the GM suspending RAW to more accurately (from the GM's point of view) model the situation at hand, vs doing so to serve the narrative or "make a better story". To me at least, those really aren't even the same kind of game...

I don't recall a version of Rule Zero that specifically mentions, "the story". Which book says that?

Clearly, "reality" differs from table to table then, assuming everyone is arguing in good faith of course.

I prefer setting over character or plot, but I'm odd that way.

That just sounds like houserules to me. People ban stuff in their own games all the time.

I have no objections to any of the 3e setting books; they were all excellent and provided exactly the level of detail I expect out of a setting product. Their work since that time has been uneven at best, with some quite anemic IMO (Sword Coast and Spelljammer, for example), and other offerings...

This is true. I don't like 4e at all from a design or mechanics point of view, but Nentir Vale is a cool setting I'd be happy to play in with some other system.