|
4 years ago ::
Sep 19, 2009 - 10:46PM
#1031
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
IM gonig to say I think this is where our groups themselves are different. I guess we dont have a need for refuffing to the extents needed by others because we seem to be more "content" with the game as presented.
Nothing against anyone else. It's just different.
So with that said, what is the argument over anymore? Isn't the answer to the question "Whatever the DM says?" (or for those player power people "The group or some kind of arbitrary decision maker")
I think in the end we all knew it was going to come down to what the GM says, it was more just an exercise in testing the logic in each position. Every group is indeed different, and I can understand your position. In my group there is somewhat of an expectation that every character should be reasonably effective as I tend to be a fairly challenging GM, some of the players I play with get a little annoyed when someone brings a character that doesn't pull their own weight.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 1:00AM
#1032
|
|
|
Just thought of something related to the "reskinning leads to/is an example of munchkinism" line of thought. That in turn led to another thought that I'll get to later. i totally get how people can be bothered by a player making a human with dwarf stats in order to get a better battlerager. Reskinning in order to have one's cake and eat it too strikes me, a champion of reflavoring, as unsettling. I guess it goes back to fluff matching mechanics. The mechanics of a human help represent humans as being vibrant and ambitious, and flexible. That's the hallmark of being "human". Dwarves have powers and traits that show how tough and resistant they are. Elves are shown to be graceful and perceptive. The default fluff matches the mechanics. I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character. But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate. For example, I would only allow a dwarf reskinned as a human battlerager if said "human" is portrayed as being stout in mind and body, perhaps more stubborn as opposed to being more dynamic. If the player recognizes the need to reflect the traits in actual roleplay, then I'd have very little trouble. The "human" battlerager would be, in a sense, acting like a "typical dwarf". The more extreme example of an elf with dwarf stats is, well...more extreme. The example I gave a while ago was an elf who found himself ostacized by his elven peers for being less graceful and talented in "elven things". Little talent with music and dance, and even less with a bow. Shunned by his family and his peers for his inequities, he turned inwards and forged his own strengths. He gained a determination and resoluteness that his tormentors lacked, one forged by hardship and loneliness. Thus the best "stat package" for this particular elf would be the dwarf statline. In short, if the reskinned character still matches the mechanics then I have no problem, and neither should the rules.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 8:46AM
#1033
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character. But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate.
Here is the what I agree with. When it is approached by both the player and the GM working together. Personally what I dislike is the sense of player entitlement that (s)he can do whatever they want Even if it goes against the group's wishes. Now the above is a radical stance and is countered with the "DM IS NOT A GOD HE CANT CONTROL EVERYTHING!" But when there is balance as you say I feel it is correct.
 Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 9:18AM
#1034
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
IM gonig to say I think this is where our groups themselves are different. I guess we dont have a need for refuffing to the extents needed by others because we seem to be more "content" with the game as presented.
Nothing against anyone else. It's just different.
So with that said, what is the argument over anymore? Isn't the answer to the question "Whatever the DM says?" (or for those player power people "The group or some kind of arbitrary decision maker")
I think in the end we all knew it was going to come down to what the GM says, it was more just an exercise in testing the logic in each position. Every group is indeed different, and I can understand your position. In my group there is somewhat of an expectation that every character should be reasonably effective as I tend to be a fairly challenging GM, some of the players I play with get a little annoyed when someone brings a character that doesn't pull their own weight.
Again every race already is reasonably effective at every class. I can make a half elf ranger that works pretty dam good. You don't need a race with +2 to that matches up with the class. I'm for a lot of refluffing when it comes to equipment, powers, back stories and what have you, but refluffing one race as another just seems to be something a power gaming munchkin would do, not what a reasonable player would do.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 10:59AM
#1035
|
|
|
I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character. But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate.
Here is the what I agree with. When it is approached by both the player and the GM working together. Personally what I dislike is the sense of player entitlement that (s)he can do whatever they want Even if it goes against the group's wishes.
Now the above is a radical stance and is countered with the "DM IS NOT A GOD HE CANT CONTROL EVERYTHING!" But when there is balance as you say I feel it is correct.
Totally. I don't think anyone was really advocating letting the player's desire run roughshod over the campaign and his fellow players. Just because re-skinning might be allowed under RAW (depends on your interpretation), it doesn't mean that needless or ridiculous re-skinning be tolerated. Even the most extreme voice in the matter (William) said that re-whatever-ing that doesn't fit the campaign theme shouldn't be allowed. No Jedi in medieval European setting. I guess my point is best summed up thusly: The RAW of a game that is about shared creativity and shared storytelling shouldn't prevent players from sharing creativity and sharing storytelling. The game might provide a starting point, for ease of use or for inspiration, but said starting point is not part of the RAW, only recommended method of play. In short, RAW should allow for any amount of re-skinning/re-fluffing/re-flavoring, limited only by the desires of the group as a whole. Even shorter: Re-whatever-ing shouldn't be a house-rule, because the game shouldn't need house-rules to achieve it's most basic goals.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 11:06AM
#1036
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character. But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate.
Here is the what I agree with. When it is approached by both the player and the GM working together. Personally what I dislike is the sense of player entitlement that (s)he can do whatever they want Even if it goes against the group's wishes.
Now the above is a radical stance and is countered with the "DM IS NOT A GOD HE CANT CONTROL EVERYTHING!" But when there is balance as you say I feel it is correct.
Totally. I don't think anyone was really advocating letting the player's desire run roughshod over the campaign and his fellow players. Just because re-skinning might be allowed under RAW (depends on your interpretation), it doesn't mean that needless or ridiculous re-skinning be tolerated.
Even the most extreme voice in the matter (William) said that re-whatever-ing that doesn't fit the campaign theme shouldn't be allowed. No Jedi in medieval European setting.
I guess my point is best summed up thusly: The RAW of a game that is about shared creativity and shared storytelling shouldn't prevent players from sharing creativity and sharing storytelling. The game might provide a starting point, for ease of use or for inspiration, but said starting point is not part of the RAW, only recommended method of play. In short, RAW should allow for any amount of re-skinning/re-fluffing/re-flavoring, limited only by the desires of the group as a whole.
Even shorter: Re-whatever-ing shouldn't be a house-rule, because the game shouldn't need house-rules to achieve it's most basic goals.
My point is one person should not be able to have final say in the matter. DM is not god. The campaign should be fun for everyone.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 1:17PM
#1037
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
Again every race already is reasonably effective at every class. I can make a half elf ranger that works pretty dam good. You don't need a race with +2 to that matches up with the class. I'm for a lot of refluffing when it comes to equipment, powers, back stories and what have you, but refluffing one race as another just seems to be something a power gaming munchkin would do, not what a reasonable player would do.
That is your opinion, in a 22 point buy game in particular I disagree you can make an effective half elf ranger (relatively speaking). It also takes more then attribute synergy to make a characters overall class/race combination a good fit.
My point is one person should not be able to have final say in the matter. DM is not god. The campaign should be fun for everyone.
actually the GM is god, they have to be for the world to work. Players are limited by definition in what they can know and/or understand of the world. Since the GM controls the reality of the environment up to and including what happens to the players they are in fact, for game purposes obviously, god.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 1:26PM
#1038
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
@Cerois: I may be missing something - but I think you're confusing effective with optimal. +2 stats works out to a +1 bonus - that is NOT the difference between effective and not. In fact, when you add in the racials (such as group insight. light step, etc) it makes a different character - but MORE effective in some circumstances (especially outdoor)
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 2:06PM
#1039
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
My point is one person should not be able to have final say in the matter. DM is not god. The campaign should be fun for everyone.
actually the GM is god, they have to be for the world to work. Players are limited by definition in what they can know and/or understand of the world. Since the GM controls the reality of the environment up to and including what happens to the players they are in fact, for game purposes obviously, god.
I agree. The GM is god and in many instances gods. The game is run by that one person (in most cases) and generally it is defaulted to one arbiter or referee.
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2009 - 2:11PM
#1040
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
@Cerois: I may be missing something - but I think you're confusing effective with optimal. +2 stats works out to a +1 bonus - that is NOT the difference between effective and not. In fact, when you add in the racials (such as group insight. light step, etc) it makes a different character - but MORE effective in some circumstances (especially outdoor)
Not really, even a +1 is a HUGE modifier. I understand what your saying and no I don't think that the only issue is the +1 to hit/damage (although again that is a huge modifier), almost all of the race/class combos that are generally regarded as synergistic have the best racial feat/class synergy. While there is racial feats for many class/race combos rarely do they approach the effectiveness of those established synergistic combinations. It is the entire package that determines what is synergistic not just the attributes, although the attributes are not to be taken lightly. I am thinking maybe a good idea would be to do attributes as a race class combo, make a list of two attributes for each class and let the player select one from each of the class/race list to add a +2 to.
|
|
|
