Bryce said...

[TerribleSorcery]

There is weapon restrictions, equipment, etc. which help make sure you are committed to your kit and can fit the mold of a gladiator. Looks like I'm restricted to gladiator armor--Thracian AC 9, Gallic AC 7, and Samnite AC 5...gee I wonder how many suits of magical Samnite armor there is--probably zero. Oh well.

So, you are saying that the gladiator kit is not overpowered or anything. Not sure if someone else said that, but just to be clear I definitely don't think most of these kits are somehow gamebreaking or anything.

The armour/weapon restrictions. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if we assume baseline AD&D and not my extremely hip campaign world, the technology is late medieval, full plate and lances as I've said. So who are the Samnites, Thracians and Gallicians, and where do they live, and what's their deal? The player brings this kit to the table and all of a sudden the tectonic plates of the world shift, as new lands appear where there was nothing before!

I believe this idea of players bringing setting elements to the table cuts to the core of how the game functions. To be clear, I am not saying there is only one way to do it, but a DM that allows this and a DM that doesn't are going to have campaigns that work in different ways. As it turns out, the rules and the character options and the DM's decisions and the campaign world are bound up with each other in ways that are a bitch to untangle. Changing one affects all the others!

I'm sure you are a great DM. In fact, I think everyone who comes to these forums is a great DM because they are taking the extra time to learn about the hobby and improve. But in those 25 years of DMing--have you ever been a player? Have you experienced the restrictions that DMs can place?

I am a mediocre DM but I understand the basics.

I have been a player plenty of times before and I'm happy to play whatever character type is around. Perhaps part of the disagreement here is just down to personality. The first time I played WFRP I wanted to play the Witch Hunter, not knowing how the career system worked. I rolled up a coachman who drove a manure cart! That made clear the flavour of the setting, not to mention it was hilarious. For one more example, years ago I played in a 3rd edition game with race/class options limited to humans, dwarves, fighters and thieves. It was fun, I played a dwarf fighter (possibly most boring race/class combo in the universe) and had a great time. No problem there for me.

Most of the time I would prefer to play in a DM's 'precious campaign world' with any number of strange restrictions. At least this indicates he sat down and thought about what kind of game he wanted to run, or what made sense to him, or what he thought would be cool. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But that appeals to me much more than a world with unexamined 15th c. knights and Thracian gladiators and Blackbeard shoehorned together.

In my experience, I found that when I loosen the iron fist a bit and allow players to flex their imagination with their characters, they become way more engaged in the world because they have created a specific character in the world that I have presented to them.

That's what we are all striving for! What I'm saying is, anybody can do this without extra supplements or rules. With kits, players can create a specific character by picking from a list, not out of the world you present. And that is exactly my complaint! What I want is for the players to build a character in the world I have presented to them, by doing things like reading the setting info I send them before the game, or picking up cues from NPCs, or by asking me questions about the game, or by playing!

For example. I have one player who comes in with a mental picture of his character beforehand. I work with him to make that happen - then he spends most of the session on his phone. I have another player who says "tell me what kind of world it is" and then creates a character that fits within the setting I describe to him. He is my golden boy, takes a huge interest in the setting. Most players are somewhere in between.

To get the players engaged, obviously the DM has to present an interesting, vivid and playable world. But some players have the imagination, the interest and the motivation to engage with the setting in-depth and some don't. My experience tells me that sitting at home looking over a list of character options is not helping anybody to engage more fully with the imagined world.

How many of you use proficiencies and specializations? Hate em or love em?

I never seem able to run a game in the same system twice, so it's always different for me!

For NON weapon proficiencies, what I often do is make my players roll (or pick) a previous career they had before they became adventurers. Then we assume a kind of broad competence in that area, plus know-how based on character class. More comprehensive skill-roll systems can be cool too and I have no objection, if they don't overstay their welcome (or lead to degenerate play, like the dreaded Diplomancy).

But I hate weapon proficiencies/specializations. That shit is the worst!

 

[Malrex]

Yes, they were from UA --- and I've started using them about a year or so ago. So far, minimal impact but I am fine with that. There is also the "double weapon proficiency" sub-option which I have ignored.

I do want to go on record saying I see a very definite niche for a rules-light D&D as a basic/introductory/casual play-enabler. I think new players and new DMs need it especially. Combat abstraction is the best way to start fresh, IMO. For me OD&D fills that slot, but I imagine B/X could too. Right now, I am really appreciating the subtleties of the "A" in AD&D and will stick with that. Additional bells & whistles (to taste) can be fine too, but I think they are best left in the realm of house-rules.

If I was really into playing fighters I might be hungry for more (or not)...but I think what gets missed is in all that role-playing (which became the dominate form for D&D) and augmented-mechanics is that there is another style that preceded it that totally works, never seems to get repetitive or boring for it's many practitioners, and oddly does not suffer a bit for all things those who dislike it claim it lacks. But it's hard to get right, and attracts a lot of haters as a result. It does pass the test of time, and many in the hobby circle back to it for good reason.

That's the kind of D&D I love as a player and DM and while I know that it doesn't have mass appeal (actually I think that's kind of a plus), I refuse to acknowledge that it's not the very best way to play the game. It takes a maestro DM to make it truly sing, and a certain level of skill and suppression-of-ego to be a player too---all that I see that as a plus too. After all, isn't that's why people go out to the symphony? To witness masterful excellence?

I agree with you about your rules-light theory. This is one reason why I like OSE with its presentation and layout that makes things easy to use (I don't agree with all of it, but do think its presentation makes it easy to pick up for new/casual players). We usually stick with 2e and homebrew though when playing.

@squeen --I refuse to acknowledge that it's not the best way to play the game for my gamestyle too. This is probably why we butt heads all the time because we are both passionate about our style of gaming. Nothing wrong with that. Despite being a dick sometimes, I still got respect for you Squeen (and like your art) as well as Terrible Sorcery and whoever else I bang heads with on these forums. Despite differences, pretty sure I'd still have fun at your tables.

 

[TerribleSorcery]

Despite differences, pretty sure I'd still have fun at your tables.

Agreed!!!

I have been thinking about something like this a lot recently: how much of our gaming preferences today are a reaction to whatever shit experiences we had in the 'bad old days' when we were younger?

Malrex is talking about player's option books and their ilk being a solution for players against tight-fisted DMs who wouldn't let them try out their ideas.

For me, they meant flipping through pages of patchwork rules additions, picking through giant lists of proficiencies and equipment at character creation, and for what? All that time was wasted. I could've been using my imagination to create something new and interesting and fun instead.

 

[EOTB]

I have been thinking about something like this a lot recently: how much of our gaming preferences today are a reaction to whatever shit experiences we had in the 'bad old days' when we were younger?

Hopefully all of it; it would hate to think anyone is arbitrarily forming gaming preferences not rooted in experience. Of course one man's treasure is another man's trash, etc., so all preferences vary.

Most of mine are borne around attracting the type of players I enjoy, and minimizing the appeal of my game to the players I don't enjoy playing with. And every honest DM would say the same.

 

[Malrex]

So, you are saying that the gladiator kit is not overpowered or anything. Not sure if someone else said that, but just to be clear I definitely don't think most of these kits are somehow gamebreaking or anything.

The armour/weapon restrictions. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if we assume baseline AD&D and not my extremely hip campaign world, the technology is late medieval, full plate and lances as I've said. So who are the Samnites, Thracians and Gallicians, and where do they live, and what's their deal? The player brings this kit to the table and all of a sudden the tectonic plates of the world shift, as new lands appear where there was nothing before!

I believe this idea of players bringing setting elements to the table cuts to the core of how the game functions. To be clear, I am not saying there is only one way to do it, but a DM that allows this and a DM that doesn't are going to have campaigns that work in different ways. As it turns out, the rules and the character options and the DM's decisions and the campaign world are bound up with each other in ways that are a bitch to untangle. Changing one affects all the others!

Man...I had this huge response but lost internet. Will try to sum up.

Armor/weapon--to be fair, in the book it says that Samnites, Thracians, etc. are from history and the DM can change the names to fit their setting.

But I think this is the biggest difference between our styles--I don't mind creating a world with the players. If someone chooses some kit and a 'new continent' opens up--then cool! I can either be ok with it and expand on it, tweak it, or completely ignore it as it may not come up in play anyways. All the player is doing is creating a name for the land--I can still incorporate my ideas into that and maintain most of the control...I might just need to add a arena somewhere if they are playing a gladiator or whatever. Most times, I just throw them a bone---you find an expensive Thracian art piece and suddenly that's the most valuable treasure item of the character from Thracian.

If the characters really wanted to go to this homeland of this one character, then cool--I got them engaged and doing something that they want to do (never had that happen yet though). I don't mind creating a new land and can always shift around adventures if needed--doing this all the time. I don't usually have the whole world fleshed out anyways.


I also disagree about looking at character options not being able to engage people...maybe its cause Im a DM too, but after reading/hearing about the proposed setting...suddenly I'm not just a miner, but a miner in the Dragonback Mountains and stationed in Coppercore...or a Ghosthunter paladin exploring the burial mounds near Oakvale. I think some people just want to get on with the action, but I love creating characters. Sometimes they take me up to an hour looking through 'patchwork rules', etc. and sometimes my dude dies in the first 5 minutes...no worries! Having these options allows me as a player to look over stuff, get ideas, and "play" D&D by myself for a bit as I imagine up my next character.

But I do see what you are saying...like if you have no oceans and a player insists they want to be a pirate...it can get a bit lame. Usually I can tweak things enough where the player is satisfied, but more importantly, that I'm satisfied as a DM and know it will work. That sorta stems back to EOTB's point about advanced players I think.

Finally--I do agree with you that some nonweapon proficiencies can lead to degenerate play like diplomacy. In our group, having diplomacy just helps with the reaction rolls--we still got to explain what we are trying to do, etc.

 

[Beoric]

Yes, they were from UA --- and I've started using them about a year or so ago. So far, minimal impact but I am fine with that. There is also the "double weapon proficiency" sub-option which I have ignored.

Non-weapon proficiencies started in Oriental Adventures, then were more generally adopted in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, then some additional options came out in the Wilderness Survival Guide (with better math IIRC).

Weapon specialization started in the Unearthed Arcana.

How many of you use proficiencies and specializations? Hate em or love em?

Out of the box 4e has very few proficiencies that are not combat related. A lot of published modules try to shoehorn them into the existing skill categories, but it doesn't work very well.

My personal solution is inspired by AD&D secondary skills. 4e characters generally select a few backgrounds. For ordinary checks outside of the existing skill system I use ability checks, but when a check relates to a character's background I allow them to apply the bonus for a trained skill. I suppose the equivalent in 5e would be to allow them to add a proficiency bonus.

What I want is for the players to build a character in the world I have presented to them, by doing things like reading the setting info I send them before the game, or picking up cues from NPCs, or by asking me questions about the game, or by playing!

I tend to build the players' preferred options into the world, but not necessarily where they are easily accessible to the character. So the character may come from a tribe that practices Leaf Runner Style combat, or may have been strained by a master who taught Black Hood Style, both of which have good and bad options. They can go back to those sources for training easily enough, but maybe they have heard of the prowess of the Broken Blade monks and are willing to travel to a distant monastery and convince the monks to train them.

Of course, this only works with a power/feat system, not with a kit system, or an everyone-in-the-class-is-exactly-the-same system.

I like the limitations that come with weapon proficiencies (or more accurately, with not being proficient in every weapon).

I have been thinking about something like this a lot recently: how much of our gaming preferences today are a reaction to whatever shit experiences we had in the 'bad old days' when we were younger?

This is definitely a factor. But not just shit experiences, also wanting a play experience that was not well supported by the rules at the time - like more tactically oriented combat, or character features that are not completely dependent on class.

 

[Osrnoob]

4e is tactical combat the game yeah?

 

[squeen]

@squeen --I refuse to acknowledge that it's not the best way to play the game for my gamestyle too.

And you shouldn't. Just don't get too PO'd when I do the same.

When Byrce echoes a tenet I believe in, I am going to shout out "hell yeah!". That's very different that randomly posting "2e is shit and everyone who plays it is an idiot". In this recent burst of thread activity (based on Byrce's example), I am trying to convey how the classic player got along without all the things that came later...and why it's just fine/better. You need to get into a certain headspace to enjoy/understand the appeal of anything. That headspace is not static for you whole life. Communicating your thinking about why you like something can potential help others understand its appeal to you, and maybe...just maybe...they will open up to it learn to like it too. If you really dig something, then that's pretty wonderful to see happen. (Like Prince's move towards AD&D from B/X!) Just be prepared to beat your head against the wall repeatedly and be dismissed. Nevertheless, AD&D is hard to grasp and needs coaches.

That's the positive side of the coin. When I'm feeling grumpier, and I see folks (e.g. my kids) about to make a mistake by going down a road I've traveled that I believe leads to a dead end---then I may just lazily say "don't do that...it's stupid". If I do that here, without all the window dressings of "it's only my opinion", and "you have a right to yours", and "we are different, what's right for me may not be right for you...etc.", I expect most folks to dismiss me as a grumpy old fart/asshole. That comes with the territory of speaking unabashedly ideas that are unpopular. All my life I've gravitated to people like this---alternative thinkers to swim upstream and share their kooky notions. My wonderful DM, Kenny, was like that---a square-peg taken to the square-peg-eth power.

The thing that is not okay in my book is telling the grumpy-old-fart/asshole he's not allowed to say that because someone disagrees and became offended. (That's the bullshit, modern-day, social-media-inspired cancel culture that bans ideas.) I think that someone can and should be able to respond and disagree---but should not become offend. Of course there are limits. Those limits of internet-etiquette are: Have I personalized it? I am stating a broad ideas or am I attacking someone by name, badgering them repeatedly? Just because I don't like what a poster is staying, am I trying to choke them off and force them to shut up (I CANCEL YOU BECAUSE HAVE A POINT AND ARE FORCING ME OUT OF MY HAPPY-BABY BUBBLE OF SMUG EXISTENCE!)? Bullying. That's when a moderator should step in, IMO.

The last thing that needs to be acknowledged is that one person saying something rarely changes minds. Being in a room surrounded by a group of people all telling you that you are wrong---day after day---is more likely to result in a change-of-heart by the transgressor. That's why parents need to be always on the same page with their kids (and single parents have it especially tough). That's also why political and social movements are so dangerous. For similar reasons, it's okay in my book for certain group-targeting hate-speech to be censored in public media---that's just the Devil's Work of getting us at each other's throats. (Of course, that's always a thin line to walk and can get of out control too. Dealing with people is seldom simple. Every good notion can be subverted. The road to hell...)

In that context, I hope you understand that I think AD&D practitioners are a minority (and always have been---recall I played OD&D) and our message has few champions. Even folks as "old school" as James M. of Grognardia have (up until very recently) dumped heavily on AD&D. If that were not the case, and I was part of the huge 5e (or B/X) majority...I would keep silent. It is in my make-up to defend the weak and not to crush them, and I gravitate towards the fringes. My friends have always been a bit odd...not because I wasn't accepted by the mainstream, but because for some innate reason I am frequently put off by it. For example, I like how Prince defends Kent. To me, that is proper and good...even if I don't want to have the chap over to my house for dinner. Similarly, I found myself liking Prince---despite his coming from a culture of shit-posting and seeming like a marauding hooligan at first-blush.

I even enjoyed arguing for-profit vs. open-content with you Malrex, once upon a time. It was never personal (for me).

(and like your art)

Thank you! Quite often, I don't.

 

[squeen]

4e is tactical combat the game yeah?

From where I sit, it does look like something very different. I can't really critisize it because it sounds like a whole other kettle of fish, of which I remain largely ignorant. Apple and oranges. It sounds like video games were a heavily influenced...and those obvious have a mass appeal. I might even enjoy it for a bit, but I don't think it would (out-of-the-box) scratch the same itch as D&D for me.

 

[Osrnoob]

I think the WoW take is a bit of a meme. Board game is better way to put it. Look at Kingdom Death, Descent, Gloomhaven, Frosthaven and heck WoTCs own board games about that time.

 

[Beoric]

4e is tactical combat the game yeah?

The positioning rules are built largely on the same chassis as AD&D, except for a simplification that doesn't require you to track a character's facing. Same with charging, and fleeing without disengaging. They are very similar to 3e, but more streamlined with a lot fewer actions that create attacks of opportunity. The difference is that characters are able to learn maneuvers to take advantage of those rules. It takes 3e rules for things like tripping and bull rushing, and kicks it up a notch.

There are also fairly robust mechanics for the out of combat game, but they suffered from the designers and module writers (a) not understanding their own system, and (b) not being part of a gaming culture that would know what to do with them, and therefore (c) doing a crappy job of presenting them. I believe the presentation, and the stress on maintaining game balance, meant that old schoolers gave up on the edition before they had sufficient system mastery to see what you could do with it.

Like I have said before, I think 4e is well suited to domain play, and for handling weird corner case turns in the campaign, like if your players decide to open a tavern or start a merchant fleet.

4e mechanics are similar enough to early edition D&D that it is easy to import most of the elements of early gaming. Encumbrance is still there, wandering monster tables still work, hexcrawls work, domain play works. Combat is just as dangerous if you follow early edition aesthetics regarding monster placement, and GP = XP works really well for the first 10 levels, although I'm finding it requires some adjustment after that.

So I would say 4e is not a tactical combat game, but does include a tactical combat game. It is NOT a board game; that is like saying OD&D is a board game because of its similarity to Dungeon! It draws on some elements of card games, and to a lesser extent video games, but it is not either of those things, any more than D&D is literature because it drawn on Appendix N.

Seriously guys, at this point when I say I am playing 4e, does anybody really doubt that I am playing D&D? Like, if you read the sample of play in the 1e DMG, that could totally be a group of 4e players. It runs the same way, it's just that the combat side of the game is more nuanced.

 

[squeen]

Seriously guys, at this point when I say I am playing 4e, does anybody really doubt that I am playing D&D? Like, if you read the sample of play in the 1e DMG, that could totally be a group of 4e players. It runs the same way, it's just that the combat side of the game is more nuanced.

I took you at your word that you are playing a heavily modified version of 4e that incorporates more early edition elements, but that BtB 4e does not. (Also that you were using the 3e Eberon setting.)

 

[Malrex]

In this recent burst of thread activity (based on Byrce's example), I am trying to convey how the classic player got along without all the things that came later...and why it's just fine/better. You need to get into a certain headspace to enjoy/understand the appeal of anything. That headspace is not static for you whole life. Communicating your thinking about why you like something can potential help others understand its appeal to you, and maybe...just maybe...they will open up to it learn to like it too. If you really dig something, then that's pretty wonderful to see happen.

Yuck--I'm sorry you felt I was trying to cancel you. I hate that shit. I called it out because I was frustrated after our last bashing of heads of candy classes and your statement then made it sound like (to me) that you were in support of candy classes. That's where I was coming from.

I'm trying to tread carefully here, I have an annoying curiosity. Above, I explained why I enjoyed the guidelines of playing a kit like a gladiator or whatever (kinda funny, we actually have a gladiator playing in our group right now...he charges into battle yelling The Sandman cometh!).

@squeen --How would you play a gladiator in your game? I understand that one can act out or roleplay a gladiator...But is there other components/mechanics that you would also utilize? How would the gladiator stand out from a fighter in your game? And no wrong answers here, I'm just trying to understand.

 

[Malrex]

Seriously guys, at this point when I say I am playing 4e, does anybody really doubt that I am playing D&D? Like, if you read the sample of play in the 1e DMG, that could totally be a group of 4e players. It runs the same way, it's just that the combat side of the game is more nuanced.

I think no matter the edition, it's all D&D at its core in my opinion. I could see my DM maybe being interested in some of the combat stuff in 4e...he is a karate guy so likes combat to be realistic.

 

[The Heretic]

I think the WoW take is a bit of a meme. Board game is better way to put it. Look at Kingdom Death, Descent, Gloomhaven, Frosthaven and heck WoTCs own board games about that time.

Yes and no. The WoW take is accurate in that 4e explicitly incorporates the concepts of tank, controller, and healer into the game. Tanks have game mechanics to force opponents to target them over squishier, easier prey. "Marking" an opponent (which was always funny for my group since our tank was a wolf shifter) is something I think was introduced with 4e.

 

[squeen]

Yuck--I'm sorry you felt I was trying to cancel you. I hate that shit. I called it out because I was frustrated after our last bashing of heads of candy classes and your statement then made it sound like (to me) that you were in support of candy classes. That's where I was coming from.

I'm trying to tread carefully here, I have an annoying curiosity. Above, I explained why I enjoyed the guidelines of playing a kit like a gladiator or whatever (kinda funny, we actually have a gladiator playing in our group right now...he charges into battle yelling The Sandman cometh!).

@squeen --How would you play a gladiator in your game? I understand that one can act out or roleplay a gladiator...But is there other components/mechanics that you would also utilize? How would the gladiator stand out from a fighter in your game? And no wrong answers here, I'm just trying to understand.

It's cool. I'm just trying to establish the playing-field for all discussion that includes healthy disagreement. If you think back, I have often urged those who don't like what I'm saying to just dismiss it/me. I've said many times I am not an authority figure. You don't need my approval to play your game the way you like it. Disagreement doesn't need to escalate...or collapse into silence.

As for the gladiator: you are talking to the guy who rather delete the paladin-class and just have the knight/paladin/cavalier/barbarian be the fighter class with a bit of player panache thrown in. In the REAL WORLD, I don't see any difference between a trained gladiator and a high level fighter. They represent a high level of martial skill (or they die young!). I wouldn't give them any special skills---and that's my beef with paladins. Choose, you stinkin' a-hole! Be a knight=fighter or be a holy-crusader=cleric...and then ACT however you think is appropriate for the type of PC-image you want to project. Be good! Give away your treasure! etc. Why do you need paladin super-powers and an entitlement for a super-horse to act that way? I know why players like extra class super-powers...but I don't know why they are necessary to have fun playing the game. I don't. Not even as a player myself...once I got beyond the initial 12-year-old wish-fulfillment phase of the D&D of my youth (ranger, baby!), and started playing with a solid group with a good DM (magic-user, 1d4 hp, one-spell at 1st level, and a spell book that's so delicate it seems to spontaneously combust).

No insult directed at anyone---I am just being honest.

So if a player wanted to be more gladiator-like in my game --- he would have to go fight in an arena. (Duh!)

What I would do to facilitate that as a DM would be...

• put an arena in one of the towns, villages or cities.
• Map and key the location and NPCs in it.
• Figure out what he might have to do to get accepted to it. Is there a training school? Are you enslaved? etc.
• figure out how to have staged combat: what weapons, varying terrain, traps, poison?, etc
• figure out some interesting NPC drama for behind the scenes

If my player got accepted into gladiator school I might have them acquire a few special talents then, like additional weapon proficiency than the fighter standard slots (maybe at double the normal rate?). I might even start using those double-proficiency bonuses from OSRIC...but just for that one character that went into the world and sought out that reward by assuming some risk. Gaining special skills would be 100% equivalent to finding treasure. I would also decide on a nice little whip & net mechanic for the arena combat and beyond. There would probably be some XP awards for winning a round. Maybe it's a good way to shoot up a few of the lower levels. etc.

Most importantly, I would re-watch (Ridley Scott's) Gladiator, Spartacus and Ben Hur and then brain-storm some fun twists to throw at the players. Maybe the non-fighters in the party get to be the manager/promoter. Maybe there's some big prize to be won. Maybe a fight is fixed. Whatever!

Could be tons of fun...but also probably short lived (like six months or a year?) because it could get old or else we'd all have been playing Arenas & Lions for the past 30 years. It would be after all, just a single or set of adventure locations. My players would steer and decide whether they lingered, or decided to hit the road. In a good long-term campaign, the environment keeps changing.

BUT REMEMBER, HE'S STILL A STANDARD FIGHTER CLASS. (boo hiss?)

Point being: You are not a gladiator in a dungeon, any more than you are a knight in a dungeon. In a dungeon, you are an explorer and meat-shield...so you might want to get yourself some plate mail and a (magic) sword. Don't ya think?

Heck, if you can find one---get yourself a raygun too mo'fo!

To me, that's the OD&D way. -- which is only possible only when you make the world, as oppose to trying to buy it pre-stocked. --

 

[The Heretic]

As for the gladiator: you are talking to the guy who rather delete the paladin-class and just have the knight/paladin/cavalier/barbarian be the fighter class with a bit of player panache thrown in. In the REAL WORLD, I don't see any difference between a trained gladiator and a high level fighter. They represent a high level of martial skill (or they die young!). I wouldn't give then any special skills---and that's my beef with paladins.

Oh dear Gary, not this again! Well if you really must...

This is like going to McDonalds and ordering a chicken sandwich. I am given a hamburger. "But I wanted a chicken sandwich!" "Just act as if it is a chicken sandwich! They are just pieces of meat between some bread, it's all up to YOU to add the panache!".

 

[squeen]

Oh yeah. You may have noticed the fighter's back-story in all that action is NON-EXISTENT.

Write your character's story by playing it out. When you give yourself treasure, levels, and complex connections in the world imagined out of the aether at roll up....that's called CHEATING.

Also, please stop fudging your 3d6 rolls so you can get automatically get a paladin with super-powers to which you then over-identify.

Did I go too far?

 

[squeen]

Oh dear Gary, not this again! Well if you really must...

This is like going to McDonalds and ordering a chicken sandwich. I am given a hamburger. "But I wanted a chicken sandwich!" "Just act as if it is a chicken sandwich! They are just pieces of meat between some bread, it's all up to YOU to add the panache!".

Come on man. I gave a proper, detailed answer and not a hollow rant.

If you don't like the answer, stop asking me the same question.

 

[The Heretic]

Come on man. I gave you a proper, detailed answer and not a hollow rant.

If you don't like the answer, stop asking me the same question.

Lol. I didn't ask the question. Besides, I was just doing some good-natured, light hearted trolling.

I do like where this is going though.
Want to be a wizard! Tough! You are a fighter, just act the part. Everyone knows that magic isn't real anyway!
Want to be a cleric? Tough! You are a fighter, just act like you can cast healing spells and that you are important to a god. We all know gods aren't real anyway.
I kid! I kid! Yes you have an answer, it works for you, but also yes this is highly subjective and it's not an adequate answer for the rest of us.