Oxnard Kettlebeak wrote: @Dr Kekyll-- it can be however you want it to be, I meant mostly just a description of the "type" not necessarily a specific class, but however you interpret that is fine Cool cool. Yeah, I see the Order as composed of both mounted knights and holy men while the Shadowkeepers are sneaky arcane casters.
Yikes... I feel for you, Evilserran. Nevermind I reread and you have tried. Sorry that's happening.
I suppose I'm still unclear on what being a munchkin has to do with one's ability to role play... which is what I was getting at. Like... you can be a munchkin and also want all of those powerful options to fit into a flavorful background that can't be achieved by the rules' default setting but is absolutely conceptually cohesive. As Derklord said, tying things to flavor isn't balancing. A GM should be free to tie things to flavor and lore, but, ideally, the game is balanced from a setting neutral perspective.
Hugo Rune wrote: If flavour is ignored in favour of mechanical superiority then the game is reduced to a fairly clunky squad based war game and ultimately just a bunch of people sat round a table seeing who can roll the highest number on a dice. The roleplay element is lost. This reeks of that weird belief that system mastery and role playing are on a sliding scale and people with mechanically sound characters must have sacrificed role playing ability. Fortunately that's nonsense, and anything can be reflavored. If a GM has an idea about the setting and doesn't want things to be reflavored, that's his/her prerogative. I don't have a problem with sticking to the given flavor, but doing so isn't superior to not doing so, and quality of roleplaying isn't affected. |