For like I think the 40th time I have to agree with this
to your point of Sasha and Jim:
If Jim uses Wizard, and Sasha uses Psion, and they meet, they cannot train eachother. If Jim then goes out and meets Sue, annother Wizard, he can train her. Thus, because the mechanics are different, they are different in the world, and thus you need an in world reason why this is true. For those of us who actually like consistency in their settings, this IS a problem.Why can Jim and Sasha not learn from each other if they are both spirit binders?
More to the point, training is merely fluff. If Jim is training Sasha, she then gets to add whatever new ability the training grants using her class advancement. Jim does the same if they reverse the situation. What makes one training different than another?
you edited it :)
to your second point, wizards can learn from eachothers spell books and add new spells to their lists.
For like I think the 40th time I have to agree with this
to your point of Sasha and Jim:
If Jim uses Wizard, and Sasha uses Psion, and they meet, they cannot train eachother. If Jim then goes out and meets Sue, annother Wizard, he can train her. Thus, because the mechanics are different, they are different in the world, and thus you need an in world reason why this is true. For those of us who actually like consistency in their settings, this IS a problem.Why can Jim and Sasha not learn from each other if they are both spirit binders?
More to the point, training is merely fluff. If Jim is training Sasha, she then gets to add whatever new ability the training grants using her class advancement. Jim does the same if they reverse the situation. What makes one training different than another?
Your asking alot of your GM, a whole damned lot.Changing skills,Reworking all the psion powers into spells, dividing them by school and gods alone knows what else.
|
Only I'm not. I pick a psion power whose effect most closely matches the wizard spell I'm learning, and reskin the fluff to match the wizard spell. Some spells are harder than others, but 1d6 damage is 1d6 damage no matter what the fluff is. Same with flight, invisibility, etc. Of course if I'm trying to do this, I shouldn't be making the DM do all the work. I should be coming to him with the powers and such already picked out with the necessary edits for approval.
...Or just accept that wizards (small w) have enough variety that they can't teach each other ;p.
A simple "Your methods and mine are simply too different" works.
One thing I've been doing in my games is removing the idea of "the language of magic" that some settings have. Mages write int heir spellbook in their own language of choice. Finding a scroll doesn't mean you can write it in - you need to be able to READ it, first. If two Wizards (big w) that didn't share a language met, they couldn't teach one another.
Or lastly, they can teach each other, just not in direct magic power. Not everything needs to be tied with mechanics.
Which brings us back to a setting thing.It works on some settings and games and not in others, which is fine.
I kinda like what ya did there ProfessorCirno and did something simpler with common in my setting there is no common language, The people of Anzari speak anzr, the elves speak elvish, the barbarians of the cursed plains speak a their own , the dwarves have 2 languages, The gnolls speak another, people of the southern cost speak a native language and so on
I have found it really changes the feel and dynamic of the world to have no one size fits all language
Or do what I did and pretty much pretend Psionics as a system never existed.
This conversation highlights what cheesed me off about 3.5 Psionics... they should have called it "Alternative Point-Based Magic System" and then given us REAL Psionics.
But I digress.
Only I'm not. I pick a psion power whose effect most closely matches the wizard spell I'm learning, and reskin the fluff to match the wizard spell. Some spells are harder than others, but 1d6 damage is 1d6 damage no matter what the fluff is. Same with flight, invisibility, etc. Of course if I'm trying to do this, I shouldn't be making the DM do all the work. I should be coming to him with the powers and such already picked out with the necessary edits for approval.
Yes, and you can do this just fine, but you have left core. I have no problem with a player doing this (with GM consent), just like I have no problem with a GM letting a player take psionics and calling himself a wizard. What I do have a problem with is VV's assertion that its bad GMing to not allow it.
Ah, but you forget the cardinal rule of DMing. Nothing should be taken away from the players control unless it adds a great deal to the game's experience.
Some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world. It adds to the immersiveness which, for some, is preferable to free reign in character creation.
Some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world.
False dilemma. You're suggesting that the choice is either "Nothing should be taken from the player's control unless it adds a great deal to the game's experience" OR "a structured campaign world". That's quite incorrect.
Some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world.False dilemma. You're suggesting that the choice is either "Nothing should be taken from the player's control unless it adds a great deal to the game's experience" OR "a structured campaign world". That's quite incorrect.
Zurai, I would really like to see someone actually pull that off and not get Generic World 101. I don't doubt it can be done, I just have never seen it, with the possible exception being Planescape, which is so random it can lead to a very dissruptive feel, and can't tell a lot of stories.
Free reign can actually hamper player creativity. This is especially true if the player wants to try to do something unique, but doesn't know how the world will support him. While giving them rules they must follow can produce some very interesting results, as people learn to bend the world to their advantage.
An example with SoS's world. I can brainwash a kid, summon a demon, and get them to bond with eachother. I now have a sorcerer. I can do this consistently. In a free reign world: A. I don't know if that will actually work, B. I don't have as much control over the results, C. I am less likely to think of it as a player (just going by the way my brain works, not saying this is true for everyone.)
Some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world.False dilemma. You're suggesting that the choice is either "Nothing should be taken from the player's control unless it adds a great deal to the game's experience" OR "a structured campaign world". That's quite incorrect.
You love putting words in people's mouths.
I think that imposing some limitations on player choice can be beneficial if the intent is to develop a structured, living, breathing campaign world.
Can a structured campaign world be created with no limitations on character creation? I suppose.
Can limitations help further define the world? Yes they certainly can and do in many campaign settings.
You love putting words in people's mouths.Some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world.False dilemma. You're suggesting that the choice is either "Nothing should be taken from the player's control unless it adds a great deal to the game's experience" OR "a structured campaign world". That's quite incorrect.
I didn't put any words into your mouth. You said them just fine without any help from me. Kyrt stated that DMs shouldn't restrict player choice except in the case where it's a very significant benefit to the campaign as a whole. You stated that "some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world". The "however" explicitly defines a separate case; in other words, by saying "some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world", you are saying that it is not possible to create a structured campaign world without doing what kyrt said shouldn't happen. That's what "however" means.
I didn't put any words into your mouth. You said them just fine without any help from me. Kyrt stated that DMs shouldn't restrict player choice except in the case where it's a very significant benefit to the campaign as a whole. You stated that "some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world". The "however" explicitly defines a separate case; in other words, by saying "some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world", you are saying that it is not possible to create a structured campaign world without doing what kyrt said shouldn't happen. That's what "however" means.You love putting words in people's mouths.Some players, however, appreciate a structured campaign world.False dilemma. You're suggesting that the choice is either "Nothing should be taken from the player's control unless it adds a great deal to the game's experience" OR "a structured campaign world". That's quite incorrect.
Although I agree that it is POSSIBLE that you can have a structured campaign world without, except on rare occasions, taking nothing from the players' control, I believe it's the exception rather than the rule.
Alright, let's approach this from a different angle, then.
Loopy, please define "structured campaign world" for me. Be as complete as you can, for the sake of discussion.
Alright, let's approach this from a different angle, then.
Loopy, please define "structured campaign world" for me. Be as complete as you can, for the sake of discussion.
Yeah, I was about to suggest the same thing. I think the two of us have completely different viewpoints on what "Structured Campaign World" means. By definition, to me, a Structured Campaign World would HAVE to include limitations on class, race, and society selection.
Someone else might consider the "Structure" in Structured Campaign World on more of a moving-target basis. Possibly even to be as flexible as being defined by the player choices themselves.
Ah, but you forget the cardinal rule of DMing. Nothing should be taken away from the players control unless it adds a great deal to the game's experience.
The cardinal rule is Of GMing is not to never take away options. As doing so makes some game settings and styles near unplayable.
The Cardinal rule is ensure your players are having a good time and that your game runes smoothly. If one player is being disruptive by refusing to not play the same game the rest of the group is playing then you need to ask him to stop being childish or ask him to leave.
Also it'll prob be mid next week before I send the mail man, My typing is so slow, and as I don't want to send 40 pages or so, I am just creating a base primer
[ By definition, to me, a Structured Campaign World would HAVE to include limitations on class, race, and society selection.
This is how I see it as well, a structured game would have some set limitations. Some stuff you could not do, or could not play maybe. Regardless of just what they are to me it implies a fixed, set framwork that can not be changed without violating the flavor and mood of the setting
I think we have different views on what constitutes as disruptive.
Imagine if you will the following scenario. A character is making a druid, and you start telling them about the Enchanted Forests of Whatever. The player then protests, saying "I don't want to make yet another boring long beared forest hippy. I wanted to make more of a jungle islander, something like a pacific island shaman type."
You now have three options.
1) "Oh, ok. Cool."
2) "Well, I dunno if that'll work. Let's talk about it."
3) "No. Forest druid, or get the hell out of my game."
The issue I think several people have with your bard thing, is that you're saying number 3. You aren't even trying to work with your players - you're saying "No, you're a skald, or you can just get the hell out of my game. I don't want you."
Furthermore, a pacific islander druid really isn't disruptive. It's interesting. Fantasy is built off of conflict - a conflict between good and evil, or a conflict between cultures, or even a conflict - though hopefully a light one - between players. If you want to make a fluff and RP driven game, I think it's far more interesting to have a character who doesn't seem to belong. Partially because it can create interesting conflict with the world, and partially because, hey, now you have an excuse to describe everything.
Now, if the player wanted to make a half-drow half-bugbear bard with perform (flatulence), then yes, that's disruptive. But if the player actually has a cool idea for a character, I think it's far more disruptive for you to tell them "No. Get the hell out."
"I don't want to make yet another boring long beared forest hippy. I wanted to make more of a jungle islander, something like a pacific island shaman type."
You now have three options.
DM: "Among the frozen plains of Arenaucht, deep within it's vast forrests, lies the source of all druidic magic, the Feygate. Shadows loom in these lands, and the location of the Feygate has been lost to time..."
P1: "Wait! I kinda wanted to play a kahuna-style islander druid, decicated to Ka'analoa, God of the sea, mysteries, and magic."
DM: "You knew this was a arctic Frostfell-type adventure, right?"
P1: "Yeah, we discussed that."
DM: "And you knew that druids here have a very Inuit bend with some Irish mythology thrown in, right?"
P1: "Um, yeah..."
DM: "Could you please reconsider?"Is there a problem with the DM or his campaign here, or is it the player who needs to adjust?
I think Mirror Mirror about summed up my response.
"I don't want to make yet another boring long beared forest hippy. I wanted to make more of a jungle islander, something like a pacific island shaman type."
You now have three options.
DM: "Among the frozen plains of Arenaucht, deep within it's vast forrests, lies the source of all druidic magic, the Feygate. Shadows loom in these lands, and the location of the Feygate has been lost to time..."
P1: "Wait! I kinda wanted to play a kahuna-style islander druid, decicated to Ka'analoa, God of the sea, mysteries, and magic."
DM: "You knew this was a arctic Frostfell-type adventure, right?"
P1: "Yeah, we discussed that."
DM: "And you knew that druids here have a very Inuit bend with some Irish mythology thrown in, right?"
P1: "Um, yeah..."
DM: "Could you please reconsider?"Is there a problem with the DM or his campaign here, or is it the player who needs to adjust?
Both. The player in your example is obviously being a donkey.
The DM, however, is unreasonably restricting player options. Why not allow a player to make a druid based on Aleut or Tlingit peoples rather than only Inuit?
"I don't want to make yet another boring long beared forest hippy. I wanted to make more of a jungle islander, something like a pacific island shaman type."
You now have three options.
DM: "Among the frozen plains of Arenaucht, deep within it's vast forrests, lies the source of all druidic magic, the Feygate. Shadows loom in these lands, and the location of the Feygate has been lost to time..."
P1: "Wait! I kinda wanted to play a kahuna-style islander druid, decicated to Ka'analoa, God of the sea, mysteries, and magic."
DM: "You knew this was a arctic Frostfell-type adventure, right?"
P1: "Yeah, we discussed that."
DM: "And you knew that druids here have a very Inuit bend with some Irish mythology thrown in, right?"
P1: "Um, yeah..."
DM: "Could you please reconsider?"Is there a problem with the DM or his campaign here, or is it the player who needs to adjust?
Both. The player in your example is obviously being a donkey.
The DM, however, is unreasonably restricting player options. Why not allow a player to make a druid based on Aleut or Tlingit peoples rather than only Inuit?
He may, but the existence of an islander druid in an Irish game world will be disruptive. His very presense will drive plot, as he has differebt values and beliefs as the people arround him. You can either use this to drive the game, or not allow it because it WILL drastically change the game.
Edit: the point is that not allowing it is not bad form on the GMs part.
"I don't want to make yet another boring long beared forest hippy. I wanted to make more of a jungle islander, something like a pacific island shaman type."
You now have three options.
DM: "Among the frozen plains of Arenaucht, deep within it's vast forrests, lies the source of all druidic magic, the Feygate. Shadows loom in these lands, and the location of the Feygate has been lost to time..."
P1: "Wait! I kinda wanted to play a kahuna-style islander druid, decicated to Ka'analoa, God of the sea, mysteries, and magic."
DM: "You knew this was a arctic Frostfell-type adventure, right?"
P1: "Yeah, we discussed that."
DM: "And you knew that druids here have a very Inuit bend with some Irish mythology thrown in, right?"
P1: "Um, yeah..."
DM: "Could you please reconsider?"Is there a problem with the DM or his campaign here, or is it the player who needs to adjust?
Both player and DM are derpin'. And your post doesn't apply, like, at all.
You are, basically, making a strawman. And since people seem to dislike just listing fallacies, let's look at what you did. My example was simple: a player doesn't want to be Celtic McBeardforest. He wanted a different take on "Nature Dude: the Class." You made a very specific example in which this would be wrong, despite that one very specific example not being the core or broad assumption, or even being very reasonable. In other words, you created your own example specifically because it would be easy for you to disprove. That is precisely what the strawman argument is. I would appreciate it if you stuck to logical discourse, please.
A frostfell-type adventure is VERY specific. Most adventures aren't located in just one biosphere - you go to snowy mountains, tropical islands, deep caves in the Underwhatever, abandoned ruins, metropolitan cities, etc, etc.
Sure, if your adventure is extremely self contained, then limits apply. But if you plan on your adventurers going anywhere outside of that one specific area, the justification for those limitations falls apart. And even then, that one specific area can often have a large amount of variation in characters. Let's say the game takes place entirely in a city. Suddenly, it makes perfect sense for the players to come from different regions, despite the game being entirely located in one specific area.
In other words, limitations apply only how you WANT them to. Incidentally, they're only as "disruptive" as you want them to be.
Edit: the point is that not allowing it is not bad form on the GMs part.
No one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- is arguing that it is bad form to disallow disruptive characters or character concepts. That's just what people try to twist what we're saying into, for example by taking a general post like ProfessorCirno's, applying it to an incredibly specific campaign, and acting like it has any relevance.
He may, but the existence of an islander druid in an Irish game world will be disruptive. His very presense will drive plot, as he has differebt values and beliefs as the people arround him. You can either use this to drive the game, or not allow it because it WILL drastically change the game.
Edit: the point is that not allowing it is not bad form on the GMs part.
What you see here as being "disruptive" I see as being "cool, exciting, and not incredibly boring."
Let me tell you two stories.
In the first story, everyone got along perfectly well and there was never any conflict. Some evil guys showed up, but everyone was already perfectly allied with each other and fought them. The end.
In the second story, despite a difference of beliefs and values, a group of people banded together around what they had in common and fought against an evil that was encroaching on them. As they did so, both the outsider and the group of druids learned from one another, broadening both of their experiences. The end.
Personally? I'll take that second story every time. Gimli and Legolas' relationship was interesting because they were different and had such stark disagreements, and yet came to trust and rely on each other anyways. Conflict drives characterization.
Of the three choices I listed above, I like #2 the most. "Well, that does conflict a bit with stuff in game, but I'll let you do it so long as you know that you'll get some weird looks and people will treat you different." It's more interesting then "Ok, whatever." It's less jerk-ish then "Get the hell out of my game."
The best DMs don't just blankly say yes, nor do they blankly say no. They say "Yes, but..."
Edit: the point is that not allowing it is not bad form on the GMs part.No one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- is arguing that it is bad form to disallow disruptive characters or character concepts. That's just what people try to twist what we're saying into, for example by taking a general post like ProfessorCirno's, applying it to an incredibly specific campaign, and acting like it has any relevance.
And what we are saying is that if you design a campaign with specifics, not letting players play alternat ideas is not a BAD thing, as many people accussed SoS of doing. No one is saying to not allow a character arbitrarily, they are saying don't allow characters that will break the integrity of the game or story.
And what we are saying is that if you design a campaign with specifics, not letting players play alternat ideas is not a BAD thing, as many people accussed SoS of doing. No one is saying to not allow a character arbitrarily, they are saying don't allow characters that will break the integrity of the game or story.
And yet you yourself said that my proposed alternatives to MM's "Irish Inuits only" wouldn't break the integrity of the game or story.
And what we are saying is that if you design a campaign with specifics, not letting players play alternat ideas is not a BAD thing, as many people accussed SoS of doing. No one is saying to not allow a character arbitrarily, they are saying don't allow characters that will break the integrity of the game or story.Edit: the point is that not allowing it is not bad form on the GMs part.No one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- is arguing that it is bad form to disallow disruptive characters or character concepts. That's just what people try to twist what we're saying into, for example by taking a general post like ProfessorCirno's, applying it to an incredibly specific campaign, and acting like it has any relevance.
Except SoS wasn't making a game that specific.
He was saying "No, ALL bards, in the entire setting, are skalds, period. There are no outsiders. There are no people who branch off and do something different. There are no other options."
That's disruptive as hell.
I'm all for specific games. I was in one game where all the characters had to be both kobolds and start in an NPC class. It was freaking awesome. But, thing is, that was a specific game. We were told in advance "You're all kobolds from the same tribe, and you aren't adventurers by trade, so kobolds and NPC classes only, and you know each other." That's way specific.
Far less specific is "You can be a bard, but only if you're tied to this one very specific culture. And nothing else. Ever."
He may, but the existence of an islander druid in an Irish game world will be disruptive. His very presense will drive plot, as he has differebt values and beliefs as the people arround him. You can either use this to drive the game, or not allow it because it WILL drastically change the game.
Edit: the point is that not allowing it is not bad form on the GMs part.
What you see here as being "disruptive" I see as being "cool, exciting, and not incredibly boring."
Let me tell you two stories.
In the first story, everyone got along perfectly well and there was never any conflict. Some evil guys showed up, but everyone was already perfectly allied with each other and fought them. The end.
In the second story, despite a difference of beliefs and values, a group of people banded together around what they had in common and fought against an evil that was encroaching on them. As they did so, both the outsider and the group of druids learned from one another, broadening both of their experiences. The end.
Personally? I'll take that second story every time. Gimli and Legolas' relationship was interesting because they were different and had such stark disagreements, and yet came to trust and rely on each other anyways. Conflict drives characterization.
Of the three choices I listed above, I like #2 the most. "Well, that does conflict a bit with stuff in game, but I'll let you do it so long as you know that you'll get some weird looks and people will treat you different." It's more interesting then "Ok, whatever." It's less jerk-ish then "Get the hell out of my game."
The best DMs don't just blankly say yes, nor do they blankly say no. They say "Yes, but..."
Yes, and your example of what you like is what I mean by using it to drive the game. That conflict will be a major one. The DM, by default, does not HAVE to allow it. I agree, it can make for a very ineteresting game, and would likewise enjoy that character much more than a normal one who has no conflict in the story. At the same time, you can run into the "if everyone is special, no one is" problem. As a DM, you need to keep it under control. There are many solutions.
And what we are saying is that if you design a campaign with specifics, not letting players play alternat ideas is not a BAD thing, as many people accussed SoS of doing. No one is saying to not allow a character arbitrarily, they are saying don't allow characters that will break the integrity of the game or story.Edit: the point is that not allowing it is not bad form on the GMs part.No one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- is arguing that it is bad form to disallow disruptive characters or character concepts. That's just what people try to twist what we're saying into, for example by taking a general post like ProfessorCirno's, applying it to an incredibly specific campaign, and acting like it has any relevance.Except SoS wasn't making a game that specific.
He was saying "No, ALL bards, in the entire setting, are skalds, period. There are no outsiders. There are no people who branch off and do something different. There are no other options."
That's disruptive as hell.
I'm all for specific games. I was in one game where all the characters had to be both kobolds and start in an NPC class. It was freaking awesome. But, thing is, that was a specific game. We were told in advance "You're all kobolds from the same tribe, and you aren't adventurers by trade, so kobolds and NPC classes only, and you know each other." That's way specific.
Far less specific is "You can be a bard, but only if you're tied to this one very specific culture. And nothing else. Ever."
How is it any different say "To learn this power you must be trained. This is the only group in the campaign world who trains in this, with the exception of a small handful of others who are hard to find" from MMs forest example, where Druids draw their power from 1 source? That is a common enough theme in fantasy.
Also, SoS did not say ALL bards were Scalds, just that most were. The others were called "Witches" by the common folk, and are not inately trusted because they are not what is commonly known. Scalds have distinct characteristics that a witch would lack.
And since we don't know how big SoS's campaign world is, its quite possible that there are other organizations outside his defined area that the players wont get to or be from. If I tell you I am running a Norse style game, I don't have to let you play an Egyptian, or even a Roman.
First of all, I've got to hand it to you guys. I spend the day sleeping and helping my uncle move and you've all way advanced the discussion and left me in the dust xD
I have to say, I love waking up and seeing the unread posts in this thread in to 50-70 range. Hell, yesterday it was at 30 between me leaving work and coming home.
How is it any different say "To learn this power you must be trained. This is the only group in the campaign world who trains in this, with the exception of a small handful of others who are hard to find" from MMs forest example, where Druids draw their power from 1 source? That is a common enough theme in fantasy.
Also, SoS did not say ALL bards were Scalds, just that most were. The others were called...
Um, no. SoS made it very clear that bards HAD to be skalds. There were no non-skald bards.
To put it another way, imagine if, in order to be a fighter, you had to belong to one specific noble house, and only that house. If you wanted to be a fighter and not belong to that noble house? Pick a different class, or leave the game.
I think most people would immidiately go "Wow, that's...really retarded."
I don't see why it's ok to do it with a different class.
I think we have different views on what constitutes as disruptive.
Imagine if you will the following scenario. A character is making a druid, and you start telling them about the Enchanted Forests of Whatever. The player then protests, saying "I don't want to make yet another boring long beared forest hippy. I wanted to make more of a jungle islander, something like a pacific island shaman type."
You now have three options.
1) "Oh, ok. Cool."
2) "Well, I dunno if that'll work. Let's talk about it."
3) "No. Forest druid, or get the hell out of my game."
Of course, it's going to have to be #3, because trolls can't roll druids. You're stuck with tauren, or you're going to have to roll troll shaman or something.
Wait, what are we talking about?
I hate the race/class restrictions in WoW. I'm glad the new expansion is giving everybody a little common-sense love.
Gnome Priest! GLEEEEE!!!!!!
How is it any different say "To learn this power you must be trained. This is the only group in the campaign world who trains in this, with the exception of a small handful of others who are hard to find" from MMs forest example, where Druids draw their power from 1 source? That is a common enough theme in fantasy.
Also, SoS did not say ALL bards were Scalds, just that most were. The others were called...
Um, no. SoS made it very clear that bards HAD to be skalds. There were no non-skald bards.
To put it another way, imagine if, in order to be a fighter, you had to belong to one specific noble house, and only that house. If you wanted to be a fighter and not belong to that noble house? Pick a different class, or leave the game.
I think most people would immidiately go "Wow, that's...really retarded."
I don't see why it's ok to do it with a different class.
Apples and oranges. You chose the most baseline class to compare it to. The Fighter is just... the Fighter. Pick up a sword. Swing it. Now, I wouldn't complain if the DM required that I recieve training for some feats such as weapon specialization or improved 2-weapon fighting. I could see those requiring special training.
I guess to put it more plainly, I'd see Fighter:Paladin Sorcerer:Wizard. I don't really see very many DMs requiring special training for Fighters or Sorcerers as their abilities might be more naturally described as being innate or developing through experience.
I'm not saying it has to be like this, of course. It's just one way of looking at it. In my campaign, many sorcerers develop their spellcasting through VERY extensive training... it's not just THERE. They're usually the people that wash out of the Wizarding tradition.
Except SoS wasn't making a game that specific.
He was saying "No, ALL bards, in the entire setting, are skalds, period. There are no outsiders. There are no people who branch off and do something different. There are no other options."
Again folks do not seem to listen, If you want to be a caster class you must learn. There is no exceptions. I have stated time and again the Skald is the bard tradition, if you learn outside this tradition your called a witch. It's rare but not unknown. I did leave a way to not be a skald, even if 99% of all bards are skalds. All skalds are bards, not every bard must be a skald, But it's your choice skald or witch. Skalds are well known respected, trusted and welcome anywhere. Non skald "bards" not so much. VV's original issue was it had to be a Skald or a "witch" not that there was no choice, but that the option was not open to every concept under the sun
This is no more disruptive then , sorry you can't be a paladin in darksun, or sorry your paladin must be LG and follow a god. It is a setting feature not a bug
Heh, that whole cardinal rule thing was pretty much just a joke quote on VV, though I do feel that's something you should keep in mind I don't see it as quite the straight jacket my words made it out to be.
OK, then sorry I got your words and hers mixed up then
SOSL, that's a draconic restriction. It outlaws any original styles, innate abilities, or self-taught characters. It's a draconic restriction that outlaws a bunch of perfectly good character concepts for no good reason, and you keep comparing it to games that outlaw character concepts for good reasons.
Same reason, how magic functions. In Darksun you must be a defiler or a perseverer. You could not play any other type of caster
In my world magic can not just be tapped into, you can't wake up one day and go gee look I can use magic missile. Without outside help there is no way for any mortal creature to have magical ablitys. This extends past the player races and touched every being on the world.
If something has supernatural powers, its a creater of the Great beyond, other realm, a fey or a thrall to something from else where
It's not a random rule, but a very real and important part in how the world works.
In Darksun you must be a defiler or a perseverer. You could not play any other type of caster
False. There were other types, although they were exceptionally rare compared to defilers.
You know Seeker, I just noticed something that you may or may not have noticed yourself.
You say that 'witches' are defined as being non-skald bards by the populace.
That doesn't necessarily translate into an actual 'witch' character concept.
Just like there were many things during colonial times that were considerred witchcraft, so too is a practitioner of bardic music outside the Skald tradition considerred a witch.
In other words, there's an open door there to fit under "A WITCH BURN HIM" Without being witchy in any way.
Really witch is a catch all phase, like the skald, bards make up almost all witches, however I left it vague to slip in other magical traditions if it was really wanted and the player did the background work.
For example if a player wanted to play a witch from the APG, I would allow it, under the name witch, it could be a long line of traditions from some remote village where they made pacts with fey animals or something.The same with a psion it would be a "witch " and if a player really wanted to play it he would have to do the work, make it fit the setting, make the "witch" tradition
Witches can be loved in one village and reviled in the next. They are seen as backward, primitive and throwbacks to a forgotten age in the more civilized area's and over time they have become rare and pretty much only exist in the outer frontiers or boarder lands. Having been gobbled up or exiled by the more prominent traditions
Hope that clears it up a bit.