It is unrealistic to require characters to qualify for a character class: many people are very bad at what they do. Certainly, nobody asked us if were qualified to design this game.
Terrific quote. So true, and I never thought of it that way.
It's a strangely insightful quote, but then I find EC to be a strangely insightful game.
Awesome, especially since being characters themselves makes Hank and Jim uniquely qualified to speak to this issue!
I agree with it on some level, but I disagree with it on another level. I mean, if you were playing star wars, and you were a Jedi, one would expect you to be reasonably capable of using the Force. And 3e's prestige class system sort of makes sense if you think of it less as joining a particular order, and more honing one's particular abilities toward a specific goal.
I agree with the senitment. One should have the freedom to choose to be rubbish at their class, either through mechanics, or even a little ineptitude played out at the table.Trying to shoot this through my old-school prism, I can see how being poor in class skill can be overcome through skilled play. A fighter with a STR of 5 can survive if the player uses their wits to their advantage.As games have become more complex and complete in regard to the rules, mechanical weaknesses are magnified.
As games have become more complex and complete in regard to the rules, mechanical weaknesses are magnified.That's the crux of it, I think. What I love about simpler games is that they're actually much more amenable to unconventional characters, because their mechanical elements are far less punishing. A fighter with a Strength of 5 in OD&D does suffer a -20% XP penalty to his advancement, but he otherwise is no worse than most other members of his class.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.