Dragon 413Scourges of Lolth
by Erik Scott de Bie
The word of Lolth is law to the drow, and she speaks through her priestesses. Female drow scheme, betray, and murder their way to power, and the most certain route is through service to the Spider Queen. All are expected to honor Lolth, but only those priestesses who publicly gain her favor can rise above their political rivals. This article details two character themes you can use when playing a member of Lolth’s clergy.
Talk about this article here.
Seriously, I like drow to a frankly unhealthy degree, but making a theme require a specific race, sex and power source is ridiculous. At least get rid of the "divine class" requirement. If themes like Ordained Priest and Sohei don't require you to be a member of a divine class, why should these themes require it? Your class is not your job/position in society. That's what your theme is supposed to be for. If your theme says you're a priestess of Lolth, then you're a frikkin' priestess of Lolth, regardless of whether your class is cleric or warlord. Your ability to call on Lolth's favour to use divine magic is already included in the theme itself, so it's not like you can create a 'priestess' with no divine abilities at all (which would be bizarre*).
Conversely, if we're seriously taking the position that only a character whose class has the default fluff of being a member of an established religious organisation should be able to take these themes, then really only clerics and paladins should qualify. Runepriests, avengers, and especially invokers are (by default class fluff) supposed to be the sorts of dangerous heretics that properly ordained priestess of Lolth would be quick to stamp out. So even that argument for keeping the class power source restriction doesn't stand up.
* Ironically, even with the current prerequisites, you could theoretically multiclass into a divine class at level 1 to qualify for these themes, while still having no more divine powers than a fully non-divine character anyway.
TLDR version: Pointless prerequisites are pointless. "Must be a female drow" is quite restrictive enough for these themes.
But yeah, I agree with above poster. Themes are supposed to be general, yet this is about as niche as you can get in terms or pre-requisites. Add to the fact that drow priestesses are usually evil.
Out of curiosity, does Lolth have a channel divinity feat even?
Yes. 'Lolth's Cruel Sacrifice' in tBoVD. 'Spider Charmer' and 'Drow Ecclesiastic' (both from Dragon) are CD feat/powers that don't technically require you to worship Lolth, but are clearly intended for people who want to play Lolthian priestesses. Lolth has more PC support than some good/unaligned deities, rather bizarrely.
Your class is not your job/position in society. That's what your theme is supposed to be for. If your theme says you're a priestess of Lolth, then you're a frikkin' priestess of Lolth, regardless of whether your class is cleric or warlord. Your ability to call on Lolth's favour to use divine magic is already included in the theme itself, so it's not like you can create a 'priestess' with no divine abilities at all (which would be bizarre*).
The question of prerequisites is a difficult one, because ideally, you as a player would only take themes that really fit with your character, and your DM would stop you from taking something ridiculous (like a male dwarf fighter who has one of these themes). I myself prefer to err on the side of trusting the players and especially the DM.
But there's also a certain flavor value to having feats, abilities, themes, etc., be restricted to specific kinds of characters. It's easy to hand-waive prereqs away if you want to--as it is, they are meant to serve as a guide for players who might not be as familiar with the drow to immerse themselves in a closer-to-canonical experience.
That said, I am extremely sympathetic (and have discussed AT LENGTH BEFORE) about avoiding design that overloads 4e D&D stuff with prerequisites. Why? Because a lot of 4e players rely on the character builder, which is sketchy about allowing you to take things you don't qualify for. Sure, it's not that hard to print out the theme from the article and carry it around with you, but there's something nice about being able to imbed it in your character. For folks who are going to house-rule it to come up with some cool combination that I didn't foresee (or even ones that I did), there's a little extra paperwork involved. Sorry. That's the trade-off for the flavor benefits I mentioned earlier.
Conversely, if we're seriously taking the position that only a character whose class has the default fluff of being a member of an established religious organisation should be able to take these themes, then really only clerics and paladins should qualify. Runepriests, avengers, and especially invokers are (by default class fluff) supposed to be the sorts of dangerous heretics that properly ordained priestess of Lolth would be quick to stamp out. So even that argument for keeping the class power source restriction doesn't stand up.
I don't think we're taking that position seriously. There's no reason that clerics of Lolth have to have the same powers or express their faith in the same way. Clerics are by far the most COMMON worshippers of Lolth, just like they're the most common divine class used in the game. I myself have played a Lolth-worshipping avenger (obsessed, harsh, punishers of the gods--my character was actually the inspiration for the Widow theme), and while I doubt Lolth has much use for runepriests (with their weird, almost dwarven-like magic) or invokers (who pay homage to all the gods, not just greedy Lolth), I'm sure they could happen, and they're totally available if you want to use them in conjunction with either of these themes. An invoker Widow of Arach-Tinilith is kinda like a wizard with a familiar.
There is a long, rich lore base of drow religion as regards Lolth in the Forgotten Realms (which is the subject of my article). In this, non-drow and/or males are basically anathema to priesthood, and drow priestesses consider their existence a severe insult to their faith, their society, and them personally. Sure, there can be exceptions (like I said before, house-rule it), but if anything is going to be race/gender restricted, it's going to be a Drow House Priestess and a Widow of Arach-Tinilith. (Seriously. It's printed there in the names of the themes.)
And not to worry, there should be a male drow themes article somewhere in the works.
In the interest of full disclosure, my initial draft didn't have such strict prereqs (though female drow was still a prereq). I initially submitted "Trained in Religion" as the prereq, and even included a few sentences about building a "wizard priestess" or "war priestess." Through development, it ended up being a little heftier. The Development Team isn't wrong: any drow who takes one of these themes SHOULD be somewhat divinely powered. This is because while the Widow is specifically a very priestly-minded theme, canonically a House Priestess could belong to any class. Drow fiction is replete with "House Priestesses" who are more wizard or warrior than priest, but they all have in common some degree of priestly training. Which is where the little backdoor comes in:
* Ironically, even with the current prerequisites, you could theoretically multiclass into a divine class at level 1 to qualify for these themes, while still having no more divine powers than a fully non-divine character anyway.
I wouldn't say ironic, seeing as leaving that backdoor was my INTENTION. As I said, there are plenty of House Priestesses out there who have very little divine talent or affinity with Lolth, but all of them have at least that basic core of training. A wizard drow priestess or a psion drow priestess or a fighter drow priestess are all characters we're seen in fiction. By all means, build a female drow of some wild class, pick up Initiate of the Faith, and you're good to go.
If the prereq is bugging you, I suggest dropping it to "Training in Religion," or waiving it altogether.
Thank you for at least checking out the article, and I hope you derive some use from it.
Cheers
But I still think the idea of introducing an extra mechanical restriction in the name of gaining some undefined "flavour benefit" is completely wrong-headed. As far as I can see, I don't actually get any benefit at all from having to do the "extra paperwork" you mention. It's just "extra paperwork". If individuals want to add extra mechanical restrictions to things, that's up to them, but it's comparatively awkward to remove restrictions when (as you acknowledged) many of us use the DDI character builder. What "flavour benefit" am I getting from having to spend my multiclass on Initiate of the Faith rather than something else like Spiked Chain Training? And when did it become unacceptable to describe your character as being some sort of priest without actually being a member of a divine class?
But there's also a certain flavor value to having feats, abilities, themes, etc., be restricted to specific kinds of characters. It's easy to hand-waive prereqs away if you want to--as it is, they are meant to serve as a guide for players who might not be as familiar with the drow to immerse themselves in a closer-to-canonical experience.
That said, I am extremely sympathetic (and have discussed AT LENGTH BEFORE) about avoiding design that overloads 4e D&D stuff with prerequisites. Why? Because a lot of 4e players rely on the character builder, which is sketchy about allowing you to take things you don't qualify for. Sure, it's not that hard to print out the theme from the article and carry it around with you, but there's something nice about being able to imbed it in your character. For folks who are going to house-rule it to come up with some cool combination that I didn't foresee (or even ones that I did), there's a little extra paperwork involved. Sorry. That's the trade-off for the flavor benefits I mentioned earlier.
All well and good, except that 4E was the edition that divorced fluff from mechanics, and embraced the idea of refluffing to make EXACTLY the character you wanted to play.
For example, if I want to play a character for whom pain increases their focus and for whom every injury makes them a deadlier opponent, I would use the Blodsworn theme. There is nothing, mechinically, in the Theme that forces me to choose a favored enemy. I would use the Theme for the sole purpose that I like the mechanics.
Were it not for the unneccesary prerequisites, I could do the same here. All of the abilities are generic enough that they could apply to a broad base of character concepts. And, what, exactly, are the flavor benefits for which we are paying? If the campaign is not actually taking place in a Drow city, aren't the flavor benefits of the House Priestess Theme exactly nil and none?
The greatest strength of 4E is that we are so free to create our characters. I can take my inspiration from many sources, pull together the mechanics and fluff that I like, and create a character that is truly my own. If I want to be a Widow of Arach Tinilith, I can pull all the fluff from your Theme, and then apply it to the Animal Master Theme, or I can use the fluff from the Bloodsworn Theme and apply the mechanics of House Priestess (which, fit very well together, I might add).
If you want to argue for your limitations, you are free to keep them, just don't expect anyone else to actually want the same limitations.
Edit: Just to be clear. We aren't just picking on you. There have been a bunch of themes that have been overly limited, and you have only written some of them. There is no good reason why Neverwinter Noble or Pack Outcast NEEDS to be Human only. In fact, the fluff suggests otherwise, while the mechanics enforce the limitations. Instead of enabling our imaginations with otherwise great ideas, pointless prerequisites only serve to shackle our minds and prevent us from exercising our creativity. Food for thought for the next Themes you decide to write.
A few statements:
1) 4e may have initially "divorced fluff from mechanics," but it's clear that the evolution of the game is headed toward a place where fluff/flavor is a rich part of the mechanics once again. Flavor can always be stripped from a piece of mechanical hardware--it's generally harder/less desirable to go the other way, and add flavor to something that has none.
2) Prereqs are, to some extent, a means of rewarding players for staying true to the established canon. This theme article does indeed assume that you are either playing in a drow city or at least using one or more drow characters--see the whole "Rise of the Underdark" thing. The themes offer a special reward to players who limit themselves to a female drow divine character. If you want to strip it down and built it into a wholly different campaign, please do.
3) A big part of me advocates having no prereqs on anything mechanical, but I recognize the loss of flavor/lore continuity inherent in stripping flavor from the game in that way. Those who see value in having the prereqs, well, there they are--those who prefer to ignore them and reflavor their characters however they want are absolutely free to do so. As I said before, the main hurdle here seems to be the character builder, which I wish had more flexibility for customization.
Cheers
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />A few statements:
1) 4e may have initially "divorced fluff from mechanics," but it's clear that the evolution of the game is headed toward a place where fluff/flavor is a rich part of the mechanics once again. Flavor can always be stripped from a piece of mechanical hardware--it's generally harder/less desirable to go the other way, and add flavor to something that has none.
"The evolution of (4E)?" Seriously? Every indication is that 4E is not going to receive another crunch product, ever. Menzoberranzen is supposed to be edition neutral, with minimal to no crunch at all. There is nothing else on the schedule for the year, and unless they fasttrack 5E, there looks to be no crunch products scheduled for next year either (Wizards has said that the remainder of our 4E crunch is going to come through Dragon, and be mostly, if not entirely, freelance, as they want the core rules team focused on 5E).
What is truly undesireable is to have mechanics married to flavor. Write the flavor, include it with the mechanics, but simply don't have one dependant on the other to function.
2) Prereqs are, to some extent, a means of rewarding players for staying true to the established canon. This theme article does indeed assume that you are either playing in a drow city or at least using one or more drow characters--see the whole "Rise of the Underdark" thing. The themes offer a special reward to players who limit themselves to a female drow divine character. If you want to strip it down and built it into a wholly different campaign, please do.
So, reward the players who limit themselves to female drow divine characters, and leave the mechanics out of it. Easy as pie, and a lot less restrictive. There is an official tool which is supposed to help us create and maintain characters in our home games. It is all well and good to enforce these restrictions in official games like LFR and Encounters, but when the mechanics and fluff are inextricably linked, it makes that same offical tool useless in our home games if we want to deviate from the fluff.
3) A big part of me advocates having no prereqs on anything mechanical, but I recognize the loss of flavor/lore continuity inherent in stripping flavor from the game in that way. Those who see value in having the prereqs, well, there they are--those who prefer to ignore them and reflavor their characters however they want are absolutely free to do so. As I said before, the main hurdle here seems to be the character builder, which I wish had more flexibility for customization.
Cheers
You writers provide the basis, we provide or disregard the continuity as it suits our needs. Thus it has always been at any table, thus it will always be (in each and every RPG that has ever been and will ever be, D&D is not alone in this).
If, as you say, it was one of the Wizards editors that added the restrictions, and not you, then these comments are directed at them.
I've said it directly, but I'll say it again. My initial draft had the requirements of Widow of the Arach Tinilith as "female drow, divine class" and House Priestess as "female drow, trained in Religion." Development buffed up the House Priestess req to divine class, and while I don't entirely agree with the perceived necessity of that, I stand by it 100%.
None of my comments should be interpreted as casting aspersions or blame on anyone but myself as the author of the piece, simply an explanation of the basic truth of freelance RPG design: I can write the initial draft, but I don't have 100% control over the final package.
A few statements:
1) 4e may have initially "divorced fluff from mechanics," but it's clear that the evolution of the game is headed toward a place where fluff/flavor is a rich part of the mechanics once again. Flavor can always be stripped from a piece of mechanical hardware--it's generally harder/less desirable to go the other way, and add flavor to something that has none.
"The evolution of (4E)?" Seriously?
I didn't say that. See my emphasis. I'm talking about the evolution of the GAME, that is Dungeons and Dragons, not any particular edition of that game.
Every indication is that 4E is not going to receive another crunch product, ever. Menzoberranzen is supposed to be edition neutral, with minimal to no crunch at all. There is nothing else on the schedule for the year, and unless they fasttrack 5E, there looks to be no crunch products scheduled for next year either (Wizards has said that the remainder of our 4E crunch is going to come through Dragon, and be mostly, if not entirely, freelance, as they want the core rules team focused on 5E).
Well, Dragon articles are still crunch products, so your first statement is incorrect. I have seen the Menzoberranzan book, so I know what that is. But anyway, I was talking about the evolution of the game, which is returning to a rich flavor mixture with crunchy mechanics. 2e and 3e were like this, 4e initially moved somewhat away from flavor in favor of a robust mechanical system, but ever since the Dark Sun Campaign Guide, products for 4e have been increasingly flavorful: Neverwinter, the Heroes series (Shadow, Feywild, Elemental Chaos, etc), and DDI articles.
What is truly undesireable is to have mechanics married to flavor. Write the flavor, include it with the mechanics, but simply don't have one dependant on the other to function.
I disagree with the first statement but agree with your second. I don't think either the flavor or the mechanics should "depend" on the other, but taken together, they can and should work together to enhance the play experience, which is exactly my goal with this article. And when in doubt, you can easily divorce them at your table and reflavor any set or mechanics or re-engineer any flavor to fit your game. You can do that here, though, as I said, the character builder restriction makes it somewhat more difficult.
To use your "marriage" metaphor, I guess what I'd like to see is crunch and flavor married, but each an independent, fully actualized spouse who can function without the other. You should be able to interface the mechanics to support whatever homebrewed setting or game you're playing, and you should be able to use whatever mechanics you want to play in a flavored setting presented in the books. It just takes a little extra work, and not all players of the game have the time or ability to do all that--this is the purpose of presenting both mechanics and flavor as an interwoven whole.
In my ideal world, there's no reason you can't play Shadowrun, Star Wars, Rifts, Superheroes, Ravenloft, whatever, with the D&D system, while you can use d20, West End d6 Star Wars, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, whatever, with the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, etc.
Heck, maybe crunch and flavor are swingers.
So, reward the players who limit themselves to female drow divine characters, and leave the mechanics out of it. Easy as pie, and a lot less restrictive. There is an official tool which is supposed to help us create and maintain characters in our home games. It is all well and good to enforce these restrictions in official games like LFR and Encounters, but when the mechanics and fluff are inextricably linked, it makes that same offical tool useless in our home games if we want to deviate from the fluff.
You say "easy as pie," but I don't see any suggestions for how to reward players in a non-mechanical way. How about a suggestion?
And seriously, why NOT reward good roleplaying with mechanical benefits? That's an awesome aspect of RPGs.
You writers provide the basis, we provide or disregard the continuity as it suits our needs. Thus it has always been at any table, thus it will always be (in each and every RPG that has ever been and will ever be, D&D is not alone in this).
That's more or less what I've been saying. These articles just present ideas and tools--you're the one who decides whether to use them or not. It's impossible for me or anyone in the industry to build a tool that is perfect for everyone. And even if I could reach through the computer and extract from your head exactly what you want, I wouldn't want to design everything exactly that way, because what you want isn't what EVERYONE wants. The best I or any designer can do is provide something that appeals to as many people as possible, and can be customized or reflavored to match your game.
Cheers
My other article ("Against the Matriarchs") will go a rather different direction.
Cheers
I suppose it's edifying that the main criticism of the article seems to be that people are unhappy with having prerequisities, which I've already suggested you just ignore if you have a great idea. Creativity is so much more important than blind conformity to something you don't like as-is. By all means, innovate and play with these to your heart's content.
Well, the frustration with the prereqs is mostly centered around things like organized play, where there's much less flexibility with the rules as written, and with these themes basically never showing up in the Character Builder due to how it handles prereqs.
I can guarantee you that almost nobody who browses the theme list in the Builder who didn't read this article will ever know that your work existed, let alone was pretty cool and could serve as the cornerstone for a character concept. It would require someone meeting the prereqs of a female drow divine, and then browsing the theme list. I don't know about you, but my top priority in fiddling with the Builder to identify new builds most definitely isn't specifying a gender - and having that as an official prereq means that I wouldn't ever see it. Furthermore, even if I did make a female drow divine class, I'd basically already have much of the concept in place, and so while the theme would be useful to sprinkle on, it won't light that creative spark.
Now, to be clear, much of this is due to the inane way they handle prerequisites in the Builder, by simply hiding everything you don't qualify for, rather than simply having a list of things you don't qualify for. But it's these practical aspects that really drive the pushback against prerequisites, rather than any criticism of a targeted concept for the content itself.
I'd much rather see the frustration about prereqs channeled into advocating for a change to how the character builder handles themes, rather than be launched at theme articles because they have something that will prove frustrating. And I don't say that to be self-serving--I'm a firm advocate of positive change, rather than negative rejection.
Cheers
You say "easy as pie," but I don't see any suggestions for how to reward players in a non-mechanical way. How about a suggestion?
And seriously, why NOT reward good roleplaying with mechanical benefits? That's an awesome aspect of RPGs.
You keep bringing up the "flavor benefits" you gain in return for having the prerequisites, but never discuss what those benefits actually are. It isn't the themes themselves, which are average in power (House Priestess), or even more than a little weak (Widow of Arach Tinilith).
Thus, the flavor benefits are entirely dependant on roleplay. The same flavor benefits can be adopted for each and every Female Drow of a Divine class, whether they take one of these themes or not. Since the next season of Encounters takes place in Menzoberranzen (I'm assuming, since that will be the book the season supports), I would expect that every Drow of an aristocratric background will get bonuses when engaged in Skill Challenges and social interaction with other Drow of station, with additional bonuses for being female (double score) and again for being Divine (hat trick). There are no benefits gained from haviing the prerequisites and taking the themes that couldn't simply be met just by having the prerequisites and adopting a more powerful or broadly useful theme.
You writers provide the basis, we provide or disregard the continuity as it suits our needs. Thus it has always been at any table, thus it will always be (in each and every RPG that has ever been and will ever be, D&D is not alone in this).
That's more or less what I've been saying. These articles just present ideas and tools--you're the one who decides whether to use them or not. It's impossible for me or anyone in the industry to build a tool that is perfect for everyone. And even if I could reach through the computer and extract from your head exactly what you want, I wouldn't want to design everything exactly that way, because what you want isn't what EVERYONE wants. The best I or any designer can do is provide something that appeals to as many people as possible, and can be customized or reflavored to match your game.
Again, the issue isn't with the fluff, but how it is applied. You even mention downthread how you don't use the character builder for more complex characters because it is not flexible enough. In order to be used in our home games, it needs to be flexible. Hard coding the prerequisites reduces the flexibility. Granted, at least for themes, there is a workaround. Unfortunately, you need to know about the theme and its prerequisites in order to make use of the workaround. This was especially annoying when it came to the Neverwinter themes, which had as part of their fluff things like, "This theme could even be applied, in rare cases, to Half Elves and Half Orcs." This kind of stuff was all over the pages, but could not be adopted by players without houseruling their characters or ditching the builder (or worse, the character concept) in frustration because they did not know about the workaround. Heck, I am kind of surprised that the Bladesinger didn't force the Elf, Half Elf or Eladrin only fluff on us in the CB. That would have been supremely annoying.
My character builder suggestion: Lift most of the prerequisites, across the board, for Home campaigns, and leave the prerequisites in for any of the campaign settings in which it makes sense to have them (such as Encounters or Dark Sun).
It sounds like your criticism should be directed toward the cb, rather than an article you don't otherwise seem to dislike. Maybe your efforts would be better directed that way?
Cheers
Cheers
I do think when you select home campaign, there should be no prereqs on themes. Prereqs are fine in campaign settings. Cheers
Things like themes should just have "suggested theme" instead of "prerequisite" if the prerequisite isn't necessary - e.g. based directly on a class or race feature. But nothing about, say Pack Outcast necessitates being a human or shifter, out of, or maybe even in Neverwinter.
Some early backgrounds like Auspicious Birth had "good background", which is interesting because i hate those backgrounds.
(Not that the problem isn't with the CB too.)
I think it's worth remembering that the themes in this particular month aren't designed so much for general play, but for specific play in Menzoberranzan, i.e. you're expected to use them with an all-drow or mostly drow party. In the context of a Menzoberranzan game, being a female drow divine class isn't a corner case at all. I understand many 4e players look at things more from a "how does this benefit my general campaign/group" perspective, but these themes weren't really designed for that purpose, so it's sort of like criticizing apples for not being oranges.
I have no doubt that there is someone in Wizards who feels this way. The tragic part of this tale is that this month's theme is coming a month too late. The next Season of Encounters starts in mid August, these themes won't be in the builder until Mid September.
But there's also a certain flavor value to having feats, abilities, themes, etc., be restricted to specific kinds of characters. It's easy to hand-waive prereqs away if you want to--as it is, they are meant to serve as a guide for players who might not be as familiar with the drow to immerse themselves in a closer-to-canonical experience.
Cheers
Two things. I'm not sure it actually does have any flavor value, at all.
Second thing: Recomendations serve the same purpose, without restricting things in ways that aren't going to make sense to large numbers of people.
You're pretty much my favorite dnd author right now, man, but I really think you went too...canon-fan on this one, if that makes sense.
Now, that said, I love your idea about home campaign not having theme prereqs. Alternatively, it could be a toggle, so if you're running a variation on a published setting (I once ran eberron 75 years in the future) you can still toggle it off, or if you're in a group that just doesn't think those prereqs should be there, etc, you can just get rid of them.
RPGA, Encounters, etc., they're shackles on creativity. Until designers start favoring home-game players rather than competitive players, arguments like what you're seeing here will be a primary mainstay of the game.
Balance is important with or without RPGA or anything like it.
At some point, not sure which edition, the importance of competitive tournament play (or RPGA, Encounters, whatever you want to call it) took control of design. Everything is about balance, making sure the DM is a mere rule-enforcer than a true dungeon master, and being absolutely sure that one player's PC has no mechanical advantage over another. These days, flavor or "fluff" immediately gets a silver bullet to the head if it ever considers the possibility of giving a tiny mechanical advantage.
RPGA, Encounters, etc., they're shackles on creativity. Until designers start favoring home-game players rather than competitive players, arguments like what you're seeing here will be a primary mainstay of the game.
No. You're completely and utterly wrong. You have the whole argument backasswards. I've never played or DMed in a competitive/tournament/organised play game in my life. I despise the whole DM-vs-players competitive playstyle. I want robust mechanical balance and the bare minimum of fluff/mechanics linkage precisely to facilitate greater creativity.
If you reward players mechanically for "sticking closely to the established fluff" (or even just for making one fluff choice over another), you are, by definition, punishing those players who want to step outside the neat little boxes you've drawn for them. You're punishing creativity. IMO, that is far more destructive to a fantasy roleplaying game than the spectre of "competitive tournament play taking control of design".
If a DM wants to give one of his players a small bonus for playing a stereotypical drow priestess and picking mechanical elements for her character that easily fit with that, then that's all fine and good. I do not think it should be the business of the game's designers to deliberately design in such rewards if the cost is that those mechanical elements are less easily reflavoured to fit another player's more original character concept.
Regarding Prerequisit personally, i think House Priestess or Widow of Arach-Tinilith wouldn't make any sense if it wasn't a Theme reserved for female Drow of Divine class. I am okay with it as is. Very flavorful and cohesive !
Lolth wouldn't expect any less from her Priestesses !
At some point, not sure which edition, the importance of competitive tournament play (or RPGA, Encounters, whatever you want to call it) took control of design. Everything is about balance, making sure the DM is a mere rule-enforcer than a true dungeon master, and being absolutely sure that one player's PC has no mechanical advantage over another. These days, flavor or "fluff" immediately gets a silver bullet to the head if it ever considers the possibility of giving a tiny mechanical advantage.
RPGA, Encounters, etc., they're shackles on creativity. Until designers start favoring home-game players rather than competitive players, arguments like what you're seeing here will be a primary mainstay of the game.
No. You're completely and utterly wrong. You have the whole argument backasswards. I've never played or DMed in a competitive/tournament/organised play game in my life. I despise the whole DM-vs-players competitive playstyle. I want robust mechanical balance and the bare minimum of fluff/mechanics linkage precisely to facilitate greater creativity.
If you reward players mechanically for "sticking closely to the established fluff" (or even just for making one fluff choice over another), you are, by definition, punishing those players who want to step outside the neat little boxes you've drawn for them. You're punishing creativity. IMO, that is far more destructive to a fantasy roleplaying game than the spectre of "competitive tournament play taking control of design".
If a DM wants to give one of his players a small bonus for playing a stereotypical drow priestess and picking mechanical elements for her character that easily fit with that, then that's all fine and good. I do not think it should be the business of the game's designers to deliberately design in such rewards if the cost is that those mechanical elements are less easily reflavoured to fit another player's more original character concept.
LOL! Quite frankly, you're the one that has it totally backwards. I'm not surprised, though. You've clearly bought fully into the rigidity of competitive play, even as you denounce it. Funny, but not surprising.
LOL! Quite frankly, you're the one that has it totally backwards. I'm not surprised, though. You've clearly bought fully into the rigidity of competitive play, even as you denounce it. Funny, but not surprising.
I'm willing to consider arguments for a contrary point of view. When you come up with a response that isn't just "I know what you are, but what am I?", I'll consider actually discussing this with you. Until then, you're not worth my time.
LOL! Quite frankly, you're the one that has it totally backwards. I'm not surprised, though. You've clearly bought fully into the rigidity of competitive play, even as you denounce it. Funny, but not surprising.
I'm willing to consider arguments for a contrary point of view. When you come up with a response that isn't just "I know what you are, but what am I?", I'll consider actually discussing this with you. Until then, you're not worth my time.
Considering he associates Organized Play with competetive tournaments, and even names Encounters program as such, I doubt his definition of "competitive play" is the same as most or at the very least my definition.
Considering he associates Organized Play with competetive tournaments, and even names Encounters program as such, I doubt his definition of "competitive play" is the same as most or at the very least my definition.
To be fair to Jorunhast, I don't think it's completely unreasonable to lump organised play like LFR together with competitive "tournament style" play for the purposes of this argument. Both require a different attitude to how strictly the RAW are to be adhered to and therefore to how much leeway the DM has in (for want of a better expression) "making stuff up", compared to a bunch of friends playing casually around their DM's kitchen table.
At some point, not sure which edition, the importance of competitive tournament play (or RPGA, Encounters, whatever you want to call it) took control of design. Everything is about balance, making sure the DM is a mere rule-enforcer than a true dungeon master, and being absolutely sure that one player's PC has no mechanical advantage over another. These days, flavor or "fluff" immediately gets a silver bullet to the head if it ever considers the possibility of giving a tiny mechanical advantage.
RPGA, Encounters, etc., they're shackles on creativity. Until designers start favoring home-game players rather than competitive players, arguments like what you're seeing here will be a primary mainstay of the game.
No. You're completely and utterly wrong. You have the whole argument backasswards. I've never played or DMed in a competitive/tournament/organised play game in my life. I despise the whole DM-vs-players competitive playstyle. I want robust mechanical balance and the bare minimum of fluff/mechanics linkage precisely to facilitate greater creativity.
If you reward players mechanically for "sticking closely to the established fluff" (or even just for making one fluff choice over another), you are, by definition, punishing those players who want to step outside the neat little boxes you've drawn for them. You're punishing creativity. IMO, that is far more destructive to a fantasy roleplaying game than the spectre of "competitive tournament play taking control of design".
If a DM wants to give one of his players a small bonus for playing a stereotypical drow priestess and picking mechanical elements for her character that easily fit with that, then that's all fine and good. I do not think it should be the business of the game's designers to deliberately design in such rewards if the cost is that those mechanical elements are less easily reflavoured to fit another player's more original character concept.
This.