>Old games: "In order to qualify for this class, you must love dragons with all your heart.">Post-2k games: "You must speak Draconic, you must be friendly with at least three dragons within one step of your alignment, you must have never willingly harmed a dragon, you must have never worn, used, or consumed anything made from the remains of a slain dragon, fucking a dragon is optional, you must have never stolen from a dragon's hoard, you must have never insulted, mocked, or willfully angered a dragon, you must not have defaced or destroyed or desecrated a shrine to Bahamut, Tiamat, or any other draconic deity, you must understand draconic customs, you must be able to recite at least five songs about dragons, you must... (goes on like this for at least two pages)">ERRATA: Using the remains of a dragon that was mutilated counts as willingly harming a dragon>ERRATA 2: Using said remains in the act of avenging or saving the dragon (or with its genuine consent) does NOT count as harming them>ERRATA 3: Feeling guilty and using the remains of a dragon that you had a hand in the torture of and using its remains to forge arms and armor to save or avenge it still counts as harming it>ERRATA 4: (insert rulings that resulted from 20+ pages of forum flame wars)>Modern games: Eh, you can ignore the fluff.There must be a middle ground for this.
>>97846412What worldbuilding?
>>97846417This is a criticism of game design that stemmed from the legalese-ridden bullshittery of 2000-era games and the strong overcorrections that followed due to that philosophy being applied to games that did not have such a problem, resulting in lore, character motivations, and so on becoming either codified or completely worthless.Not worldbuilding.
>>97846412>>97846422The middle ground is just to focus on the flavor primarily and then keep any mechanical requirements as simple as possible. Speaking Draconic and worshipping a draconic deity is likely to be sufficient mechanical backing to represent 'loving dragons with all your heart'.In order to avoid the case where people just ignore the fluff, you then give it a mechanical downside. Treating all dragons as if you're Charmed by them. Or as if they're under the effect of a Sanctuary spell. Or simply dealing half damage to dragons. You only really need one of those for it to be something people are less willing to ignore. Handwaving requirements for languages and certain gods is easy, but a strict condition against a certain type of monster is harder to overlook. And is generally more effective than having pages upon pages of guidelines and caveats for effects.If you deal half damage to dragons or have some similar penalty towards fighting them, then insulting dragons or stealing from them is just a bad idea, and you therefore don't need to add on further restrictions. One big noteworthy restriction is often plenty.
>>97846461>In order to avoid the case where people just ignore the fluff, you then give it a mechanical downside. Treating all dragons as if you're Charmed by them. Or as if they're under the effect of a Sanctuary spell. Or simply dealing half damage to dragons.This is part of the problem, if the lore is rooted in "Those who use this class have nothing but love for dragons" enforcing that with supernatural/-esque effects turns it into "Those who use this class completely submit to dragons" instead.
>>97846422But how can you run games without worldforging and realmweaving? Newfag nogames.
>>97846412The middle ground isn't needed, you CAN ignore the fluff, as you're encouraged to ignore anything else that doesn't mesh with your group.Nobody here cares about game design, they only care about getting their favorite product more sales, or about sounding right.Have an issue with how a game is structured? Well, rule 0, just rewrite what you don't like.You choose a class that is falling off mid-game because there's nothing afforded to it in terms of an equalizer against all the magic foes he's facing? Well, just beg your DM for what your character needs to even keep up, while the other classes are flying around and shooting fireballs from just leveling up.Still have issues with the game or your character? It isn't the fault of the system or the people who wrote it, just find a new group.Or, alternatively, cite any issue, and just be told not to play that system. That's also a common response.It isn't about the product a company expects money for, it's only ever about you or your group.And if you do make your own game, don't bother talking about that either, because the script flips to "nobody cares about your shitty homebrew" after all the talk about how you have to homebrew to fix the problems you see.All this board cares about is settings and worldbuilding they'll never use in an actual game, or talking about off-topic anime, television, history, etc.
>>97846412>"In order to qualify for this class, you must love dragons with all your heart."Sauce?
>>97846543It was made up on the spot for the purposes of the post, partially inspired by a dragon diva class I was going to homebrew years ago but never got around to finishing since it was far too niche as a dragon buffing bard.
>>97846498Half damage doesn't mean you completely submit to dragons. You could still kill a dragon if there's something about them that manages to overcome the fact that you have 'nothing but love' for them. Being outright Charmed would be more hard-coded, since then there really isn't anything you can do. But a character who is incapable of anything but love for dragons having the mechanical condition used to represent 'love' having a domino effect where the class ends up submitting to dragons just means that the lore has implications that the writer didn't originally expect.What exactly do you think the Dragon-Lover class is meant to do when they meet a dragon? Attack it?
>>97846412>fucking a dragon is optional
>>97846412>Old games: "In order to qualify for this class, you must love dragons with all your heart."in basic DnD, class selection was determined by whatever stats you rolled up>There must be a middle ground for this.the reason for the constant, seemingly arbitrary, rules is because people kept getting into situations that required an explicit rulingthe rules are like the code in a program. if you follow it RAW, you end up with situations where people can crash the world economy by crafting 10,000 steel daggers a day as DM you are supposed to arbitrate these outcomes, but having the rules just outright say what can or cant be done can shut down a lot of arguing with your players
This is a problem intrinsic to class-based systems, where powers and abilities are locked behind reaching x level of y class. Just don't play D&D and this issue fixes itself.
>>97846702>This is a problem intrinsic to class-based systems, where powers and abilities are locked behind reaching x level of y classNot really. You can have maneuvers and different kinds of attacks that are not gated behind specific classes just fine in a class based system.I'd argue that that's the best way to do it, then you have the classes modify these basic options in fun and interesting ways, but I'm no game designer.
>>97846412It is wild to see younglings encounter the problems with heart breakers again and again, yet never escape the cycle.
>>97846412I have never seen anything remotely like any of these things, what the fuck are you on about?
>>97846722But your dragonbro powers are locked behind the dragonbro class, anon. That's why you take the class. In a classless system, you don't have that restriction. You just buy what you want to have.
>>97847842The classless system still has the same problem of "Eh, you can ignore the fluff". OP is asking for a middle ground between a class having a dozen mechanical restrictions to prevent loopholes, and making it so that you don't need to like dragons at all to get dragonbro powers.
>>97848152Now I'm a GURPSfag, so if I were to build this for a player, they'd have a mandatory disadvantage or two in order to get the specific powers. Something like Vow (Help dragons) or Code of Honor (Dragonbro). In this case, the mechanics require appropriate role-playing from the player to keep their relevant powers, and it all works smoothly because there are no loopholes.
>>97846417>>97846500Every fucking thread with this shit. Why haven't the mods banned this faggot nigger yet?
>>978464123.5, my beloved.
>>97846722That AI looks perfect for making a new Dragonheart movie
>>97848977It sounds almost nonsensical, like so tangential to OP's actual point
>>97846565>It was made up on the spot for the purposes of the postGood to know I can hide the thread then.
>>97846412>There must be a middle ground for this.there is, you can ignore the fluff.
>>97846412Read the Vassal of Bahamut PRC from 3.5 and you'll notice that none of your shit sticks.It actively wants you to kill an evil dragon AND use its parts, and is generally highly pragmatic. Your strawman sucks.
>>97846412what game are you talking about that is like this?Because it isn't D&D or similar games.
>>97846412it must be ragebait. On the offchance this is real you're fucking retarded. D&D has limited class by stat rolls since BECMI and class by race since AD&D 1
>>97848977He's doing it to upset you, specially, it would seem, and you fall for it every time despite everyone else ignoring it.
>>97851398Older games did have a lot of expectations of classes written in the fluff with varying strictness.
>>97851398Do you even play games? There's a pretty clear reference to pretty much every DnD edition in OP. Old DnD had more simple descriptions for class requirements, 3.5 could get pretty wordy for some of its prestige classes, and 5e is basically just playing by vibes.
>>97848977>Why haven't the mods banned this faggot nigger yet?Were you not here when 4chan got hacked?
