Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's about meaningful restrictions and creative Liberty, fades. There's no reason why a lithe elf warrior would be physically unable to put on the same robe as her high elf companion. It may not be a good idea, it may not be effective, it might even diminish her standing with her people, but it doesn't make any sense why it would be a physical impossibility.
I'm not talking about contemporary delusions of class balance wherein every class receives a slightly different flavor of the same ability and extensive class specific equipment so that class choice is effectively meaningless. That doesn't make any more sense than artificial limitations.
What does make sense is implementing strong deterrents and profound obstacles to substantiate lore and then allow players to make those decisions. Too many gnomes becoming monks to confirm with lore? Make it more difficult for gnomes to become monks or find suitable equipment (they are tiny after all). Plenty of ways to herd the flock without shoving them single file down a fenced aisle.
|
I know what you mean, but I don't fully agree. Even more or less random stuff can function in that critical role. It's like a movie, how much disbelief are you willing to suspend? Eventually you can reach a spot where stuff is just too dumb and it breaks 'immersion', but I don't think EQ is anywhere near that. Usually people complaining about restrictions that they don't think logically follow really means that they are irritated about that particular restriction for some reason. I'm not accusing you of that, I'm just saying I've noticed that over the years. First comes the irritation, and then the accusation of 'no reason behind it'.
'meaningful' is a tricky term. I do agree though that it can be taken too far.
08-30-2016, 02:15 PM
Threaded Mode