It's about maximizing player agency.
It's about being quick and inviting to new players, while still allowing older players to customize their characters without needing to have a 'build'.
It's about being explicit about how we are going to handle fictional positioning.
It's about the idea of negotiated choice.
How is it doing the above? Seven choices in player character creation. Creation starts with rolling dice. Combat is abstracted, not concerned with simulating the progression of a combat round. Choices about characters all come at second level, not first.
You want to play a paladin? How about a monk? Well, then you pick fighter and take abilities that feel paladin like to you. What about causing the fall of a paladin?
Why would I ever want to do that?
You see, the fall of a paladin is about the nadir of poor communication built exclusively around things that are founded on things that are thought without proof (belief).
Why argue about something unresolvable? Being a paladin is about either playing a role of a brave and noble hero or getting the list of powers that they have. If it's the first, then quibbling over what is or is not a violation of their standard should not really be a part of game-play. If it is the second, then fine. In these rules fighters are picking their powers anyway.
I find myself asking this question often: "Does this rule or system improve the experience of play for people at my table? i.e. Are they enjoying themselves more with this addition or subtraction."
If the player wants something above and beyond fighter abilities, such as a magical status as paladin, then that is something that falls in the realm of negotiated choice. And in that case, the consequences, benefits, and rules will be explicit and quantifiable - otherwise the choice won't be informed and agency will be impacted.
So, any ideas for the name?
