|
Post by Hussar on Nov 13, 2003 3:59:11 GMT -5
You yourself don't use that system. Are you saying that you are cheating when you play the game? I've never, not once, seen a DM force players to roll up their characters with 3d6 six times.
Why does having a 16 strength give my fighter 10% more xp than a 15 strength? Xp is the reward for role playing. Yet, a character is rewarded with bonus xp, not through role playing, but by having a single higher die roll. There is no role playing reason here. It is not even a "balancing" thing either since a character with higher ability scores has a higher survival chance therefore has more opportunities to gain more xp. 2e promotes high stats. Full stop. You are given a reward for nothing more than a simple die roll. How is that not munchkinism defined.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 13, 2003 5:03:04 GMT -5
Why does a 16 strength give my character an extra 5% bonus over what he gets for a 15 in 3E?
The same reason. It is a game, an artificiality created to represent something it's not. Why does a 12 get you a bonus for a stat in 3E when an 11 doesn't. Same reason. There has to be a point at which the bonus comes.
As to did I cheat the system. Yep! I sure as hell did. I did it knowingly and took the resultant responsibilities for my actions and didn't try to blame the results (some of which I do see as negative) on the game, but right where the responsibilities belonged... squarely on me!
We have often used the simple 3d6 arrange as desired rule or for what was maybe the best low powered campaign that we've done, we used 3d6, place them in order.
The characters in that campaign, which lasted fifty some sessions, are still perhaps our favorites to brag about and the game was easier for me as a DM to run than any other has ever been, bar none. Not one of the five had a single stat above 16 (two characters had sixteens and one of them had two of them) and the average stat was 12.2, but the game did not suffer for that in any way.
What it did do was made the Fighter with the 16 strength a formidable guy. He advanced in levels only slightly faster than anyone else, definately not enough to keep him near the level of the groups Thief after the first ten sessions. It also made the groups Illusionist (16 intel and dex) an extremely viable and valuable character from 1st level on. He was almost as hard to hit in combat as the Thief from 1st level on and was, at first level, deadlier with his darts than the other fighter was with his broadsword.
The whole thing showed me what this game was supposed to be, what it was designed to play like. I loved it.
But, while those characters were fun, I, as the DM, made the fatal error with them that is one of the few things that I think that 3E has improved in the game. I misread their survivability and they ran into a old Copper Dragon that had gone insane. They were 9th level on average, with the Theif and the Druid both being tenth and BOTH fighters (including the guy with the 16 strength) being 8th and the Illusionist being 9th. In 3E I would have been able to more accurately gauge their chances and would have done things differently.
But I don't think that the one thing that I do like about 3E outweighs all of the things that I don't like about it.
They died gloriously, those 3d6ers, leaving a legend behind them, and three of them left their heirs, who were the ones, years later (after having been created as 4d6drop the lowest, seven times drop the lowest and having pretty damned good stats) who finally killed the dragon.
I like a bit higher tone campaign than that one usually, but of all the AD&D I've played, that one campaign sticks out most strognly in my memory.
You know, I may see if the group, when we've completed our present campaign, doesn't want to give the old way a try again. It certainly has alot to suggest itself.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 13, 2003 9:06:09 GMT -5
My point was not the arbitrary cut off point. That is simply a game mechanic. My point is why is a player gaining xp for not doing anything. He has not acheived anything. He has not killed anything. He has not solved any problems. He has done absolutely nothing other than get lucky on a die roll. We don't give bonus xp for rolling high on hit points. We don't give bonus xp for anything other than the high prime stat, or stats. That's why I say that 2e promotes high ability scores more than 3e. In both games you gain a bonus in game for high stats. That's fine. I have no problems with that. It makes logical sense. If your fighter is much stronger than my fighter, it makes sense that you are going to hit something harder than I am. If your thief has higher dexterity, then of course he should be able to do slight of hands sort of actions better than my character. That's perfectly logical.
But, can you please explain the logic of giving you more xp for performing the same act as I do, simply because you have an easier time of it? If we both have thieves and we pick pocket 100 gp, we each gain 200 xp. If your thief has a 16 dex and mine has a lower dex, you gain 220 xp and I gain 200. Why? We have both successfully completed a task. We have both role played the situation. Perhaps we have even role played the same situation in exactly the same manner. It doesn't matter. You still gain more xp than I do. How is this not promoting high character scores?
In 3e, if your rogue has a 16 dex and mine has a 15, you have an extra +1 over me, making things slightly easier. 5% easier to be exact. But, if we both perform the exact same actions, we both are rewarded exactly the same.
So, in 2e, you gain an out of game bonus to your character that has nothing whatsoever to do with your actions or your abilities as a role player. In 3e you don't. Isn't gaining an advantage outside of the game at the very heart of munchkinism? Isn't the goal of every munchkin to be better than everyone else? To gain bonuses that no one else have? Isn't this precisely what you get in 2e?
Every DM I know, whether in real life or online, uses exactly the same die rolling conventions. 4d6 drop the lowest. It doesn't matter what edition they play. That is the standard and has been the standard for years. If 3e players were so munchkin, why wouldn't we use the die rolling chart out of the Unearthed Arcana with its 9 to 3 dice? But we don't. We use the same methods as you. And, we get less benefits for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 13, 2003 12:08:24 GMT -5
Ye gods! Hussar, there is nothing in the way that the experience point system works in D&D of Original, 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions that can even begin to make any sense. It is all abstractions of abstractions. The same here. There is a point at which you award the superior character and in this abstraction we use, it occurs at 16.
There may be something like a mental boiling point for sapience as opposed to high order sentience. This is a hotly debated topic that will probably be around for a long time. Using that analogy the 16 represents that “boiling point” statistically. Above it you are a quantum leap ahead of where you are at a 15 not in quantity, but rather in quality. Below it you are still extremely developed, nearly as much so as the person with the 16, but not at the game’s arbitrary boiling point.
A better question than why a character with a 16 or better in the prime requisite stat (or stats) for his/her class gains 10% higher experience than a similar character with a 15 is why in the hell killing x number of orcies makes a guy a better thief. That is so far beyond ridiculous as to make any of the other peculios laughable by comparison. Why not (as so many other RPG’s do) assign blanket points and only allow such skills as were used in a meaningful manner to be improved with them? Why do you have to wait until you are x level to gain an ability that you’ve trained harder for and with a higher statistical base perhaps, than someone who just gets it granted to them without ever even using the ability? Obviously it because it is all abstractions and abstractions of abstractions where XP are involved.
But, while the point you made does have some validity, 3E is as big (or bigger) an abuser of the experience point concept as 2E. Indeed, 2E has the concept of “significant risk” as a necessity for gaining experience.
Quote from the DMG. “Second, no experience is earned for situations in which the PC’s have an overwhelming advantage over their foes.”
Not 1 experience point is to be had, for example, by the 7th level fighter who bags a single orcie in single combat. Not bloody one. It is actually the example they used. Not so in 3E. There, while the PC wouldn’t get tons of experience, a single CR1 orcie gives the big brave seventh level Barbarian who slaughters him 263 experience points.
That is really quite a lot in the lower numbers exp system of 3E, come to think of it. Indeed those 263 points represents nearly 4% of what the Barbarian needs to go up to his next level. The 7th level Thief who does likewise however gets nothing but whatever loose change poor Messer. L’Orc was carrying and whatever can be had from bartering away the late and unlamented orc’s spear and sundries.
3E is thus seen as hardly what you could call lily white when it comes to an easily abusable system.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 13, 2003 23:11:03 GMT -5
Well, other than the fact that the orc is cr 1/2, you are essentially correct. However, that does reflect the point that that CR1 creature is still a viable threat to the single character. Not much of a threat, but still something of a threat. A couple of lucky die rolls and the orc can do 13 points of damage, nearly double what a 2e orc can do.
The point is, the barbarian is still doing what he's supposed to do. He's killing orcs. 2 more levels and he gains nothing. So, they make the cutoff 9th instead of 7th. Again, as you say, it's arbitrary.
But, again, you are completely ignoring the point. The point is not how xp is done. The point is, that xp is the award given for playing your character in the game. Full stop. You can only gain xp by playing. Even in systems where you get a sort of blanket xp award, you are only given that award for playing in the game. That is true in any gaming system.
Except 2e.
In 2e, I can gain xp for a single die roll I made before the game even started.
That's the point. Full stop.
2e gives me awards for something I did outside of the game, before my character was even created. Name another system that does that.
See, what really burns my butt is this idea that everyone who plays 3e is a munchkin. That any "Real" roleplayer has to play 2e. It's complete and utter crap. Take a look at my Mithril game. Take a look at the character backgrounds section. Pay particular attention to the last entry by the party's 6th level cleric. Look at his equipment. At 6th level, no one in the party has a magical weapon. Not one. We are currently playing in a party of 6, 4 humans, an elf and a half-orc. How is this even remotely munchkin? I see this blanket statements all the time that "serious" role players would never play a game like 3e and it flies up my left nostril. I play a very serious game, with some excellent roleplaying. Look at my player's journals and you will see. Hell, for a background, the bard actually wrote a song. Great stuff and great role playing. Am I the exception? I don't think so. I've talked to enough other gamers to think that my campaign is not too different than anyone else's. It's this sort of smug superiority that so many 2e players come across with that is so irritating.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 14, 2003 3:09:23 GMT -5
Hussar:Well, other than the fact that the orc is cr 1/2, you are essentially correct. However, that does reflect the point that that CR1 creature is still a viable threat to the single character. Not much of a threat, but still something of a threat. A couple of lucky die rolls and the orc can do 13 points of damage, nearly double what a 2e orc can do.
Draxy: Hussar, you are being inconsistant. In the thread we were discussing in over in the 3E forum you said that a CR1 summoned creature wouldn't even slow down a 7th level barbarian. Now this same CR1 creature is a threat because it is convenient for it to be to advance your point?
Besides which fact, what you are saying is untrue. In official 2nd edition, Messer L'Orc can do as considerable an amount of damage with a critical hit (if using the Players Options Books) as Messer Barbarseven can with a similiar weapon. Nor is Messer L'Orc in any way restricted to what weaponry he uses, including such things as greatswords and halbreds, et al ad naseum. Messer L'Orc can whip out enough points of damage even without the optional critical system in place to drop the average hit pointed fighter in three blows with luck. No different than 3E. The thing is there is a higher level of accountability in 2E.
Hussar: But, again, you are completely ignoring the point. The point is not how xp is done. The point is, that xp is the award given for playing your character in the game. Full stop. You can only gain xp by playing. Even in systems where you get a sort of blanket xp award, you are only given that award for playing in the game. That is true in any gaming system.
Except 2e.
In 2e, I can gain xp for a single die roll I made before the game even started.
That's the point. Full stop.
Draxy: But your point is incorrect. It's like class requirements, which stillexist in 3E too. You have to have the requisite ability score to even qualify for a given class. You have to have the rquisite score to qualify for this bonus, which is not giving anything extra, but is subsuming that you already have this thing (an ability greater than others in a given area because of an inherent fitness for it) and are thus able to advance more easily. It is another arbitrary artificiality, like the requirement to have such and such minimum ability scores to be a Bard. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hussar: 2e gives me awards for something I did outside of the game, before my character was even created. Name another system that does that.
Draxy: 3E... and any other system that has anything like classes or class requirements, as stated above.
Hussar: See, what really burns my butt is this idea that everyone who plays 3e is a munchkin. That any "Real" roleplayer has to play 2e. It's complete and utter crap.
Draxy: It sure as Hell is! Nor have I ever argued that. I have argued that it is EASIER to abuse 3E, a stance that is popular for a reason, but to say that to play 3E you have to be munchkin is ludicrous.
Hussar: Take a look at my Mithril game. Take a look at the character backgrounds section. Pay particular attention to the last entry by the party's 6th level cleric. Look at his equipment. At 6th level, no one in the party has a magical weapon. Not one. We are currently playing in a party of 6, 4 humans, an elf and a half-orc.
Draxy: It looks pretty typical of my games too, although there might be a "cold iron broadsword" or "silver dagger" or two thrown in their in mine because by that level the PC's are usually up to their butts in mid-level undead (since I love the "evil Necromancer" motif; which is where Drax ap Athius comes from) and they have to have them to survive.
Hussar: How is this even remotely munchkin?
Draxy: It isn't.
Hussar: I see this blanket statements all the time that "serious" role players would never play a game like 3e and it flies up my left nostril.
Draxy: Where have you seen it? I'll go to whatever board that is with you and tar and feather the butt heads.
Hussar: I play a very serious game, with some excellent roleplaying. Look at my player's journals and you will see. Hell, for a background, the bard actually wrote a song. Great stuff and great role playing. Am I the exception? I don't think so.
Draxy: Here we disagree. I think that you and yours ARE the exception, just as I and mine ARE as well in 2E.
Hussar: I've talked to enough other gamers to think that my campaign is not too different than anyone else's.
Draxy: What is said and what presents itself when you look at the peoples PC's or NPC's is usually two different things. Check out that bloody NPC ranker at PAD&D once they get it back up and running. There weren't but two out of the entire sixty plus I saw that I would let anywhere near my game.
Hussar: It's this sort of smug superiority that so many 2e players come across with that is so irritating.
Draxy: Same as some 3E players, same as some D&D players when talking about Vampire (for instance), same as anybody else.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 14, 2003 3:59:43 GMT -5
Actually, you do not need a requisite score to become ANY class in the 3e PHB. While you would be a pretty sad wizard with an 8 intelligence, since you could not actually cast any spells, you could still be a wizard with an 8 intelligence. I do not need a 17 to become a paladin either. I can be any class I want with straight tens. Granted, I won't survive very long, but I can do it.
You are still dancing around the point though.
True or false - XP is the award given to players for playing.
True.
True or False - in 2e I can gain xp without actually playing.
True. A 10% bonus can be had through a simple die roll. For the entire life of the character.
True or False - in 3e I can gain xp without actually playing.
False. The only xp you can gain in 3e is through kills and through story and role playing awards. Nor is there any individual bonuses based on classes. The ranger who kills the troll with his sword gains the same xp as the wizard who kills it with his fireball.
That is the point I am having to make again and again. That because you gain bonuses to xp outside of the game in 2e for a simple die roll, it leads players to have higher die rolls.
BTW, I did see the NPC ranker. A better one is over at WOTC's website. Some are insane and some are pretty useable.
Also BTW, I always did hate undead in 2e. The level draining thing was too much of a pain IMHO. I like the way they have done it in 3e. Lessened the effect of energy drain but made the critters do much more damage.
Actually, that is one of the main reasons I switched to 3e. So many of my house rules mirrored the changes in 3e that it was pretty natural to make the change.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 14, 2003 5:15:15 GMT -5
And, since you asked:
Well, how about these:
Basically you are saying that anyone who plays 3e lacks the class to understand real roleplaying. 3e=Beyond Thunderdome, 2e=Hamlet.
Oh, now I am incapable of being truly flexible.
Ah, now the game I play is "cheap and plasticine with bright colors and gimmicks".
You know who said all of the above. That's what I'm talking about when I say this smug, smirking superiority complex that I see oozing out of 2e players. Even at Planet, it was RARELY the 3e players that started this kind of discussion. We don't care about 2e that much to start a pissing contest about it. Any more than I would start ragging on Paladium. I don't play it, and I'm likely not going to play it in the near future.
But look at the recent thread in the Den. More 3e bashing. You even came over to the 3e board specifically to bash 3e in a thread about power plays, a title I took from Dragon Magazines. Why do 2e players feel this incessant need to belittle a game they don't play?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 14, 2003 12:42:31 GMT -5
Okay, I've been watching you guys debate this for a while now, but I feel the need to jump in. You're arging over which system is easier to be a munchkin in, right? Just for argument's sake I'm gonna assume that Draxy is right and 3e is easier to abuse. And now I say "So what?" I'm familiar with both 2e and 3e, albeit much less experience than either of you I'm sure, and I prefer 3e. Know why? The main reason is more freedom. If you take the number of possible character's in 2e (talking about number and scores here, not actual personalities or anything) and the same in 3e I'm sure you will get tons more in 3e. Both in RPGs and in real life, the more freedom you have the more chances there are for abuse. No one can argue with that. Think about a freeform game. No rules whatsoever. There's nothing standing between a munchkin and world domination except the DM. But see, there is a DM in D&D, no matter what edition you play, and no matter what edition, the DM has the final say. If I wanted to make a half-dragon paladin in 2e I could, as long as my DM said so. But in 3e, there are already rules for a half-dragon paladin, and now my DM doesn't have to risk unbalancing the game or rule contradictions by making up his own rules for a half-dragon paladin. I like 3e because the decision of how to make my character is more in my hands than in the book's. In 2e, the book has a louder voice in what you can do with your character. I trust myself, my fellow players, and my DM to make good non-munchkin decisions when it comes to character creation, so why not put as much power in our hands as possible? If another group wants to go out and take all that freedom and use it to become gods, what do I care? You're just not playing in my game.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 14, 2003 17:27:15 GMT -5
Hussar, a Wizard that cannot cast spells is not a wizard. The entire concept of the Wizard is based around the control/utilization of magic without having to resort to an outside source for said ability. By your definition of a Wizard, Thrud the Barbarian is one as soon as he says he is. So is that old hat band over there. It said so.
3E is like that every where, which is one of the reasons that I detest it. It follows the present day concept of politically correct, anybody can do anything, handycapable non-sense. Even alignments have become so fuzzy as to loose any dubious value they had. Lawful neutral, the so called "true lawful" alignment being based around a personal code... good God, how ridiculous.
A man with a seventytwo IQ, irregardless of the movie Forrest Gump, just is not going to be able to cut it as a Nuclear Physicist. Period. There can be no debate here. He just doesn't have the equipment to proceed. That doesn't make him unable to pursue other fields, but he will NOT be able to fulfill the requirements for that particular career. Likewise, the complex and esoteric concepts of classic magic are just going to be beyond his scope. He can call himself a Wizard until the cows come home but that does not make it constructively reasonable to call him one.
Now in n 3E he can TECHNICALLY be one, because these bozos have the political correctness, nobody can be denied anything for any reason, bug.
Merkuri was saying that she likes it that 3E has a method for fitting in the half-dragon Paladin that 2E didn't have. I think that 2E didn't have the methodology for it is part of the reason that it IS a superior fantasy role playing vehicle.
It is in the modern video game RPG's where such a charcter arrives. It has no real place in the fantasy genre WHEN IT IS ALONGSIDE man. Suspension of reality is one thing, suspension of reasonability is another. The fantasy genre is NOT super heroes gaming. It is a different thing altogether. It includes stupendous power as well, but even then the power is linked with human frailty or there can be no identifying with the character.
I was wondering when someone else would chime in with the half-dragon, or another of those 3E races that ARE a big part of the problem. Hussar, you were asking why many 2E gamers seem to disdain 3E. There it is, right there, in a nut shell.
3E begs for just such concepts and THOSE CONCEPTS, not the people who utilize them, are why it gets generally dismissed as a less "pure" vehicle.
Now if you think I'm harsh on 3E by comparing it to Gibson in "Beyond Thunderdome" with 2E being Gibson in "Hamlet"; I personally compare D&D in ALL of it's incarnations to "Plan Nine from Outer Space" compared to GURPS being "Casablanca".
THAT however does not mean that I do not play 2E and love it. Nor should it stop anyone, IMO, from paying 3E and loving it. You however have not changed my opinion about the abusability comparison between the two. Not because I don't think that you really believe what you are saying or because I think that your wrong even, but because looking around, especially in a 3E forum, I see "The art of the Hack" and the like and haven't got to go any farther to see why it is more abused and abusable.
YOU seem to want to think that it is all aimed at you. I talk about one system, IMO, being more flexible than another system and you WANT it to be all about you. Suddenly I'm saying that YOU are inflexible. Read it again Hussar. Unless you so identify yourself with the 3E system that you now fail to see a seperation (in which case you might want to talk to someone about that) YOU are not the system.
"Cheap, plasticine and tawdry" was, when not taken out of context, in comparison to another game, 2E. Yeah, that is indeed the way I feel. I also, as I said, feel that all of AD&D is likewise "cheap, plasticine and tawdry" when compared to GURPS.
So what? I still happen to like one of the incarnations of that cheap, plasticine and tawrdy game (when it is taken in comparison to GURPS) more than I ever liked GURPS.
If you don't take yourself too seriously and begin to identify yourself with the game that isn't a hard thing to do or to admit to.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 14, 2003 20:18:10 GMT -5
Merkuri was saying that she likes it that 3E has a method for fitting in the half-dragon Paladin that 2E didn't have. I think that 2E didn't have the methodology for it is part of the reason that it IS a superior fantasy role playing vehicle. 2e is superior because it is more limited? Sure, that's your opinion. Monster class rules are advanced and optional. You could play a monster in 2e before, don't tell me you couldn't. It just had to be a house rule. I has to be a house rule in 3e, too, except that the rules are supported and balanced by WoTC instead of the individual DM. I have only had one monster character, and that's Koriisa from the Faerie Kindgom of Celene board on this site. And I like her a lot so far. She's been in a single battle, and I grew fond of her before that. I like her because of the roleplaying challenge. She's trying to fit into a world where she is a misfit. She's trying to deal with the sins of the parents she never knew. And her non-dragon half is a halfling. She's unique, she's complex, and that's why I love her. Both systems can be abused. The true joy of roleplaying has nothing to do with the system you use.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 14, 2003 20:31:56 GMT -5
As far as bringing in fantastical races alongside more "common" races, didn't Forgotten Realms introduce us to the Saurials? Didn't Dragonlance give us the Minotaur character (With its +2 strength and con bonus and 20 maxes)? Didn't Darksun give us the Thri-Kreen (and tell me THAT wasn't ubermunch).
You accuse me of taking things out of context and then do the exact same thing.
Take the alignment system. Yes, you are correct that the line from LN does include a personal code. However, if you bothered to read the whole section, you would see how that is clarified into meaning a highly rigid, structured individual. The very definition of LN.
Merkuri here didn't say that she would take the half dragon. What she said was that she trusted the DM and the players to play in such a way that the game wouldn't turn munchkin. True, 3e has more freedom to abuse. But, I'd rather have more freedom and choose not to abuse it than be shackled into a stagnant, vague system with half assed rules that allow me to gain xp without even adventuring.
You asked me where I had seen this smug superiority. I showed your own quotes where you yourself had done it. There are others certainly. Go over to Planet and you'll see tons of them. I just don't understand why some 2e players feel the need to attack 3e at every turn in some sort of competition to prove themselves the "true gamers".
In 2e I can be a wizard with a 9 intelligence. I can be a cleric with a 9 wisdom. Neither character is going to be very much of a cleric or wizard, but I can do it, same as in 3e. It makes sense to some extent. I can be a failed cleric, incapable of casting spells, but still adhering to the faith. A lay brethren for example.
As far as "The Art of the Hack" thread goes, it was a fun thread that I made to see how people would handle a dungeon situation. Let's face it. It's not called Medieval Politics and Lifestyles. It's DUNGEONS and Dragons. If you don't want to run dungeons, cool. That's your prerogative. But it hardly makes me less of a role player because I do.
And, just as a thought, what is the difference between The Art of the Hack and Wizard Survival 101. Both a tactical discussion about the game. Or Dungeon Hacking 101? Or Druid Spells- Being Creative? They are all the same. Tactical discussions. Part of the game is about tactics. And discussing tactics hardly makes someone a munchkin.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 17, 2003 8:56:58 GMT -5
Hi Merkuri, Hi Hussar.
Merkuri, I wasn't picking at you. I was simply illustrating a point. Hussar had asked why so many 2Eers seemed to feel that it was superior to 3E. In respect to what the fanatsy genre (pre videogame RPG's) was represented as, even elves and dwarves and halflings push the limit but are included as a part of the classical mythology from which the genre sprang; but half dragons and the like simply do not fit within that classical genre.
Personally, I like the idea of any race being playable, but not in a game genre based upon mythological idealism.
In all the years I've been gaming and with some absolutley fantastic gamers, I've seldom seen an elf REALLY protrayed as anything other than a pretty human. There is almost never the feeling that the character has anything other than a wholey human mindset.
The problem with that is that if they do not have that completely different and alien mindset all they become is a device whereby a stat or intangible bonus is gained.
___________________________________________
Ok, here we Hussar.
Hussar: Take the alignment system. Yes, you are correct that the line from LN does include a personal code. However, if you bothered to read the whole section, you would see how that is clarified into meaning a highly rigid, structured individual. The very definition of LN.
Draxy: No, they do NOT, clarify anything. They take a term and completely change it's meaning to the point that it no longer has the meaning that the word itself conjures forth. Law is only possible in a societal sense. An individual is not lawful in mindset if he/she/it ignores the concept of society for a personal code no matter how rigid or structured they are in and of themselves.
Laws can not excist without a societal backdrop, ergo a lawful anything character cannot excist without that same societal backdrop having been internalized and made a part of the self. The very concept of law is dependant on society... not a personal anything.
Hussar: True, 3e has more freedom to abuse.
Draxy: THAT, right there, is exactly what I've been saying from the start.
Hussar: But, I'd rather have more freedom and choose not to abuse it than be shackled into a stagnant, vague system with half assed rules that allow me to gain xp without even adventuring.
You asked me where I had seen this smug superiority. I showed your own quotes where you yourself had done it. There are others certainly. Go over to Planet and you'll see tons of them. I just don't understand why some 2e players feel the need to attack 3e at every turn in some sort of competition to prove themselves the "true gamers".
Draxy: READ your own words in the paragraph directly above the one where you complain about the smug superiority of 2E players. In WHAT WAY is that not exactly the SAME THING? As I said, it isn't just the 2Eers by any stretch of the imagination. As to who starts it... that seems, looking at PAD&D to be about a fifty fifty mix bub.
Hussar: In 2e I can be a wizard with a 9 intelligence. I can be a cleric with a 9 wisdom. Neither character is going to be very much of a cleric or wizard, but I can do it, ...
Draxy: Yes, because you still can use spells... the benchmark of what being a wizard or a cleric is thus fulfilled.
Hussar: ...same as in 3e.
Draxy: Absolutely NOT the same. In 3E you would not be able to use spells with a Intelligence of 6 (for instance) yet you could "be a wizard". THAT is exactly the kind of idiocy I so completely dislike about 3E.
Hussar: It makes sense to some extent. I can be a failed cleric, incapable of casting spells, but still adhering to the faith. A lay brethren for example.
Draxy: In which case you are not a Cleric... but a layman with a high degree of faith.
Hussar: ... it hardly makes me less of a role player because I do.
Draxy: Hussar, I have NEVER, in any way, even infered that YOU were less of a role player than I or anyone else. I did point out though that I, personally, enjoy this cheap, tawdry, plasticine 2E version of the same damned game. You seem to have a thing against enjoying something that is less than perfect in all ways. I do not. Please, stop attributing to me statements that I have not made.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 17, 2003 12:18:44 GMT -5
Merkuri, I wasn't picking at you. I was simply illustrating a point. I know you weren't picking at me, I just felt the need to defend half-dragons. Sorry if it sounded a bit self-defensive. You say that elves push the genre limit and half-dragons break it all together. I guess I just don't understand, but what about elves doesn't fit into fantasy genre? The fantasy genre as we know it today was largely created (or "standardized") by Tolkein, and he had elves galore. Elves, in one form or another, have been around for hundreds of years. So have dragons. D&D (arguably) created the half-elf, so why not a half-dragon? Just because the game makes things up that aren't based on an actual legend or myth doesn't make them bad. Beholder, anyone? One of the game's most famous baddies is completely original (to my knowledge). And they go back all the way to 1e. And perhaps you two should leave the alignment issue for another argument, since it's a whole world in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 17, 2003 18:03:49 GMT -5
Hi Merkuri,
Actually, what I was saying is that elves push the limit of a "playable" type of race, because they are so very alien. Dwarves and halflings and even gnomes aren't as long minded and thus fit better, but they too should be something other than short humans to be reasonable and usable. For elves though, immortality or methuselahisms HAVE TO make for titanic differences in basic mindset.
We view a few decades as a long time and a century as an immensely long time while the term millenia has almost no real emotional meaning to us a being... yet for an elf this last is but a simple lifetime; or less, since many AD&D 2E sources simply state that at this point the elf "goes into the west" or it's local equivalent. Taken straight from Tolkein they are not even bound to the world in the same way as man. They can not be resurrected therefore and have a different and alien ending as they have a different and alien life.
How often have you seen the type of impact that even that would make on the character properly or just "well" protrayed in a game?
Now elves, at the least, and half elves even more so, are atleast basicly humanoid. The mindset, while alien as hell is still understandable; but what of a half dragon though, or a beholder or beholder kin? They can't even claim the close kinship to humanity in form that an elf has while they to have the nigh immortality issue muddying things even further. A half dragon may be manlike in it's physical form, for a purely game logic reason, but even they do not share a common form in ancestory.
Certainly fantasy has elements of the "fantastic", thus the name, but it also needs enough of the undertandable and reasonable to be able to mirror our existence so that we have a means of identification with the character. You can certainly play the game without that, but at that point, for myself and many another 2Eer, it ceases to be fully a part of the fantasy genre.
This, of course, in no way invalidates 3E. It simply makes it, for us, a less desirable vehicle in which to protray heroic fantasy figures.
Draxy
|
|