Well we have lots of texts here and all are very well justified with lots of reasoning, but i would just like to comment that we should be careful to avoid justify rules only to keep things as they are instead of make them as they should be.
You know I'm all for changing things that are broken, but a rule needs to be understood and examined before it is just arbitrarily changed. This started with some questions about why things are the way they are, yet many respondents clearly had no interest in that question, and twisted it to diatribes on why things ought to be changed. I guess that's fine, but its kind of highjacking the thread.
And that's the thing, I actually have far more experience as a PnP DM and gamer than I do as a computer gamer. And far more interest in it too. I have played with race/class restrictions, including level limits. And I've rewritten or ignored them on occasion too. Either way, there's no need for some of the stubbornness we've seen here. An excellent game can be played either way.
I also have to go back to the DM/God comment too. Gamers and DMs are in a collaborative effort. Part of it involves trusting the DM to run the game and tell the story their own way. That never means the DM should present themselves as a tyrant or megalomaniac. But it does mean they are responsible for all decisions related to the rules and the setting. Everyone has more fun when that is understood. Believe me, I've been on both sides of this. From the time I was 16 I was my groups most prolific DM; and in my foolish youth I often struggled with knowing how to let someone else be in charge when the occasion arose. I think I was nearly 30 before I was able to relax and defer to others' judgement on all things. But that truly is the role of the player. Role play and strategize as best you can within the rules the DM lays out. Even on occasion when I was cringing at how sloppy or arbitrary another DM was. And yeah, some DMs just don't run a good game. But play/don't play is really the only choice open to the player. Arguing ruins it for everyone; and makes the person who started the argument look like the idiot. I started running my first game because I was frustrated with another DM. And my first game was awful! I learned a lot of sympathy for that other DM's failed efforts. I also learned he really was a poor DM (very punitive attitude towards his players). In the end, the DM IS god of their world. But they may be a good or bad god.
Oh, boy. I don't really want to be argumentative when you're clearly trying not to be, but... I think I'm about to come across as argumentative. Sorry.
I would like to point out, for the record, that the OP's post was less of an inquiry about the current state of the game and more of a request for change (which happened to include a semi-rhetorical question). So I don't really feel that it's hijacking the thread to debate the merits of such a change.
You're totally right that we can play an excellent game with or without race/class restrictions, because PnP RPGs are really awesome. And as a player, that kind of thinking is great. But from a game design standpoint, that kind of thinking is a trap. It's a trap because it's a designer's job to do better than "good enough." It's a designer's job to make sure the rules work for the players, that they facilitate fun (whatever that happens to mean) and don't get in the way. Players can have fun with an absolutely terrible system, if the fluff and the DM are good (Call of Cthulhu comes to mind), but it's a game designer's job to make sure the system is working with the players and not against them. And that's really important. As a game designer, the question isn't "how much fun are people having?" That's a good question, but there are too many factors involved outside of the designer's control. Game designers need to ask the much more specific question, "how is my game helping the players have fun?" That, I think, is the question we're trying to answer here. And I simply do not agree with you that it's unimportant just because it's possible to have fun either way.
As for stubbornness... well, I know ZK and I can both be pretty hardheaded. I don't mean anything by it, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. We both just care a lot about making sure the game is as good as it can possibly be. We disagree about how to go about that, and often quite strongly, but that's okay. Arguments are how we figure this stuff out.
And after all that, I gotta say I totally agree with you on the DM bit. The DM has the define the rules of the game and the world, and the players have to respect that. It's what produces the best experience for the players, if the DM is good. And if the DM is bad, on a truly fundamental level (not just a lack of skill or experience), then the best thing the players can do is just stop playing, because trying to hijack the game isn't going to make it any better.
The most disappointing thing about some of the postings in this thread are the people who believe there is a right and wrong way to play this game. i.e. X rule must be wrong because they disagree with it.
The AD&D rules as written are aimed to help provide players/DMs with one method of running a particular type of campaign world. It's a campaign world where humans are the dominant force, and this is achieved by giving them the ability to be all classes and have no level limits.
There are plenty of other ways to have a human dominant campaign world. And there's also no reason why you couldn't choose to run a non-human dominant campaign world.
Personally I found it helpful to have a human dominant campaign world - it felt natural to me for the world to be broadly similar to Earth in the middle ages (with magic and other races thrown in). And I found the racial restrictions to be a sensible way of achieving this. This doesn't mean that this method is the correct way, just that it was the correct way for my games.
Another quirk my games had were critical hits for player characters only. i.e. players could critically hit monsters/NPCs, but monsters/NPCs couldn't critically hit players. I can already hear the sharp intake of breath from those people who believe this is absolutely the wrong way to play the game - it's unrealistic and unfair. But it worked for us and we found it fun - and ultimately that's what the game is all about.
Well, i can see above a justify of bad rules to keep the system as it is, sorry @Karnor00 but that's what you're doing. So a gnome must be always an illusionist cos the world is human domined? the only race that develop a fist fight is the human race? Torm and Tyr only accept humans as faithful to justify only humam paladins?... Only human blackguards even with Dorn in game? Cos you know, if main char isn't humam powerful demons doesn't have interest on him.
Just remember that Wizard of the Coast itself recognized the mistake on class restrictions on 3° Edition and changed the whole system. There's no reason by roleplay or D&D lore that justify the restrictions, only power control justify it for AD&D and that's all.
Well, i can see above a justify of bad rules to keep the system as it is, sorry @Karnor00 but that's what you're doing.
Bad rules? I think what you mean is that in your opinion it is a bad rule. Because there's certainly no objective way of measuring how bad or good these rules are.
In effect you are trying to compare apples and pears and deciding which one is better. And you may pick some objective critera to measure these fruits such as roundness, firmness, juiciness, etc, give each critera a weighting and claim that you have objectively determined that the apple is better. But completely different critera may be the ones that matter to me and so I think the pear is better.
It seems to me that you value a balanced world where all races can contribute equally and everyone can have a go at everything. And that's completely fine and I understand why in your opinion the 2ED AD&D rules are wrong. And Wizards of the Coast seem to agree with you because of the changes they made in 3ED. But it doesn't make you "right" in any objective sense, nor does it mean I have to agree with you.
It's WotC opinion of bad rules @karnor00, officially recognize as that with the advent of the 3° edition that removed almost all race restrictions from the game (except the lore based, as thayan wizards that mandatory are always humans in Thay for example).
No need to really go further in this argument when the own company that make the rules recognized the flaw on them. from a PnP standard for isolated groups maybe it's a question of opinion, but for a game that impose those flawed restrictions to all the players, i have the objective right to disagree.
Ps: I made a simple statement, the race restrictions of AD&D are flawed and give a single justify, WotC changed it in the next rule set (and keep those changes in 4° edition as well).
Ps2: By the way i am right by objective point of view, the company recognization and change of the race-class rule system is an objective point, subjective is my personal feelings and your personal feelings about the issue.
It's WotC opinion of bad rules @karnor00, officially recognize as that with the advent of the 3° edition that removed almost all race restrictions from the game (except the lore based, as thayan wizards that mandatory are always humans in Thay for example).
No need to really go further in this argument when the own company that make the rules recognized the flaw on them. from a PnP standard for isolated groups maybe it's a question of opinion, but for a game that impose those flawed restrictions to all the players, i have the objective right to disagree.
Ps: I made a simple statement, the race restrictions of AD&D are flawed and give a single justify, WotC changed it in the next rule set (and keep those changes in 4° edition as well).
Ps2: By the way i am right by objective point of view, the company recognization and change of the race-class rule system is an objective point, subjective is my personal feelings and your personal feelings about the issue.
Where your flaw in logic is to be found is in that just because WoTC published the game, they (a) only made decisions with universally improve game play and (b) with the intent of removing 'house rules' such that individual DMs and groups could no longer play how they wanted but had to play how WoTC wanted and (c) that this in and of itself makes the game better and therefore 'True'.
None of this is true.
When I played AD&D, my DM (and he was the only one I consider because we really had the best games with him in that role) had a bunch of house rules that contradicted the rule books. These were rules that made sense to the story he was telling. They integrated in his vision of the game and the world we played in. And it was as a direct result of his vision that we had such a great time.
WoTC took the game that TSR (and Gary and Frank and the rest) created and modified it. Some like it better, some think it is worse. If I recall, Gary came out himself and said that he did not like the changes one bit. These are subjective opinions. And considering that it isn't the type of game like Chess where the rules are fixed and have to be played (and even that isn't 100% true for Chess) or the game is played 'Wrong'. They are a set of guidelines and nothing more. I even want to say that in one of the opening passages of the Dungeon Master's guide states words to that effect. These are guidelines and nothing more. It's a salad bar. Take what you like and leave the rest.
At the end of the day, it is all about the DM weaving a story for/with the group of adventurers. If all parties aren't having fun, if the rules themselves detract from the narrative, then the game breaks down. Play as you like/want and have fun with. But there is not Objective right way to play it.
Well lemme see then... do i believe that a company that make a market research and further developed the game had the better solution or do i stick with nostalgia and subjective opinions that i do not agree? As i said, my points are objective, when i push something from my own think i normally let it clear in my posts.
I hardly believe WotC to be worried a bit about house rules, what people make with their particular games is their problem, WotC intent is set base rules to make the core structure.
By the way it's not the best view point to use PnP examples to define a PC plataform game. BG doesn't have an human GM to change, adapt or alter the game to make it more fun.
The fact the company changed a rule set and kept it for years make an objective point, until that's dropped i stand by my opinion, but hey, no one is obliged to agree with me, be my guest to question the value of the objective point i brought, i just don't see a reason to think otherwise yet.
Anyhow, @Kamuizin, I also take issue with your contention that 3e D&D is somehow "better" or a more "true" version than 2e D&D. Yes, I get that you prefer that version of the game. I prefer 2e AD&D. I thought 3e was okay, but given a choice, I will always prefer 2e, because to me the game has so much more flavor than 3e. 3e, to me, was blandsauce. Hum de ho... anyone could be anything. Why? Just because. And then there was the proliferation of races and classes and prestige classes and feats. It became like an ever-escalating arms race to become the "best race" with the "Best bonuses, classes and feats". I found it kind of sickening, actually. 4e is so removed from what I like as to not really be Dungeons and Dragons to me. As In, I haven't purchased anything for it (except for two books that I didn't know were for 4e when I bought them online). I don't feel that 3e or 4e are the "best" or "true" versions of D&D, but that's my opinion. If you enjoy that sort of thing, great, more power to you- I'll stick with 2e. There is room in this world for both of us. (Although, just to be contrarian, how long have 3e and 4e lasted compared with 1e and 2e for longevity of versions? 1e was 11 years, 2e was 10 years. 3e lasted 3 years 3.5e 5 and 4e maybe 6 (depending on when the books for D&D Next come out- and even then, that is going back to 2e more than anything else).Less if you consider when they started planning those revisions that became the new editions.)
All I am saying is that claiming some version of AD&D or D&D is somehow "better" or "truer" because it has rules you prefer is not really being objective. It's being strictly subjective- it's tied to your opinion. Let's not get into arguments like this. It's your opinion, nothing more, and like the saying goes, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and no one's is better than another.
There is a time and a place for both perspectives. I'm personally supportive of race/class restrictions because I embrace the entirety of 2ed Forgotten Realms lore. I think the more lore a video game like Baldur's Gate draws from, the stronger it is. But I agree that in the context of tabletop gameplay that it is rather pedantic to fret about rules when you could draw upon the sporadic, collective creativity of fellow human beings. That's why even back in 1ed or 2ed, they included the "up to the DM's discretion" disclaimer.
I'm working on a mod that is heavily influenced by Forgotten Realms lore. So after doing alot of preliminary planning and research, I've come to appreciate the logic behind the restrictions. It may seem like an unnecessary nuisance but each restriction is tied to a story based explanation. When you change or alter it slightly, then ripples are felt throughout the game's universe. You could justify it by saying that your Bhaalspawn is such a special snowflake that it is the only one of its' kind, but I find that a bit of a cliche.
There are some subtleties to the race/class restrictions that you only learn by delving into the supplements. For example in the Forgotten Realms setting, the concept of "humans" varies on their society. Red Wizards of Thay operate differently with special bonuses and restrictions from the typical Necromancer while Rasheman Berserkers vary from the typical Berserker. Then you have over a hundred specialty priests that differ depending on their religion or race. For example you have Hanali Celanil which is the Elven goddess of love compared to Sune the Human goddess of love. Unfortunately 3ed merged the two for no other reason than 'simplicity', the same reason that led to culling off some really interesting Forgotten Realms concepts. They killed off Helm and Tyr because Torm could do their jobs instead. There's many other examples where WotSC have removed restrictions and tried to simplify things.
Besides 2ed is rather generous with the restrictions, especially in comparison to 1ed. There are many kits that have yet to be introduced to Baldur's Gate that helps to solve such frustrations. For example, there are Bard kits for each demihuman; the Minstrel for the Elf, the Professor for the Gnome, the Whistler for the Halfling and the Chanter for the Dwarf. Each one has a lore explanation for existing. Alternatively you could allow Bards for everyone but I prefer coming up with kits that have a backstory for existing. It's like taking up a creating writing challenge that sets the topic rather than relying on you to think it up.
If you take the removal of race/class restrictions to the extreme then you'd get just four classes (Warrior, Mage, Priest & Thief) or you'd get two (physical & magical). That ends up being an Eastern take on the RPG genre, which is valid but I don't think suits what Baldur's Gate is. I had issues with PST and IWD2 for the way they simplified the class concept because it made the characters nearly indistinguishable in how they were used.
But yeah I'm all for changing the structure of the Infinity Engine to allow the removal of race/class restrictions because it makes modding new concepts easier. However when it comes to the vanilla package, best to ship with the core 2ed rules, its' in the dna of the game.
Can we stop throwing walls-of-rules-lawyer-text at each other, and get back to praising me for the awesomeness of BG2 Tweaks? Let's stay focused people!
Seriously, guys and gals, go grab a beer and take a break.
Well lemme see then... do i believe that a company that make a market research and further developed the game had the better solution or do i stick with nostalgia and subjective opinions that i do not agree? As i said, my points are objective, when i push something from my own think i normally let it clear in my posts.
Two words. 4th Edition. Nuff said.
Although I might also add Diablo 3 and Dragon Age 2.
Three examples of a company that did the 'market research and further developed the game' that did in no way end up with a 'Better' game out of the bargain.
I hardly believe WotC to be worried a bit about house rules, what people make with their particular games is their problem, WotC intent is set base rules to make the core structure.
Which is a 100% reversal of your position. If I make my house rules such that dwarves are not very good at being fighters such that they are actually capped at level 10, that is my house rule.
By the way it's not the best view point to use PnP examples to define a PC plataform game. BG doesn't have an human GM to change, adapt or alter the game to make it more fun.
(a) the thread isn't 'Necessarily' about the BG game although it does have a place in the talk (if for no other reason than where the discussion takes place) but who says we are ONLY talking about the CRPG?
(b) There are MODS that can do most of what we are talking about which CAN directly be applied to BG.
The fact the company changed a rule set and kept it for years make an objective point, until that's dropped i stand by my opinion, but hey, no one is obliged to agree with me, be my guest to question the value of the objective point i brought, i just don't see a reason to think otherwise yet.
Just trying to get you to admit that your opinion is just that; an opinion. Before you were calling your opinion a fact. It isn't. And yes, the company changed the rules. The folks that made Xcom: Declassified 'Changed the rules' as well. Didn't make it a better (or by any stretch of the imagination even a good) game.
So, there's an interesting issue here with subjective vs. objective quality. In particular, I see a lot of people claiming (essentially) that quality in entertainment is purely subjective. The problem is that this isn't true. Entertainment quality is partially subjective, but only partially. There is an objective component, and not a small one. Otherwise there's no quality different between Citizen Cain and Transformers. It's entirely a matter of personal taste But that's... well... not exactly true, now is it? Some people might enjoy Transformers more than Citizen Cain, but overall Citizen Cain is clearly a better movie. The objective quality forms a baseline, and each person has subjective variance from that baseline based on their personal tastes. In some cases, extreme subjective variance produces very unusual comparative results, such as people enjoying Transformers more than Citizen Cain, but these are outliers and in no way invalidate the objective baseline of quality.
Game rules follow a similar pattern. Enjoyment is a function of objective quality + subjective variance. What we're trying to get at here is how to make a set of rules that maximizes the objective quality component. That's not easy, because all our actually data is actually the output of enjoyment functions, which include subjective variance. Which is why we so often disagree. But the cool thing is that if really dig into these things, as we do if we argue intelligently (and this doesn't seem to have totally devolved into a shouting match quite yet), we can start to get at what the objective quality actually is. So basically what I'm saying is that I'm in favor of arguing about what the rules should be. Which you probably all figured out, but now hopefully you have some idea why.
Now, there are also some things I've left out. Different game systems, like different movies, may try to accomplish different things. In this way, my Citizen Cain vs. Transformers example is somewhat inappropriate. After all, both movies have very different goals in mind, and if you go to watch Citizen Cain expecting the same kind of entertainment that Transformers provides, you're going to be very surprised and quite possibly disappointed, in spite of Citizen Cain's higher overall quality. So too with game systems. But I don't think the things we're arguing about here would change the fundamental goal of the game. If you think it would, though, I'd love to hear about it, so feel free to disagree.
Can we stop throwing walls-of-rules-lawyer-text at each other, and get back to praising me for the awesomeness of BG2 Tweaks? Let's stay focused people!
Seriously, guys and gals, go grab a beer and take a break.
Yes! I already have plans for a Dwarven Inquisitor, a Half-Orc Monk (maybe Dark Moon), and possibly a Halfling Stalker. Halfling Cleric/Thief would be high on that list, but I already 'Keepered a character into that combination a while ago.
With regard to the BG2 tweak pack I'm looking forward to playing either a halfling fighter/cleric or cleric/thief. I always thought it was rather bizarre that they can play a fighter, a thief, a fighter-thief, or a cleric. But not a fighter/cleric or cleric/thief (without involving shadowkeeper).
I don't think there's any real arguing that quality in entertainment does have some absolute objective criteria. But I think you'll get a strong argument about any claims a later rule set is superior to an older one, or that any particular rule needs to be changed for absolute qualitative reasons. Especially because being so dogmatic about it suggests those who disagree are "wrong". That's ridiculous. That's not about proving Citizen Kane is objectively better than Transformers; its more like insisting the cinematographer credit should always be in the opening credits instead of the end credits.
@Mordeus Interestingly enough, it was the complexity of the 2e Realms that made it so real to me. The Realms was not made to be simple and mostly monoculture. Yes, the Western Heartlands and the North were somewhat monoculture, but each country had their own culture, and many had their own take on the Gods. The fact that there were numerous Goddesses of Love (Hanali Celanil was keeper of the Pool "Evergold" which increased the charisma of those who bathed in it, shared it with the human goddess Sune, Goddess of Love and Beauty). I liked this interaction, and the idea of numerous pantheons of Gods sharing the same world made sense to me in a Pagan way, as each culture had its own Gods, from the Egyptian/Babylonian Gods (fugitives from our universe) in places like Unther, to the multiple Gods of Zakhara, land of fate (south of where most of the action takes place in the Realms), to the Gods of places like Maztica and Kara-Tur. It seemed much more like our world, and made it seem more "real", if that makes any sense. A simplified world just seems much more sterile and less "real". Our world has a long and chaotic history- why shouldn't other worlds?
@actDave, I do think the folks who disagree with me are wrong. That's practically the definition of holding an opinion. But I'm open to persuasion. I hope I haven't given that impression that I'm not considering the opposing arguments. I haven't been convinced by them, yet, but that's rather different from being unwilling to be convinced.
You'll also note that I have never made any claims about 3E being better than 2E. I'm gonna break that right now and say I think 3E is better (although still kind of bad), but that's such a general statement as to be meaningless to the issue at hand. When arguing about specific mechanics, the relative quality of entire systems involves way too many irrelevant factors. For example, I like that 3E uses Base Attack Bonus instead of THAC0. I think that's a better way to go. That's totally irrelevant to race/class restrictions, but it impacts the quality of the entire system. There are a lot of factors like that, so the relative quality of specific mechanics gets drowned out. For example, there's no way you would know from my preference for 3E that I think 2E's physical penalties and bed-rest requirements for spells are a better mechanic than 3E's XP costs. So I think a statement about edition quality is totally useless here, because it doesn't answer any questions that are helpful to game design. You have to ask why one edition is better than the other before you can even start to get at the important parts.
Now, about your last bit, I really have to ask how you think great things get made. There's a certain amount of it that's in the general forms and sweeping patterns, yes. But as any programmer will tell you, you have to test each individual system and make sure it's doing what it's supposed to do, or else you're not gonna get the result you want. You don't get to make Citizen Cain unless you're thinking hard about every little detail.
Thinking hard about every last detail is no proof of a good result. Every product starts with a vision (whether that vision is creative or monetary) and is filled in by details. At any step along the way, from vision to ultimate detail, can be a BAD decision, no matter how conscientious the decision maker. In fact, I'd say bad movies/games/programs were often just as thoroughly planned out as very good ones. Getting a successful whole is often a tricky thing, and impossible to define until it hits the market.
But more to the subject at hand, I think you're taking far too adversarial a position on opinions. Its honestly fine with me that you like 3E, because it is an opinion. I don't have to consider it wrong, it just isn't mine. In PnP it makes no difference; you can run a 3E game while I run my 2E game. As long as we can respect each other's preferences we might even enjoy playing in each other's games. Perhaps that's the very foundation of my take on this matter, having played many multiple different game systems at the same time, I have plenty of experience with letting the DM be the DM. Whether its 3E, 1E, plain D&D, Traveler, Champions or any other. Its the DM's call. But this becomes relevent here because I dislike the push towards making BG, and its 2E game engine, more like the newer rule sets. My rule set is obsolete, it will get no new product, it is only legacy. So yes I want to keep it true to its origins. I reject the idea a newer generation of gamers has found "objective" failings. They simply approach it from a bias formed by newer game products, and want to mash it into conformaty.
Of course thinking hard about every detail doesn't guarantee a good result. But it's the best way to get a good result. It maximizes your chances. So we do it. I don't see why you have a problem with that.
Now, see, I don't agree that you don't think I'm wrong. That sounds odd to say, so let me explain. I totally get that you think my opinion is valid, and I think your opinion is also valid. But you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you. You don't think my opinion in right, because if you did, then you'd agree with me by definition. You just think, as I do, that being wrong about something isn't some horrible sin, or something unique to other people. But when someone's wrong, you try to persuade them (as you're trying to persuade me right now), because you want everyone to be less wrong. Sometimes it turns out that the other person is right, and that you're the person who was made less wrong by the argument, and that's awesome. It's why good arguments are so cool, which is in turn the only reason I'm still posting in this thread.
And just for the record? I've played a lot of different systems too. D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, Shadowrun, Seventh's Sea, Vampire: The Masquerade, some other small systems, and more homebrew variants of the above than I can shake a stick at, including a couple of my own. I didn't learn on 3E, because I wasn't out when I started playing, and it's not what I've played the most of. In fact, no single system forms a majority of my playtime (and a homebrew system forms the plurality). So while I am not without bias, I don't think it's based on 3E, or even on newer systems in general. It's most likely based on the specific dymanics of the four groups I've played with over the years, because that's what our homebrew stuff has had to adapt to. I say this because I take no small offense at the idea that my goal is to make the game more like 3E. My goal is to make the game BETTER, because no game ever written has achieved perfection, and no game should ever be granted immunity from improvement.
@Jarrakul - The problem isn't with you thinking someone who holds a different opinion is wrong. They are, from your perspective. The problem is with you thinking that your subjective opinion is an objective fact. It isn't.
The problem that I have with your initial comparison (Transformers vs Citizen Cain) is that it too is subject to subjective factors. Even if the majority of people think that Citizen Cain is 'Better' this is by and large due to subjective factors. Nostalgia, breadth of story, convincingness of the acting, relevance of content and subjective assessments of the actors and director.
And a case could be made based simply on objective factors that Transformers is the better film. Higher resolution of the film is objective. Color versus black and white is objective. Length (Transformers is longer) is objectively superior. Technically superior special effects is objective. It cost a whole heck of a lot more to make transformers than it did to make Citizen Cain. More people saw Transformers in the theater than saw Citizen Cain on opening weekend. All, objective facts pointing to the fact that Transformers is superior. Is it superior?
It points to the fact that there may be statically objective factors that state one version of the game is superior to the other. The ones being discussed are largely subjective. And just because objective factors lean one direction, that doesn't magically turn the subjective reasons objective.
@the_spyder, no, I don't agree. First, as to my own opinion, I don't really consider my subjective opinion to be objective fact. I consider it to be my best guess at the objective fact. That's because I can't get anything better. If I had a better guess, that would be my subjective opinion. In a probabilistic sense, my subjective opinion is a Bayesian prior. Until evidence modifies it, it's the best I've got. Once evidence modifies it, the modified version becomes the new prior.
Now, as to subjective vs. objective quality, what you're saying is precisely what I'm arguing isn't true. I'm arguing that things like quality of acting are objective facts that are subject to subjective variance when interpreted. I think this because there's a systematic pattern in the distribution of experienced enjoyment that suggests some sort of baseline + variance function. That's clearly not how you think the world works, but... well, it matches my observations. I think Roger Ebert also wrote something on this subject, but I could be misremembering the author as I can't find the article when I did a quick search for it. I may try again later.
Jarrakul what I'm taking issue with is NOT your opinion about a rule or rule set. What I'm objecting to is your claim of any sort of objective truth for it. You don't like it, that's your opinion and that's fine. But claiming the rule is "bad" is wrong. Just like when I try to convince my wife that broccoli is bad. She isn't fooled by my attempt to turn my opinion into a fact. It's the same thing with labeling this rule bad. That is an opinion many of us don't share.
I'd say that acting is much like roleplaying. Racial limits add challenges that are fun and frustrating. Making Baldur's Gate more like my PnP experiences would be a big plus. Removing class level restricitions takes away the challenge of role playing another race. I had one main charactor through 10 years of AD&D. The other members of my D&D group has 5 to 10 main charactors. My F/M/T adventured through campaign after campaign because it required a boat load of XP to level. A multiclass charactor in PnP AD&D gets a lot more weapon and non-weapon proficiencies. The advantages of playing the other races should be brought out more and the reason behind the restrictions will make more sense. Living for hundreds of years is a hugh bonus and if age was implemented in Baldur's Gate this would become obvious. I would hope the game developers would add more layers of depths like age, weapon, and non-weapon profieciences to the game and not take the easy way out and simply remove a restriction. I had to play my elf for many years before I saw how truely wonderful the race was with the restrictions. I agree that some of the reason why those restrictions were added was because human burn bright and burn out fast. The restrictions are guide to help you roleplay, not a penalty. Just something to think about.
"be happy with what you believe, i stand by my position and nothing said here yet changed that"
If you want to think i'm wrong, uncoherent, flamer or any other adjective, well be my guest to do that. Seizing the opportunity with @LadyRhian being in the discussion, know that i'm not stubborn and i will change my mind if i gather enough points to make me re-think an issue. This just didn't happened yet here.
@Jarrakul - I can't help that you don't seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective. It is objective that water is wet. Nothing, baring a fundamental shift in the laws of physics, will change that fact. It is subjective that Blue is pretty. No amount of fuzzy logic or situational ethics will make blue objectively pretty. There is no 'second guess' to make a new paradigm.
You say that acting is objectively good or bad. I say bunk. Name any actor or actress in the history of acting and I will find someone in the world who doesn't like their acting. My wife happens to think that the chick from the Twilight Movies is the best actress in the world. Can you name someone who disagrees with that stance? Objective is the same for everyone. If it ISN'T the same for everyone, it is subjective.
3E rules (individually or in totality) are not universally 'Good' or 'Better' than 2E rules. There are some I quite like and others I don't from both sets. But even if you and I both agreed on one rule, that is still subjective. Because it isn't universally and by definition good for everyone.
Comments
And that's the thing, I actually have far more experience as a PnP DM and gamer than I do as a computer gamer. And far more interest in it too. I have played with race/class restrictions, including level limits. And I've rewritten or ignored them on occasion too.
Either way, there's no need for some of the stubbornness we've seen here. An excellent game can be played either way.
I also have to go back to the DM/God comment too. Gamers and DMs are in a collaborative effort. Part of it involves trusting the DM to run the game and tell the story their own way. That never means the DM should present themselves as a tyrant or megalomaniac. But it does mean they are responsible for all decisions related to the rules and the setting. Everyone has more fun when that is understood. Believe me, I've been on both sides of this. From the time I was 16 I was my groups most prolific DM; and in my foolish youth I often struggled with knowing how to let someone else be in charge when the occasion arose. I think I was nearly 30 before I was able to relax and defer to others' judgement on all things. But that truly is the role of the player. Role play and strategize as best you can within the rules the DM lays out. Even on occasion when I was cringing at how sloppy or arbitrary another DM was. And yeah, some DMs just don't run a good game. But play/don't play is really the only choice open to the player. Arguing ruins it for everyone; and makes the person who started the argument look like the idiot.
I started running my first game because I was frustrated with another DM. And my first game was awful! I learned a lot of sympathy for that other DM's failed efforts. I also learned he really was a poor DM (very punitive attitude towards his players).
In the end, the DM IS god of their world. But they may be a good or bad god.
I would like to point out, for the record, that the OP's post was less of an inquiry about the current state of the game and more of a request for change (which happened to include a semi-rhetorical question). So I don't really feel that it's hijacking the thread to debate the merits of such a change.
You're totally right that we can play an excellent game with or without race/class restrictions, because PnP RPGs are really awesome. And as a player, that kind of thinking is great. But from a game design standpoint, that kind of thinking is a trap. It's a trap because it's a designer's job to do better than "good enough." It's a designer's job to make sure the rules work for the players, that they facilitate fun (whatever that happens to mean) and don't get in the way. Players can have fun with an absolutely terrible system, if the fluff and the DM are good (Call of Cthulhu comes to mind), but it's a game designer's job to make sure the system is working with the players and not against them. And that's really important. As a game designer, the question isn't "how much fun are people having?" That's a good question, but there are too many factors involved outside of the designer's control. Game designers need to ask the much more specific question, "how is my game helping the players have fun?" That, I think, is the question we're trying to answer here. And I simply do not agree with you that it's unimportant just because it's possible to have fun either way.
As for stubbornness... well, I know ZK and I can both be pretty hardheaded. I don't mean anything by it, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. We both just care a lot about making sure the game is as good as it can possibly be. We disagree about how to go about that, and often quite strongly, but that's okay. Arguments are how we figure this stuff out.
And after all that, I gotta say I totally agree with you on the DM bit. The DM has the define the rules of the game and the world, and the players have to respect that. It's what produces the best experience for the players, if the DM is good. And if the DM is bad, on a truly fundamental level (not just a lack of skill or experience), then the best thing the players can do is just stop playing, because trying to hijack the game isn't going to make it any better.
The AD&D rules as written are aimed to help provide players/DMs with one method of running a particular type of campaign world. It's a campaign world where humans are the dominant force, and this is achieved by giving them the ability to be all classes and have no level limits.
There are plenty of other ways to have a human dominant campaign world. And there's also no reason why you couldn't choose to run a non-human dominant campaign world.
Personally I found it helpful to have a human dominant campaign world - it felt natural to me for the world to be broadly similar to Earth in the middle ages (with magic and other races thrown in). And I found the racial restrictions to be a sensible way of achieving this. This doesn't mean that this method is the correct way, just that it was the correct way for my games.
Another quirk my games had were critical hits for player characters only. i.e. players could critically hit monsters/NPCs, but monsters/NPCs couldn't critically hit players. I can already hear the sharp intake of breath from those people who believe this is absolutely the wrong way to play the game - it's unrealistic and unfair. But it worked for us and we found it fun - and ultimately that's what the game is all about.
Just remember that Wizard of the Coast itself recognized the mistake on class restrictions on 3° Edition and changed the whole system. There's no reason by roleplay or D&D lore that justify the restrictions, only power control justify it for AD&D and that's all.
In effect you are trying to compare apples and pears and deciding which one is better. And you may pick some objective critera to measure these fruits such as roundness, firmness, juiciness, etc, give each critera a weighting and claim that you have objectively determined that the apple is better. But completely different critera may be the ones that matter to me and so I think the pear is better.
It seems to me that you value a balanced world where all races can contribute equally and everyone can have a go at everything. And that's completely fine and I understand why in your opinion the 2ED AD&D rules are wrong. And Wizards of the Coast seem to agree with you because of the changes they made in 3ED. But it doesn't make you "right" in any objective sense, nor does it mean I have to agree with you.
No need to really go further in this argument when the own company that make the rules recognized the flaw on them. from a PnP standard for isolated groups maybe it's a question of opinion, but for a game that impose those flawed restrictions to all the players, i have the objective right to disagree.
Ps: I made a simple statement, the race restrictions of AD&D are flawed and give a single justify, WotC changed it in the next rule set (and keep those changes in 4° edition as well).
Ps2: By the way i am right by objective point of view, the company recognization and change of the race-class rule system is an objective point, subjective is my personal feelings and your personal feelings about the issue.
None of this is true.
When I played AD&D, my DM (and he was the only one I consider because we really had the best games with him in that role) had a bunch of house rules that contradicted the rule books. These were rules that made sense to the story he was telling. They integrated in his vision of the game and the world we played in. And it was as a direct result of his vision that we had such a great time.
WoTC took the game that TSR (and Gary and Frank and the rest) created and modified it. Some like it better, some think it is worse. If I recall, Gary came out himself and said that he did not like the changes one bit. These are subjective opinions. And considering that it isn't the type of game like Chess where the rules are fixed and have to be played (and even that isn't 100% true for Chess) or the game is played 'Wrong'. They are a set of guidelines and nothing more. I even want to say that in one of the opening passages of the Dungeon Master's guide states words to that effect. These are guidelines and nothing more. It's a salad bar. Take what you like and leave the rest.
At the end of the day, it is all about the DM weaving a story for/with the group of adventurers. If all parties aren't having fun, if the rules themselves detract from the narrative, then the game breaks down. Play as you like/want and have fun with. But there is not Objective right way to play it.
I hardly believe WotC to be worried a bit about house rules, what people make with their particular games is their problem, WotC intent is set base rules to make the core structure.
By the way it's not the best view point to use PnP examples to define a PC plataform game. BG doesn't have an human GM to change, adapt or alter the game to make it more fun.
The fact the company changed a rule set and kept it for years make an objective point, until that's dropped i stand by my opinion, but hey, no one is obliged to agree with me, be my guest to question the value of the objective point i brought, i just don't see a reason to think otherwise yet.
Anyhow, @Kamuizin, I also take issue with your contention that 3e D&D is somehow "better" or a more "true" version than 2e D&D. Yes, I get that you prefer that version of the game. I prefer 2e AD&D. I thought 3e was okay, but given a choice, I will always prefer 2e, because to me the game has so much more flavor than 3e. 3e, to me, was blandsauce. Hum de ho... anyone could be anything. Why? Just because. And then there was the proliferation of races and classes and prestige classes and feats. It became like an ever-escalating arms race to become the "best race" with the "Best bonuses, classes and feats". I found it kind of sickening, actually. 4e is so removed from what I like as to not really be Dungeons and Dragons to me. As In, I haven't purchased anything for it (except for two books that I didn't know were for 4e when I bought them online). I don't feel that 3e or 4e are the "best" or "true" versions of D&D, but that's my opinion. If you enjoy that sort of thing, great, more power to you- I'll stick with 2e. There is room in this world for both of us. (Although, just to be contrarian, how long have 3e and 4e lasted compared with 1e and 2e for longevity of versions? 1e was 11 years, 2e was 10 years. 3e lasted 3 years 3.5e 5 and 4e maybe 6 (depending on when the books for D&D Next come out- and even then, that is going back to 2e more than anything else).Less if you consider when they started planning those revisions that became the new editions.)
All I am saying is that claiming some version of AD&D or D&D is somehow "better" or "truer" because it has rules you prefer is not really being objective. It's being strictly subjective- it's tied to your opinion. Let's not get into arguments like this. It's your opinion, nothing more, and like the saying goes, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and no one's is better than another.
Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I'm working on a mod that is heavily influenced by Forgotten Realms lore. So after doing alot of preliminary planning and research, I've come to appreciate the logic behind the restrictions. It may seem like an unnecessary nuisance but each restriction is tied to a story based explanation. When you change or alter it slightly, then ripples are felt throughout the game's universe. You could justify it by saying that your Bhaalspawn is such a special snowflake that it is the only one of its' kind, but I find that a bit of a cliche.
There are some subtleties to the race/class restrictions that you only learn by delving into the supplements. For example in the Forgotten Realms setting, the concept of "humans" varies on their society. Red Wizards of Thay operate differently with special bonuses and restrictions from the typical Necromancer while Rasheman Berserkers vary from the typical Berserker. Then you have over a hundred specialty priests that differ depending on their religion or race. For example you have Hanali Celanil which is the Elven goddess of love compared to Sune the Human goddess of love. Unfortunately 3ed merged the two for no other reason than 'simplicity', the same reason that led to culling off some really interesting Forgotten Realms concepts. They killed off Helm and Tyr because Torm could do their jobs instead. There's many other examples where WotSC have removed restrictions and tried to simplify things.
Besides 2ed is rather generous with the restrictions, especially in comparison to 1ed. There are many kits that have yet to be introduced to Baldur's Gate that helps to solve such frustrations. For example, there are Bard kits for each demihuman; the Minstrel for the Elf, the Professor for the Gnome, the Whistler for the Halfling and the Chanter for the Dwarf. Each one has a lore explanation for existing. Alternatively you could allow Bards for everyone but I prefer coming up with kits that have a backstory for existing. It's like taking up a creating writing challenge that sets the topic rather than relying on you to think it up.
If you take the removal of race/class restrictions to the extreme then you'd get just four classes (Warrior, Mage, Priest & Thief) or you'd get two (physical & magical). That ends up being an Eastern take on the RPG genre, which is valid but I don't think suits what Baldur's Gate is. I had issues with PST and IWD2 for the way they simplified the class concept because it made the characters nearly indistinguishable in how they were used.
But yeah I'm all for changing the structure of the Infinity Engine to allow the removal of race/class restrictions because it makes modding new concepts easier. However when it comes to the vanilla package, best to ship with the core 2ed rules, its' in the dna of the game.
Seriously, guys and gals, go grab a beer and take a break.
Although I might also add Diablo 3 and Dragon Age 2.
Three examples of a company that did the 'market research and further developed the game' that did in no way end up with a 'Better' game out of the bargain. Which is a 100% reversal of your position. If I make my house rules such that dwarves are not very good at being fighters such that they are actually capped at level 10, that is my house rule. (a) the thread isn't 'Necessarily' about the BG game although it does have a place in the talk (if for no other reason than where the discussion takes place) but who says we are ONLY talking about the CRPG?
(b) There are MODS that can do most of what we are talking about which CAN directly be applied to BG. Just trying to get you to admit that your opinion is just that; an opinion. Before you were calling your opinion a fact. It isn't. And yes, the company changed the rules. The folks that made Xcom: Declassified 'Changed the rules' as well. Didn't make it a better (or by any stretch of the imagination even a good) game.
Game rules follow a similar pattern. Enjoyment is a function of objective quality + subjective variance. What we're trying to get at here is how to make a set of rules that maximizes the objective quality component. That's not easy, because all our actually data is actually the output of enjoyment functions, which include subjective variance. Which is why we so often disagree. But the cool thing is that if really dig into these things, as we do if we argue intelligently (and this doesn't seem to have totally devolved into a shouting match quite yet), we can start to get at what the objective quality actually is. So basically what I'm saying is that I'm in favor of arguing about what the rules should be. Which you probably all figured out, but now hopefully you have some idea why.
Now, there are also some things I've left out. Different game systems, like different movies, may try to accomplish different things. In this way, my Citizen Cain vs. Transformers example is somewhat inappropriate. After all, both movies have very different goals in mind, and if you go to watch Citizen Cain expecting the same kind of entertainment that Transformers provides, you're going to be very surprised and quite possibly disappointed, in spite of Citizen Cain's higher overall quality. So too with game systems. But I don't think the things we're arguing about here would change the fundamental goal of the game. If you think it would, though, I'd love to hear about it, so feel free to disagree.
Now how's that for a tangent? :P
Its awesome!
Never!
Ok, maybe
That's ridiculous. That's not about proving Citizen Kane is objectively better than Transformers; its more like insisting the cinematographer credit should always be in the opening credits instead of the end credits.
You'll also note that I have never made any claims about 3E being better than 2E. I'm gonna break that right now and say I think 3E is better (although still kind of bad), but that's such a general statement as to be meaningless to the issue at hand. When arguing about specific mechanics, the relative quality of entire systems involves way too many irrelevant factors. For example, I like that 3E uses Base Attack Bonus instead of THAC0. I think that's a better way to go. That's totally irrelevant to race/class restrictions, but it impacts the quality of the entire system. There are a lot of factors like that, so the relative quality of specific mechanics gets drowned out. For example, there's no way you would know from my preference for 3E that I think 2E's physical penalties and bed-rest requirements for spells are a better mechanic than 3E's XP costs. So I think a statement about edition quality is totally useless here, because it doesn't answer any questions that are helpful to game design. You have to ask why one edition is better than the other before you can even start to get at the important parts.
Now, about your last bit, I really have to ask how you think great things get made. There's a certain amount of it that's in the general forms and sweeping patterns, yes. But as any programmer will tell you, you have to test each individual system and make sure it's doing what it's supposed to do, or else you're not gonna get the result you want. You don't get to make Citizen Cain unless you're thinking hard about every little detail.
But more to the subject at hand, I think you're taking far too adversarial a position on opinions. Its honestly fine with me that you like 3E, because it is an opinion. I don't have to consider it wrong, it just isn't mine. In PnP it makes no difference; you can run a 3E game while I run my 2E game. As long as we can respect each other's preferences we might even enjoy playing in each other's games. Perhaps that's the very foundation of my take on this matter, having played many multiple different game systems at the same time, I have plenty of experience with letting the DM be the DM. Whether its 3E, 1E, plain D&D, Traveler, Champions or any other. Its the DM's call.
But this becomes relevent here because I dislike the push towards making BG, and its 2E game engine, more like the newer rule sets. My rule set is obsolete, it will get no new product, it is only legacy. So yes I want to keep it true to its origins. I reject the idea a newer generation of gamers has found "objective" failings. They simply approach it from a bias formed by newer game products, and want to mash it into conformaty.
Now, see, I don't agree that you don't think I'm wrong. That sounds odd to say, so let me explain. I totally get that you think my opinion is valid, and I think your opinion is also valid. But you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you. You don't think my opinion in right, because if you did, then you'd agree with me by definition. You just think, as I do, that being wrong about something isn't some horrible sin, or something unique to other people. But when someone's wrong, you try to persuade them (as you're trying to persuade me right now), because you want everyone to be less wrong. Sometimes it turns out that the other person is right, and that you're the person who was made less wrong by the argument, and that's awesome. It's why good arguments are so cool, which is in turn the only reason I'm still posting in this thread.
And just for the record? I've played a lot of different systems too. D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, Shadowrun, Seventh's Sea, Vampire: The Masquerade, some other small systems, and more homebrew variants of the above than I can shake a stick at, including a couple of my own. I didn't learn on 3E, because I wasn't out when I started playing, and it's not what I've played the most of. In fact, no single system forms a majority of my playtime (and a homebrew system forms the plurality). So while I am not without bias, I don't think it's based on 3E, or even on newer systems in general. It's most likely based on the specific dymanics of the four groups I've played with over the years, because that's what our homebrew stuff has had to adapt to. I say this because I take no small offense at the idea that my goal is to make the game more like 3E. My goal is to make the game BETTER, because no game ever written has achieved perfection, and no game should ever be granted immunity from improvement.
The problem that I have with your initial comparison (Transformers vs Citizen Cain) is that it too is subject to subjective factors. Even if the majority of people think that Citizen Cain is 'Better' this is by and large due to subjective factors. Nostalgia, breadth of story, convincingness of the acting, relevance of content and subjective assessments of the actors and director.
And a case could be made based simply on objective factors that Transformers is the better film. Higher resolution of the film is objective. Color versus black and white is objective. Length (Transformers is longer) is objectively superior. Technically superior special effects is objective. It cost a whole heck of a lot more to make transformers than it did to make Citizen Cain. More people saw Transformers in the theater than saw Citizen Cain on opening weekend. All, objective facts pointing to the fact that Transformers is superior. Is it superior?
It points to the fact that there may be statically objective factors that state one version of the game is superior to the other. The ones being discussed are largely subjective. And just because objective factors lean one direction, that doesn't magically turn the subjective reasons objective.
Now, as to subjective vs. objective quality, what you're saying is precisely what I'm arguing isn't true. I'm arguing that things like quality of acting are objective facts that are subject to subjective variance when interpreted. I think this because there's a systematic pattern in the distribution of experienced enjoyment that suggests some sort of baseline + variance function. That's clearly not how you think the world works, but... well, it matches my observations. I think Roger Ebert also wrote something on this subject, but I could be misremembering the author as I can't find the article when I did a quick search for it. I may try again later.
Removing class level restricitions takes away the challenge of role playing another race. I had one main charactor through 10 years of AD&D. The other members of my D&D group has 5 to 10 main charactors. My F/M/T adventured through campaign after campaign because it required a boat load of XP to level. A multiclass charactor in PnP AD&D gets a lot more weapon and non-weapon proficiencies. The advantages of playing the other races should be brought out more and the reason behind the restrictions will make more sense. Living for hundreds of years is a hugh bonus and if age was implemented in Baldur's Gate this would become obvious. I would hope the game developers would add more layers of depths like age, weapon, and non-weapon profieciences to the game and not take the easy way out and simply remove a restriction.
I had to play my elf for many years before I saw how truely wonderful the race was with the restrictions.
I agree that some of the reason why those restrictions were added was because human burn bright and burn out fast. The restrictions are guide to help you roleplay, not a penalty. Just something to think about.
"be happy with what you believe, i stand by my position and nothing said here yet changed that"
If you want to think i'm wrong, uncoherent, flamer or any other adjective, well be my guest to do that. Seizing the opportunity with @LadyRhian being in the discussion, know that i'm not stubborn and i will change my mind if i gather enough points to make me re-think an issue. This just didn't happened yet here.
You say that acting is objectively good or bad. I say bunk. Name any actor or actress in the history of acting and I will find someone in the world who doesn't like their acting. My wife happens to think that the chick from the Twilight Movies is the best actress in the world. Can you name someone who disagrees with that stance? Objective is the same for everyone. If it ISN'T the same for everyone, it is subjective.
3E rules (individually or in totality) are not universally 'Good' or 'Better' than 2E rules. There are some I quite like and others I don't from both sets. But even if you and I both agreed on one rule, that is still subjective. Because it isn't universally and by definition good for everyone.