Skip to content

What is the point of race-class restrictions?

12345679»

Comments

  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited October 2013
    Depends on how creative you are.

    Lvl 1 spells can be very powerful, even with just 1 or 2 caster levels. And while CRPG generally do a shoddy job of doing them justice, 1st level and even cantrips are actually quite useful in PnP.

    Truesight is an excellent spell to have on hand, (+20 hit on your next attack roll, ignores concealment), and doesn't change based on caster level.

    Mage armor is quite useful for a variety of situations and lasts a long time.

    Disguise self is worth 10 ranks of disguise skill and works near instantly (only lasts 20 minutes at lvl 2 but that's enough for a quick bluff or to pass through a guarded gate.

    Same for Jump.

    Most cantrips bring plenty of quality of life benefits or some tangible tactical elements such as mage hand, being able to slip in and unlock doors or pick up keys or items.

    Silent image also has all sorts of applications.

    etc etc.


    And you wouldn't even need more then 11 cha to make that work since none of those allow saving throws. And a lvl 2 sorcerer gets 6 cantrips (4 known) and 4 1st level (2 known) spells per day.

    I'd personally take it to 4 with 12 cha, just because 2nd lvl is where all the ridiculously good spells are. Alter Self by itself is reason enough to take 4 levels of sorcerer as any class.

    2 Fighter doesn't really bring that much, 2 feats, which must be combat feats, that you can't really use effectively anyway, and a bunch of equipment proficiency you'll likely never use. 2 levels of ranger would be MUCH better for a 9 sorcerer. Free dual-wielding/amby when wearing light or no armor, regardless of dex score, all martial weapons, up to medium armor, more skill points and broader range of useful class skills.
    Post edited by ZanathKariashi on
  • taltamirtaltamir Member Posts: 288
    atcDave said:

    taltamir said:

    atcDave said:

    And as far as "awful" explanations go, any RPG needs to be played to be understood. It's the nature of the beast.

    How is that a retort? I have seen plenty of forum responses where experienced players wrote a much superior explanation of thac0 than what you find in official sources. Where people didn't understand thac0, then they read those good explanations and they did.

    The only way playing even relates to it is if you mean having a new player play with an experienced one who can explain to their better than the pnp books do. If this isn't what you meant then please elaborate.
    I'm not looking to retort anything. But yes, I've only ever seen new players introduced to the game by playing along side more experienced ones. Of course, since I was only a rookie myself one time, and I started with a more experienced group and DM, that pretty much has to be true.
    I have, a couple of times, started all new groups where I was the only experienced gamer. No doubt that adds to DM workload. But eventually, you find a couple players in the group who like rules and catch on quickly. They become a big help in combats and with character management. While other players take more to the role playing and story telling.
    But my point was just that AD&D never set out to "explain" the basic game mechanics. It was never considered an introductory sort of game. TSR had a completely different product called "Basic D&D" that set out to introduce complete rookies to the game mechanics. Basic only went up to 3rd level, and it simplified races and classes much further than AD&D did, and it used two much smaller books. But it went to great pains to explain armor class, to hit rolls, saving throws... all the game basics. It was actually quite well written as an introduction.
    1. Not an excuse for awful explanation of an otherwise simple mechanic in official sources.
    2. Maybe you have never been in a group where everyone, including you, was new to the system being used (which seems to indicate you have never even bothered trying new editions), but I have. Everyone gets the books, read them, and work it out together.
    3. "eventually, you find a couple players in the group who like rules and catch on quickly." this is only the case when you are using a terrible system. In a good system every single person gets the rules right away after reading the book once.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,146
    No Taltimir, I pretty much reject all of that.

    1. the explanation is not awful. I understand it. Other gamers I play with all understand it. It seems perfectly clear to me.
    2. You obviously haven't read many of my comments. I PLAY many diverse rule systems. I am familiar with a lot of what's out there, including 3E and 4E. I DM my own variant of 2E. In spite of my own deep and varied experience, 2E is my favorite by a pretty wide margin. And yes, I've played many, many times games where we were all learning a new system together. But at this point, most of my group has 30+ years experience, and even an "all new" game is being deciphered by veteran gamers. So none of us count as rookies as far as I'm concerned.
    3. I'm sorry, but really that's ridiculous. Not every gamer cares about the rules. Many are there for the story, the role playing or purely the social experience. If everyone in your group loves game mechanics you don't have a very diverse group! Not only do I find the diversity of play styles a constant, but its typically independent of the game system in use completely.
    riyahhassett
  • atcDave said:

    3. I'm sorry, but really that's ridiculous. Not every gamer cares about the rules. Many are there for the story, the role playing or purely the social experience. If everyone in your group loves game mechanics you don't have a very diverse group! Not only do I find the diversity of play styles a constant, but its typically independent of the game system in use completely.

    I believe what he's trying to say is that if you're playing a game with simple, easily understood rules, then everyone will grasp them, even if they don't generally "love game mechanics." I've played rules-light RPGs (such as The Shadow of Yesterday or Mouse Guard) where even the players who focus on story or don't normally have a head for mechanics still had a good grasp of the rules because they were simple enough to understand without a lot of effort.

    I'm not sure I would set the bar for a "good" system at "anyone can read the rules and understand them on the first try," but not every rules system is complex enough to require multiple reads and/or explanations from a veteran player.

  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,146
    Well I think simplicity of the system can only be a mixed blessing. But back to what I've said multiple times; AD&D, 2E in particular, is simple enough to pose no particular problems in any group I've gamed with. And every version of D&D has its complexities and trade offs. 3E is not appreciably easier, 2E is not notably harder. Both can be excellent games... or horrible games. As always, the DM matters far more than the rule set.
    riyahhassett
  • You'll get no argument from me that there are trade offs to simplicity/complexity, but personally I find myself preferring simpler systems more and more, which is the main reason I haven't run a D&D game of any edition in quite a while; I wouldn't call any edition of D&D simple, though their complexities are differently distributed. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that, though, as your position seems to be "It works for me and the people I've gamed with, therefore there couldn't possibly be a problem."
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,146
    Well for me, that is true.
  • On the subject of race and class restrictions, though, I feel like I've come to a new understanding after reading some of what Gygax wrote on alignment. Gygax was ultimately a pragmatist with regards to his rules, and if he thought something worked, he saw no need to justify it or make sure it was internally consistent. Hence why Dwarves, Gnomes, and Halflings all get the same bonus to save vs. spells and rod/staff/wand, but only Dwarves and Gnomes get a chance for magical items to fail. And why this "non-magical nature" prevents them from being mages but doesn't prevent them from being clerics even though they are equally resistant to both types to spells. And why Drow Elves get a bonus to save vs. spells on top of innate magic resistance, but have no problem being any kind of spellcaster whatsoever. "Because I made the rules and I say so."
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    I'm pretty sure Gygax hated his players. Or just players in general. A seething, burning hatred, which manifested in the shape of nonsensical rules and blatant anti-player bias.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,146
    scriver said:

    I'm pretty sure Gygax hated his players. Or just players in general. A seething, burning hatred, which manifested in the shape of nonsensical rules and blatant anti-player bias.

    That's funny. He definitely had extreme attitudes about what was fair, and the nature of "his" rules. That's exactly why he was fired during the development of 2E. The philosophy was coming to be flexibility and mod-ability, and that just seemed to irk EGG constantly. He really couldn't sign off on a rule book that strived to put so much power in the hands of individual DMs.

    He did develop a great game, and really is the father of the whole RPG concept. But I think, like a lot of innovators and creators, he was frustrated by not being able to control the direction things later went.
  • I don't think Gygax hated his players, he just had a very authoritative DMing style. A dictator in the Roman sense if you will, elected for a specific purpose in which he is neither liable nor accountable to anyone. Possessing of ultimate power against which there is no appeal.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited October 2013
    Arcane magic requires taking magic into themselves by their own power, and their resistance is sufficient to prevent them from ever even learning the basics, since the process of conditioning one's mind to hold arcane spells starts off with very weak magics. Arcane magics are also very complex and any resistance could cause the spell fail with potentially dire consequences.

    Divine magic is simply placed into the caster by a divine power, but it should be noted that short races make the worst clerics, if you go by their racial caps, representing them being less suited to it. Lower level divine spells/abilities are simple enough that the resistance won't hinder their activation, but higher level ones are more complex and the short races are simply unable to adequately channel divine power for higher level effects and spells. And then you take into account racial inclinations which lowers it even further for gnomes and halflings.


    Magic resistance is a misnomer. It's not because a creature is resistant to magic, it's because the creature is so innately magically powerful that they can (potentially) selectively block magical effects from touching them. Magic resistance doesn't block the normal flowing of magic, it attempts to block abnormal variances (aka spells) from entering that creatures personal space, aside from spells the creature itself casts. Magic resistance attempts to block any outside spells, but most creatures can willingly suppress it if they wish to recieve spells from other sources.

    Monks attain magic resistance through mastery of their bodies/spirits and can attempt to reject magical effects from touching them. Since this through iron control of themselves, they can also suppress it at will.

    Items and spells though tend to block all spells and unless specifically mentioned otherwise can only be suppressed by removing the item or deactivating the spell. Though as with natural magic resistance the caster's own spells are usually never affected, especially those with personal range.

    On the other hand, creatures who are infused with magic resistance by extremely unnatural means, such as the rituals to infuse Wizard slayers with anti-magic powers, cannot be controlled or suppressed, and can become a detriment to the creature by denying even beneficial magical effects or a host of other side-effects related to magic in general.


    Drow have innate magic resistance and extra magical powers due to generations of exposure to Faeress, but requires Faeress for it to function and prolonged withdrawal (2 weeks) causes them to starting losing pretty much everything at a rapid rate (-10% MR per day, -1 innate spell per day), aside from their innate stat bonuses (+2 dex, +1 int) and +2 vs spells which is due to training. (requires a like amount of time within the Underdark to return).

    Their +2 bonus vs spells is because they're a very magically talented race and know how to better counter the effects of most spells then less inclined races are of similar experience. (All drow study both Combat and magic growing up, even if they decide to devote themselves fully to only 1 aspect).

    Note that Mages and casters in general tend to have the best saves vs spells of any class. This is due to their better of understanding of spells and how they work, which allows them to be counter the effects of such spells. Other classes can learn as well, through raw experience, but not nearly as fast as casters do.


    Dwarves have no interest in arcane magic, which compounds their natural resistance to it making them highly unsuited for even using magical items, except for those used specifically by their chosen profession which they learn enough about to avoid problems. Dwarves are a very devout race and only their resistance to magic holds them back from being very powerful clerics (but they are the strongest by far of the shorties).

    Gnomes are technically the same way, but due to a racial inclination towards Illusion magic, their own innate magic qualities tends to be disruptive to other magical effects, requiring them to train extensive with such items to avoid a failure chance (but unlike dwarves, most common classes of items are unaffected, as well as those involving illusions or used for trickery).

    Halflings are curious (and lucky) enough that can managed to figure out most common magical items without a chance of failure, despite their resistance to magic. It still prevents them from learning arcane magic, and their racial inclinations + resistance make them poorly suited to be clerics.
  • @ZanathKariashi Where'd you even get all that? I don't recall finding even a fraction on that information in my PHB, DMG, or MM. It wouldn't surprise me if some writers went back later and came up with a way to explain everything in the base rules, but I suspect the base rules weren't laid out in a consistent manner from the start.

    Also, how are Dwarves held back from being very powerful clerics? I can see why you'd say that about Gnomes (who have a penalty) and Halflings (who aren't allowed in have an 18 Wis in PnP), even though I think you overstate the significance of a slight penalty, but Dwarves can be as Wise as anyone and have no racial traits that inhibit their ability to perform as a Cleric.
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,653
    edited October 2013
    I say, let's drink a toast to "the founder of the feast", Gary Gygax. Without his vision, we would not have D&D, and there would never have been games named "Baldur's Gate", "Neverwinter Nights", or any other offspring of his creative vision.

    He had a very specific game in mind, one played with huge tables covered in maps and miniature figures. This whole thing started out as a wargame. The roleplaying came later, and, I haven't seen anything in the writings of the "founder of the feast" that he ever intended anything but a really fun wargame, with some roleplaying thrown in to spice up the feeling of participating in an Arthurian legend, with Merlins throwing spells, and Arthurs wielding Excaliburs, and a few Charlemagnes and Popes thrown in for good measure.

    Gygax intended a WARGAME. Everything else came after that fact, only to spice it up and make it more fun.

    Tolkein influenced him, but did not determine him.

    Elves, dwarves, and halflings, were supposed to be magical beings who supported the main, HUMAN characters. Gygax made up some rules that would make playing a magical race attractive for a roleplaying wargamer who wanted to play a *supporting* role to the main human heroes.

    Now, a lot of fans have taken away control of poor Gary's vision from him, and created a "monster" of anything-goes, make-believe free-for-all. I guess I am not totally opposed to a gaming system that can be realized both among friends around a tabletop and on a computer to realize their wildest dreams, but I still find Gary's original vision to be the most satisfying to me.

    That's why AD&D>3rd edition, and BG>Neverwinter Nights>DA:O, to me. Every expansion of Gary Gygax's original vision just keeps diluting and watering down something that was truly magical, into something that is kind of a casual console game. All the spice and magic just keeps getting diminished with every watering down of the parameters of Gary Gygax's magical world into a generic fantasy trope that destroys its own magic in favor of a "the player is king, anything goes in fantasy" kind of bland game.

    Bleagh, meh, and "all that rot". Give me GG's magical world of benign dictatorship awesomeness over the bland, unsatisfying, "rule by committee" gaming systems, please! I'm *so* glad that BG adhered to GG's gaming vision, and seems likely to continue the tradition even through the development of the EE's. Yay!
    artificial_sunlightriyahhassett
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited October 2013
    Because of their innate resistance to magic. It prevents them from channeling higher level divine spells and abilities effectively, but due to their extra devotion, they do make much better clerics then gnomes or halflings.

    Dwarves cap at 10, gnomes at 9, and halflings at 8. (unlike halflings who are simply magic resistant, Gnomes are naturally inclined towards magic, but in an erratic way that makes them less suited to certain pursuits (such as why gnome bards, well..the bard kits gnomes can become, suffer the same restrictions as Illusionists with regard to spell-casting due to their innately magical leanings favoring illusions while being unsuited for evo/necro/abjur). They can learn clerical magic, but that innate quality also disrupts their ability to act as a channel for divine power.


    Yeah, it's mostly from guides talking about how to justify certain mechanics from a roleplaying standpoint to increase immersion and feel more grounded and realistic.

    The Complete book of "Race" guides usually go in-depth about the roleplaying reasons behind why races have the abilities/penalties they do, and explaining some mechanics from a roleplaying standpoint.


    it's kind of like explaining AC. Mechanically, attacks simply miss, even if it should be realistically impossible for them to do so.

    But that doesn't change the fact that by the rules, they did. From a roleplaying standpoint though, you can easily spice up the descriptions of the event by saying the attack was deflected by their shield, or glanced harmlessly off their armor or the target nimbly dodged the blow.

    While the exact reasons ultimately come down to the DM to decide how the ability technically functions, the above are simply common roleplaying rationalizations for why the rules are as they are.


    though it IS clearly mentioned in the player's handbook how magic resistance works (it just doesn't describe the fluff for why it works).

    Innate Magic resistance never affects spells or abilities cast by the creature itself (unless their description specifically says otherwise), but will attempt to block any other magical effects, even beneficial ones, unless the resistant target willing suppress the ability. Suppressing MR doesn't count as an action and can be done at anytime, but once suppressed it stays down until the creatures next turn. A creature must be conscious in order to suppress their magic resistance.

    Magic resistance from spells or items will attempt to block all spells not originating from the caster, and unless specifically mentioned otherwise, cannot be turned off save by removing the item or dismissing the spell.
    BelgarathMTH
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2013

    I say, let's drink a toast to "the founder of the feast", as far as Gary Gygax. Without his vision, we would not have D&D, and there would never have been games named "Baldur's Gate", "Neverwinter Nights", or any other offspring of his creative vision.

    He had a very specific game in mind, one played with huge tables covered in maps and miniature figures. This whole thing started out as a wargame. The roleplaying came later, and, I haven't seen anything in the writings of the "founder of the feast" that he ever intended anything but a really fun wargame, with some roleplaying thrown in to spice up the feeling of participating in an Arthurian legend, with Merlins throwing spells, and Arthurs wielding Excaliburs, and a few Charlemagnes and Popes thrown in for good measure.

    Gygax intended a WARGAME. Everything else came after that fact, only to spice it up and make it more fun.

    Hey, I love a good wargame; it's half the reason I like 4e so much ;)

    Yeah, it's mostly from guides talking about how to justify certain mechanics from a roleplaying standpoint to increase immersion and feel more grounded and realistic.

    The Complete book of "Race" guides usually go in-depth about the roleplaying reasons behind why races have the abilities/penalties they do, and explaining some mechanics from a roleplaying standpoint

    Okay, that explains it; the only Complete [Race] book I ever owned was the Complete Book of Elves (which I understand was somewhat maligned in roleplaying communities). At any rate, that was more or less what I was getting at; racial restrictions were laid out in a more or less arbitrary fashion, and other writers came along later to try and explain them. It's not a knock on the game designers, but it helps explain why some people (myself included) find them a little nonsensical and would rather do without them.
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Ayiekie said:

    ...snip...

    @Ayiekie - I fear you must have been the victim of a particularly 'By the books' DM. None of what you claim to be a restriction above is anything of the kind if you have a good imaginative DM to work with. In my games, if I wanted a character with an NPC wolf to tag along, I neither had to play a ranger, nor did I have to create a new kit. I merely purchased the animal and fed it and spent time and money training it. My DM would monitor the activity and make sure that I was treating it as a responsibility and not a benefit, but it was fine. Granted, I wouldn't have the control or affinity for the beast that a Ranger or Druid would, but then I wouldn't expect it. The DM would run it as an NPC under his control, not mine. Granted, a well trained and treated animal would mostly do as I say, but not always. I think there are even prices for that type of animal in both the DMG and in the Player's handbook. Where you are finding restriction, I see opportunity for imagination.

    As far as restricting creativity, keep in mind the setting and the fact that it is a game. Some restrictions just make sense (to me anyway). There wouldn't be a huge variety of professions. Either you trained with the guard or you trained at the temple or you trained in the library or you got by by slight of hand and the seat of your pants. Most of the rest is character and personality.

    And just because you are a fighter, doesn't mean you HAVE to be the dumb jock generic fighter type. Give the character some personality. I once played a ranger that didn't believe in magic and therefore would never use magic weapons or armor. You don't need a KIT just to make your character unique or original. Don't fall for the common tropes. Play your own character. When I was playing Advanced (largely 2E), we didn't need fancy kits to make unique and original characters.
    Ayiekie said:

    I must've been unclear, sorry. The complaint was that the poster had a conception in their setting that magic was rare, and disliked how easy it was in 3e for any character to dip into casting ability. My counterpoint was there was nothing in 2e preventing an entire party from being spellcasters, and noting that many people play parties in BG that are 50% or more spellcasters. Let's say, having a sorcerous MC, Neera, Viconia, and Edwin in the same party (replaced Edwin with Xzar and I've actually played that, and I'd probably have put in Tiax for comedy value if I'd gotten that far in that game).

    the 'complaintant' was me and you miss-understood it. I dislike in 3E the fact that anyone can merely (provided a 9 INT) dip into a level of wizard for true strike or to qualify as Arcane Archer, or (and this is the more heinous), grabbing 1 level of Paladin just so they can get +5 to all saving throws and get access to Divine Might?? I think this cheapens the entire class structure. And most of the time it was done for power-gamer advantage rather than actual role playing. Even when people were clever enough to make it sound role playing-ish, it was still down to the numbers. That is one of the reasons that, when I play a Paladin, he is a PALADIN to the hilt. Same with arcane classes.

    I don't personally care if a player chooses to play Edwin, Baeloth, Xzar, Imoen (dualled to Mage), Zan and a Charname who happens to be a Wizard. Have at it. I'd say it is a bit unlikely of a group, but not impossible. Where I care is when every peasant and cobbler and shoe-maker in the world can cast magic spells. that, in my opinion, cheapens wizards immeasurably. If I had my way, Wizardry would be limited to a minimum 15 INT and dual classing into the class would require an 18 minimum. Further, they would be less than 5% of all adventurers. But I am sure most players (and quite a few DM's) would find that unreasonable. That's the benefit of the game. Everyone can play it the way they like.
    atcDave
  • FrozenCellsFrozenCells Member Posts: 385
    I don't know if this has already mentioned because I didn't read much of the topic owing to it being large and full of long posts but the most recent BG2 tweaks mod from Gibberlings3 opens up all multi/dual/class/kit combinations to all races, exclusive to BG:EE/BG2:EE. No druid/mages etc. but you can have gnome dual class kensai7>mages and halfling dragon disciples and whatever else can be played in the game. I don't really have an opinion on whether there should be restrictions but it's cool that now there's an option for none anyway.
  • taltamirtaltamir Member Posts: 288
    Kaigen said:

    atcDave said:

    3. I'm sorry, but really that's ridiculous. Not every gamer cares about the rules. Many are there for the story, the role playing or purely the social experience. If everyone in your group loves game mechanics you don't have a very diverse group! Not only do I find the diversity of play styles a constant, but its typically independent of the game system in use completely.

    I believe what he's trying to say is that if you're playing a game with simple, easily understood rules, then everyone will grasp them, even if they don't generally "love game mechanics." I've played rules-light RPGs (such as The Shadow of Yesterday or Mouse Guard) where even the players who focus on story or don't normally have a head for mechanics still had a good grasp of the rules because they were simple enough to understand without a lot of effort.
    That is exactly what I said, yes. I am baffled at the confusion at my perfectly clear english explanation.
    Kaigen said:

    I'm not sure I would set the bar for a "good" system at "anyone can read the rules and understand them on the first try," but not every rules system is complex enough to require multiple reads and/or explanations from a veteran player.

    Just because it is easy to understand doesn't mean its simple, lowest common denominator, or rules light.
    You can take a difficult concept and explain it well, and you can take an easy concept and explain it poorly.
    Basically, Craft (Rules) and Profession (Teacher) are too different things
  • taltamirtaltamir Member Posts: 288
    edited October 2013
    atcDave said:

    No Taltimir, I pretty much reject all of that.

    1. the explanation is not awful. I understand it. Other gamers I play with all understand it. It seems perfectly clear to me.
    2. You obviously haven't read many of my comments. I PLAY many diverse rule systems. I am familiar with a lot of what's out there, including 3E and 4E. I DM my own variant of 2E. In spite of my own deep and varied experience, 2E is my favorite by a pretty wide margin. And yes, I've played many, many times games where we were all learning a new system together. But at this point, most of my group has 30+ years experience, and even an "all new" game is being deciphered by veteran gamers. So none of us count as rookies as far as I'm concerned.
    3. I'm sorry, but really that's ridiculous. Not every gamer cares about the rules. Many are there for the story, the role playing or purely the social experience. If everyone in your group loves game mechanics you don't have a very diverse group! Not only do I find the diversity of play styles a constant, but its typically independent of the game system in use completely.

    1. Just because you understood it doesn't mean it was explained well. There are a massive amount of people who did not understand it and those very same people are not dumb, and they do understand it when explained better. Furthermore, I have examined the explanations in the official sources, as well as fan made ones (by people who actually like thac0 and thinks its awesome) and I in my awesome opinion the official sources explain it very poorly.
    2. You have made a statement, that statement is false, and now you are protesting my counter arguments have slighted you, and as proof you show how your earlier statements contradict your ill thought out statement? All your earlier statements do is serve to further prove my point about that latest statement of yours being false. admit you made a mistake, it happens.
    3. They don't need to care about the rules, I argued that "well written rules can be grasped by anyone who tries to, on their first attempt". That some people don't care enough to try is irrelevant to my argument.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,146
    I have no idea what allegedly false statement you are even talking about. It is always possible I was too brief or didn't thoroughly consider the ways I could be misunderstood. But I have said nothing I knew or believed to be false. Since most of what we've been discussing would be considered OPINION I'm even more confused as to what "false" thing I could have said.
    And the bottom line on my OPINION is, I don't believe there is anything particularly difficult, confusing or substandard about 2E rules. You are entitled to a contrary opinion. But trying to argue it as fact is pointless.
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    taltamir said:


    3. They don't need to care about the rules, I argued that "well written rules can be grasped by anyone who tries to, on their first attempt". That some people don't care enough to try is irrelevant to my argument.

    Um, this is a blanket statement and variably not accurate. Stephen Hawking could write 'Well written rules" on Quantum physics that I would guarantee "Anyone" couldn't necessarily grasp them on first attempt, no matter 'Well written'.

    I find (my OPINION) 2nd edition rules to be well written and easily understood. I think part of that is because I have read them, played with them and applied them. That isn't to say that anyone who doesn't understand them is dumb or ill-informed. merely that my experience is that they are well written, mostly complete and reasonably laid out. My opinion only.

    atcDave
  • taltamirtaltamir Member Posts: 288

    taltamir said:


    3. They don't need to care about the rules, I argued that "well written rules can be grasped by anyone who tries to, on their first attempt". That some people don't care enough to try is irrelevant to my argument.

    Um, this is a blanket statement and variably not accurate. Stephen Hawking could write 'Well written rules" on Quantum physics that I would guarantee "Anyone" couldn't necessarily grasp them on first attempt, no matter 'Well written'.
    1. Stephan hawking can't write the rules of physics, he isn't a/God.
    He can only try and reverse engineer the rules already in place and then describe them, without making any modification.

    2. If your pnp game rules are as difficult as quantum physics then they need to be streamlined.
  • taltamir said:

    Just because it is easy to understand doesn't mean its simple, lowest common denominator, or rules light.
    You can take a difficult concept and explain it well, and you can take an easy concept and explain it poorly.

    I agree; I despise the conflation of "simple" or "accessible" with "dumbed down for the lowest common denominator" in virtually every instance. I was more stating that I don't think simple rules are objectively more desirable than complex rules, as the trade-offs between the two mean that some people will prefer complex rules over simple ones, whether it is because they like the extra level of detail/simulation that complex rules allow, or because they enjoy the process of mastering a difficult rules set.

    For example, I would argue that the rules for jumping in 3e are well-explained, in that most people would be able to correctly determine the necessary DC to make a hypothetical jump using those rules without difficulty. However, the rules are complex enough due to all of the factors (e.g. speed, size, number of legs, armor penalties) taken into account that most people would probably have to refer back to the rules during a game in order to get it right rather than doing it from memory. The rules are understood, but it takes a bit more to master them because of the complexity involved.
    atcDavetaltamir
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    taltamir said:


    1. Stephan hawking can't write the rules of physics, he isn't a/God.
    He can only try and reverse engineer the rules already in place and then describe them, without making any modification.

    Which wouldn't make them any easier to understand, now matter how well they were written.
    taltamir said:


    2. If your pnp game rules are as difficult as quantum physics then they need to be streamlined.

    I wasn't saying they were. i was pointing out that your comment about "well written rules can be grasped by anyone who tries to, on their first attempt" is completely inaccurate.

Sign In or Register to comment.