Re: [LivingFR] Re: Purple Dragon Knights
--- On Wed, 9/9/09, Jonathan Hansen <drakimor@...> wrote:
These are all good assumptions and should be fine. In many other games where roll playing is stressed over a list of combat abilities these
*** Did you mean "roleplaying"? I think you did but I'm not quite sure. ("rollplaying" being a term used often derogatively to refer to those who are more concerned about the roll of the dice than the role of their character)
assumptions are made and it's a non issue. There just aren't enough rules to create the odd corner cases. In a role playing game you SHOULD be writing a story, not a manual.
*** Woah! The GM AND PLAYERS are writing a story: the RULES would be more useful if they were considered a Manual. I am firmly of the opinion that WotC are completely wrong in their attitude here. I simply don't believe that people who want to play D&D want vague rules or find them easier: (for homegames) we would much rather make our own deliberate changes to a well-defined set of rules.
No one is asking them to cover every corner-case either: we jsut want them to be clear and consistent in what they do cover.
The assumption they are missing is "players will interpret towards their best advantage, even knowing they are abusing the rule, so perfect clarity trumps all" which became glaringly obvious by the fact a debate over
*** Hmm. I really haven't seen any of this in actual play. I see some people doing 'thought experiments' over the 'net and even occasionally someone saying something that might imply they actually intend to use something like this but I've never actually seen it happen in a game.
whether "asking" meant an answer was required to effect your character even existed. The fact someone would even think to interpret a play nice rule in such a way was a sad day for me, and I lost a little bit more faith in people.
*** I cannot grok this reaction. You seem not to understand that some people's minds work differently to yours. Just because someone thinks of it doesn't mean they have any interest in actually doing it: but having through of it, it's amusing enough to share (at least for some of us)
The problem is the more they try and do this, the less powers make sense, and the more you run into situations where you by all reasonable logic SHOULD be able to do something, but efforts towards making no possible room for misinterpretation actually curtailed it TOO much.
*** Seriously? You think someone needs to try to exploit rules to make them not make sense?
How do we avoid this? Self regulate. If you do 50 points of damage a round instead of 54 but stuck to the spirit of the rules rather than the wording, you are better off, and everyone has more fun. If no one abuses it with super cheese, there won't be a need for errata. Don't get me
*** So not true. Plenty of things need errata for reasons that have nothing to do with power while others are too powerful just as they are written and being used in the most clear and obvious way (Guileful Switch?).
--- On Wed, 9/9/09, skye_feydark <terryduc@...> wrote:
--- In LivingFR@yahoogroups.com, Timlagor <timlagor@...> wrote:
> It may be fair but I don't think it wise. My experience of 4E rules entirely contradicts this assumption.
> I suggest that you read the vocabulary of each 4E rule in isolation referring only to the meaning
> of the words in English (/American /whatever language you are reading in). Looking for other
> instances of a word (or its lack) in the rules just does not work well
Actually, if you read it "as is", it's quite clear that it doesn't mention regional benefits at all. It's some posters on this board who (though well-intentioned) are actually adding in words that don't exist.
*** That's really not clear -and much less so once you takeinto account the alleged answer by someone relevant to LFR. Regional Benefit is one thing that could be interepreted as sufficient affiliation. No one is suggesting that a Story Award specifically allowing entry wouldn't work too. What is being suggested is that 'any old Cormyr favour' isn't adequate.
I mean, it's not like regional benefits were included in the FRPG where this is Paragon Path appears and yet not listed as a pre-req... *ahem*
*** It's written with homegames in mind anyway. The GM is supposed to arbitrate this kind of thing anyway so the 'requirement' is really only a guideline for the GM in any case.
Having Cormyr as your regional benefit, but no actual awards from Cormy, is NOT in my opinion any "safer" than vice-versa.
*** A fair point. It hadn't even occurred to me that someone might play such a character and not seek out at least some of the Cormyr modules.
- --- On Wed, 9/9/09, chad <greyhawk.chad@...> wrote:
> Some (myself included) would say that this represents the actualI'd have stopped at "to describe how to play the game" as the intended purpose and made exactly the same claim of failure. I firmly believe that WotC have set the wrong goal here because the noises coming out certainly accord with your assertions about what they are trying to do.
> > But let's not kid ourselves: the rules are poorly written and
> > routinely fail to serve their intended purpose (i.e. to describe how
> > to play the game and resolve all disputes relating thereto).
> The people who write, design, edit, publish, market, and work-for-the-
> company-that-profits-from the rules frankly do not agree with you at
> all that this is their ``intended purpose''. If anything, they are
> making MORE efforts in 4e to address this RPGA-style belief than they
> did in previous editions, where it was believed to be ``just wacky''
> -- thus the not-infrequent inclusion of ``RPGA-specific'' sidebars.
> I come from a technical background myself, and I do understand the
> desire to read the rulebooks as if they were technical
> specifications. What you need (In My Humble Opinion) to realize is
> that the actual creators of the content do not do this, do not intend
> to do this, and do not view their `failure' to do this as problem to
> be solved. It is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that this will change
> anytime soon. I really, seriously recommend that you Stop Worrying
> and Learn to Love the Bomb, err, 4e.
- One of the LFR global admins, Pieter, had the following to say on a related topic:
It is important to remember that the region in which your character lives and is loyal too, is NOT the same as the region in which that character grew up (background). It is also important to remember that being a public champion of a nation does prevent you from being something similar for other regions. It is just something that is hard to put into distinct rule mechanics unless a paragon path demands loyalty to something else then Myth Drannor or Cormanthor (e.g. purple dragons).This was in regard to a recent scenario with an interesting story award.
To be honest, this just kind of further muddies the issue for me. But at least this is some kind of indication that whether or not you qualify for Purple Dragon Knight is not related to your background, but rather to which nation you pledge loyalty to.
- It's actually easy to put a rule mechanic on it. Just say a character
can only declare allegiance to one nation (and not need a module
requirement for it - brings back nightmares of trying to qualify for
that one arcane paragon path that dealt with the farplane in LG... name
escapes me at the moment.)
It is just something that is
> hard to put into distinct rule mechanics unless a paragon path
> demands loyalty to something else then Myth Drannor or Cormanthor
> (e.g. purple dragons).