Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [LivingFR] Re: Purple Dragon Knights

Expand Messages
  • Timlagor
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 9, 2009
      --- 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.
    • Timlagor
      ... I 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
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 9, 2009
        --- On Wed, 9/9/09, chad <greyhawk.chad@...> wrote:
        > Some (myself included) would say that this represents the actual 
        > failure:
        >
        > > 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'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.


        > 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.
      • skye_feydark
        One of the LFR global admins, Pieter, had the following to say
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 16, 2009
          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.

          Terry Duchastel

        • Justin White
          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 -
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 17, 2009
            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).
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.