Re: Myths of Gaming 2.0 (RGFA only this time!)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> > > Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > 6    Powerful = unbalanced       
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Knutsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> When I say a high-powered ability, it's something as hugely powerful as 
> what I imagine a D&D trolls' regeneration is like.

Do you think trolls should dominate the gameworld? Something you wrote 
in an earlier post made me think so.

What makes a species dominate an ecology is *not* 'thoughness', but 
rather a (more) succesfull reproductive biology.

Trolls reproductive biology is of course unspecified in DnD (v3.5)

> Or the ability of every fifth village clergyman (he doesn't even have to 
> have made Priest rank, he can be a deacon or a basic church servant) to, 
> several times a day, cure any disease.
>
> None of these cause problems in a narrow adventuring context (if they 
> did, D&D would have flopped back in the 70's), but they have serious 
> problems if you look at the larger world.

Ok, so there are no major epidemics either. so what?

> > > More mechanical detail tends to mean more
> > > > 18    It's never okay for the GM to fudge rolls       
> >
> >
> >
> > > What's the GM's *reason* for fudging a dice roll?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sometimes there is a good reason. That's why this is a myth. (I'll admit
>
>
> I can think of only one: The roll, synergizing with imperfect rules, 
> produces an outcome so unrealistic that all those around the table, who 
> are interested in realism, cringe.

I may fudge if I've made an error and think I might recover! I could 
also tell the players that, but I'm not sure that that solution is 
allways better.

> "Know" might make some people think exclusively of knowledge skills, as 
> in not being mindful of combat skills and social skills also.

<shoot target = "self" aim = "foot">
Peter, honestly. Do you really think someone who uses the term 
"capabilitistc individuality"[1] is qualified to teach english? And to a 
native speaker, to boot!</shoot>


> > > > 27    Skill systems are more realistic than class systems       
> >
> >
> >
> > > But they *are*. Real people don't have character classes. I'm not
> > > classifiable even in a system such as Multiclass which effectively has
> > > 1320 different character classes. More character classes than that is
> > > *completely* absurd ....

Real people have careers. Indeed, if you will grant 'loser' as a career, 
*everybody* has a career. In a mideval society the number of careers are 
much smaller than today, making 'classes' a better model for such a 
society.

[1] Your spelling btw.