A simple request...

I would like someone to use the current rules packet to try to simulate Sir Roger Baron de Tourneville. I only impose the following restriction:

No magic items.

Well, prior to his victory over the Wersgorix in 1345 Anno Domini.

In the interests of honesty, I don't believe anyone can and it is why I take umbrage at those who seem hellbent on denying the need to give Fighters something outside of combat.
who's to say this obscure person wasn't multiclassed?

you can't make gandalf with the wizard rules yet either, that doesn't mean the game can't/won't support fighting wizards in the future. 
First, that requires someone to have actually read the book...

Second - I'm pretty sure wits aren't a game mechanic.

I agree with your larger point, though why not choose a more accessible target character?

Wits are what players employ to make their class features work for them and blag around the things they lack.


You could make more or less any character do anything they want in game because they're inventive enough to use what they've got and find a way. Ability checks are enough if the player is quick witted. Really what this is saying is we need to accomodate folks who aren't quite so quick witted or facile with the concept of roleplaying.


While I think we should help those people, we should do so by presenting the material and creating the necessary framework for them to develop the wits and the roleplaying skills necessary to blag rather than enabling them to carry on dully announcing actions and rolling checks.

I haven't read this book, so I can't comment specifically on it.

I'm pretty sure there's an empirical law along the lines of "if a roleplaying system has rules simple enough that a normal person can understand them, a normal person will be able to come up with a character that isn't well represented by those rules".
I would like someone to use the current rules packet to try to simulate Sir Roger Baron de Tourneville. I only impose the following restriction:

No magic items.

Well, prior to his victory over the Wersgorix in 1345 Anno Domini.

In the interests of honesty, I don't believe anyone can and it is why I take umbrage at those who seem hellbent on denying the need to give Fighters something outside of combat.

Pretty much any character with the Knight Background; seeing as how that was who Sir Roger was. Most accurately a Fighter with the Knight Background.

Possibly any character with the Soldier background, capable of using his/her notoriety and connections to assist in raising an army.

What, specifically, do you think cannot be recreated? I can't show how something can be recreated, if I don't what that something is.

I haven't read this book, so I can't comment specifically on it.

I'm pretty sure there's an empirical law along the lines of "if a roleplaying system has rules simple enough that a normal person can understand them, a normal person will be able to come up with a character that isn't well represented by those rules".




This.

I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen characters who cannot be built in D&D Next as it stands, Raistlin Majere among them (casting spells physically tired him, a variant magic system that we do not yet have rules for).
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen characters who cannot be built in D&D Next as it stands, Raistlin Majere among them (casting spells physically tired him, a variant magic system that we do not yet have rules for).



Isnt that variable magic system otherwise known as "roleplaying"?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I haven't read this book, so I can't comment specifically on it.

I'm pretty sure there's an empirical law along the lines of "if a roleplaying system has rules simple enough that a normal person can understand them, a normal person will be able to come up with a character that isn't well represented by those rules".




This.

I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen characters who cannot be built in D&D Next as it stands, Raistlin Majere among them (casting spells physically tired him, a variant magic system that we do not yet have rules for).

If you need the magic system to work out right in order for it to count, then almost no magic users in the history of fiction have been buildable in almost any edition of D&D. (In 3.5 terms, basically every fictional wizard ever is better modeled by the sorcerer class in terms of casting mechanics, if not prime casting stat.)

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen characters who cannot be built in D&D Next as it stands, Raistlin Majere among them (casting spells physically tired him, a variant magic system that we do not yet have rules for).


The irony of course is that, with respect to the feature you mention, he couldn't be "built" for AD&D (1e), either. This is ironic because the Dragonlance novels were really the first authorized AD&D novels, and they were largely written with the rules of AD&D in mind. (Eventually that changed, but if you read especially the very first novel, you'll see what I mean.) So, there's nothing odd about D&DNext here. Indeed, there will always be a gap because of the change in medium, the way no film based on a novel will ever be quite like the original, nor an opera based on a stage play, etc.

I haven't read this book, so I can't comment specifically on it.

I'm pretty sure there's an empirical law along the lines of "if a roleplaying system has rules simple enough that a normal person can understand them, a normal person will be able to come up with a character that isn't well represented by those rules".



Godel's incompleteness theorum applies to D&D.  Who knew?


Carl
Can any D&D game build a Rand Al'Thor?
Specifically, a charachter which is the center of the fabric of the world.

I know other gaming systems, where the player and not just the DM has power over "the world" could do such things, but I don't think D&D could.

But does that really matter? 
I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen characters who cannot be built in D&D Next as it stands, Raistlin Majere among them (casting spells physically tired him, a variant magic system that we do not yet have rules for).



:-o

OMG!  Do you mean you'd simply have to role-play it!?!  What are they thinking!?!  Blasphemy!!!  We must have mechanics for every conceivable situation!!

BTW, there were no rules for Raistlin's fatigue in his original write up in DL1 Dragons of Despair.  Players who read the books, and wanted to role-play that aspect of his character had to use their imagination and creativity.  Shocker!  Something my friend Dale and I did to great effect (we were co-DMing the DL series and sharing Raistlin RP when we weren't DMing).

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

First, that requires someone to have actually read the book... Second - I'm pretty sure wits aren't a game mechanic. I agree with your larger point, though why not choose a more accessible target character?



Honest answer, despite liking many of Poul Anderson's works (humerously, Three Hearts and Three Lions is one I didn't like) I just read The High Crusade yesterday.

My point however is that while a Player's wits are not a game mechanic, a Character's wits can be represented mechanically, in fact that is part of the Rogue as Skill monkey thrust of Next if I'm not mistaken (a character who is supposed to live by his wits).
If you need the magic system to work out right in order for it to count, then almost no magic users in the history of fiction have been buildable in almost any edition of D&D. (In 3.5 terms, basically every fictional wizard ever is better modeled by the sorcerer class in terms of casting mechanics, if not prime casting stat.)




I agree completely.


I don't think it's a flaw in the system that it is possible to think of a character that cannot be built.  I think it's just a fundamental fact that there will be a finite number of possible build combos and an infinite number of character concepts.


To everyone responding with specific critiques and suggesting RP as the answer;  You're missing the point.  I'm well aware that he wasn't buildable by the rules at the time.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Sign In to post comments