|
11 months ago ::
Jul 16, 2012 - 12:57AM
#11
|
|
|
While momentum isn't on its own a good reason to do anything, it's overwhelmingly an RPG trope that being dextrous makes you a good archer and not a common RPG trope that being wise makes you a better archer. Now, obviously D&D shoulders a lot of the blame for that - the number of properties directly or indirectly influenced by D&D is vast and it's easy to make an argument that there's no RPG that isn't in some way influenced by it. But for better or for worse, the notion that Dexterity makes you a better archer is deeply ingrained in fantasy gaming, and deviating from that is jarring enough that I think it represents a major cost. I'm not saying that wisdom-based archery is something that can't or shouldn't work or that the arguments for it are bad, but there's something to be said for doing things the way that people expect. Also, the notoin that archery should be based on Wisdom is an extension of the notion that perception is based on wisdom, which is well-entrenched in D&D, but not exactly a huge triumph of the game system working out well. Perception (or perception subskills, depending on the edition) is/are based on wisdom because skills have to be based on some stat and wisdom is (debateably) the least awkward fit, not because wisdom is a beautiful and obvious and perfect stat match for a skill the way that, say, Diplomacy being based on Charisma is. Going further in that direction isn't something that I think is something that I'd be especially eager to pursue.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 16, 2012 - 1:04AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
"The 1970s called, they want their game design paradigm back. Spend the bloody points." (In other words, I don't care. I don't support random character generation.)
So because you don't you'd deny other people the option?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 16, 2012 - 3:05AM
#13
|
|
|
"The 1970s called, they want their game design paradigm back.
Sorry, but I have to post this link now.
So because you don't you'd deny other people the option?
Not caring enough about X to actively support it is not the same thing as actively wanting to deny people the option of X.
But it's not exactly difficult to come up with ways of limiting Dex in a rolled stats system. The simplest method is to just impose a penalty on the roll for Dex.
Anyway, back when I was trying to design an RPG, I had Dexterity determining accuracy with melee weapon attacks, Awareness (roughly equivalent to D&D's Wisdom) determining accuracy with ranged weapon attacks, and Willpower (D&D's Charisma, but without the social implications) determining spell effectiveness. It worked out OK.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 16, 2012 - 3:24AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
"The 1970s called, they want their game design paradigm back. Spend the bloody points." (In other words, I don't care. I don't support random character generation.)
So because you don't you'd deny other people the option?
That's a bit of an overeaction.
The truth is though it doesn't matter if you roll. That's what random rolling is all about.
It's RANDOM.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
