|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 4:52AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:01AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
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?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:23AM
#13
|
|
|
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 Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:20AM
#14
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 3:50PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
