|
4 years ago ::
Aug 04, 2009 - 6:38AM
#1001
|
|
|
I guess you have not noticed then that I was using an argument Decivre supplied in one of his earlier posts to this thread? 'False until proven true'.
Mischievous of me I know, but I thought it ironic. A discussion of where the burden lies relieves that of being a mapping to an argument from ignorance. We are both in the position of conjuring reasons for the burden to shift, but let's look at it this way. There are a great many possible sets for B < A, but only one for B == A.
vk
Except you used the argument in a not-so-similar way. I stated that something was untrue because no evidence existed to support it and it largely went against what people know about these things. Your claim was closer to "the fact that this (the existence of set B) is false is false until proven true".
Plus you are incorrect, your proof is easier to find because it isn't negative proof. You simply need to find a single build that cannot be considered optimized to prove that B < A (that one build already proves that B <= A-1), while I would have to show every single build in existence and the validity of them as an optimized build in order to prove that B = A.
So yes, the burden of proof is yours.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 04, 2009 - 7:11AM
#1002
|
|
|
I have divided thoughts on this whole FAW argument. To make your case I think we need to know why we can alter FAW with more justice than we can alter RAW? wrecan raised a similar point from another direction, in pointing out that optimising might be done to house rules. Indeed; but isn't there a sense of value in optimising against an external rules set? If we feel like that about RAW, why shouldn't we feel like that about FAW.
If we do, we are back to where we were. Changing FAW is held to damage our RP, and that 'only' turns out not to be a strawman after all. Your refluffing argument is one of the more coherent challenges to my argument, but so long as we want to reference optimisation to an external rules set, we surely cannot object to referencing roleplay to an external fluff set.
vk
Fluff is easier to alter because D&D was basically designed with the express idea that players and DMs can design their own setting (completely crafting fluff whole-cloth). Unless we are making an argument that whatever setting material is present in the core books is the only official setting material in existence, and secondary settings like Eberron and Forgotten Realms are "housefluff modifications to the game", I think it's safe to say that fluff is not nearly as rigid a component to the game as the rules are.
That said, you do bring up another point of issue. If we were to decide that houserules are also a factor in your claims, it would probably make your claims more of a non-issue. The number of alterations one can make to the game are near-infinite, and every single change will create a multitude of new builds. This entire argument becomes trivial once we start pushing the feasible numbers to an immeasurable number.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 04, 2009 - 8:37AM
#1003
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2005
|
To make your case I think we need to know why we can alter FAW with more justice than we can alter RAW?[/quote]
You can actually alter RAW just fine in your own games. There's no real question of the "justice" of it.
There are two reasons that RAW tends to be assumed in certain discussions on these forums:
1. Many discussions have revolved around whether or not parts of the game are or were "broken" or "imbalanced." This was extremely common in the 3E era. Many posters would submit a response along the lines of "just change the rules if you don't like it." This is actually good advice for someone who's looking to fix their game, and it's entirely suitable within, say, the DM advice boards. However, when the discussion is whether or not the rules as written are balanced, it's a non-sequitur. That is, "Rule 0" doesn't make all of the other rules balanced.
2. Other discussions that similarly examine interplay of the rules (such as, for instance, discussions about optimization) have to assume a common set of rules available to all posters. If a thread is about a specific house rule and the optimization consequences, that's actually fine; however, if a thread discusses, say, the best ways to build an illusion orb wizard, then it's not very useful if I post a build that relies on house rules that probably no one else uses.
This thread doesn't really fit into either of the above scenarios.
If we were discussing, say, the limitations inherent in the game when restricting oneself to the FAW, then it would indeed be a mistake for me to bring up the "rules say you can refluff" argument for the same reason as #1.
Your argument does hold if you add the restrictor of "using only the FAW." However, again, you're really not expected to play the game that way, and I don't think most people do, so it doesn't really inform much.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 05, 2009 - 4:57AM
#1004
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Your argument does hold if you add the restrictor of "using only the FAW." However, again, you're really not expected to play the game that way, and I don't think most people do, so it doesn't really inform much.
This is where I encounter a nagging doubt. Whatever you say about just going ahead and refluffing, that feels different to me than creating a character within the extant fluff. Maybe it has something to do with Tolkien's observation that a fantasy world must be consistent?
FAW is conceived within a structured framework as much as RAW. One may lose as much through bad RAW decisions as through bad FAW decisions. Then again, there is an element of driving my rp off the seeds sown by the writers. Part challenge, part pleasure in conceiving a possible living member of their world.
So maybe I am saying that is a parameter of the argument. Let's say that if I want to play an Eladrin, part of what informs that is the existing Eladrin fluff.
I'll raise this in one of the threads on the topic.
vk
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 05, 2009 - 8:15AM
#1005
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 05, 2009 - 8:23AM
#1006
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2005
|
Some posters in this thread have gone far enough to say "play a dwarf as an elf if you want."
While I don't go this far, in Aventuria (TDE) there aren't Dragonborn or Goliaths or anything. Nor Eladrin and such. So the mechanics are still allowed, but they all got remapped to the existing races. Halflings/Gnomes = Hill Dwarves, Goliaths = Humans or Dwarves, that sort of thing.
(Well, except TDE has a lot of different cultures and subraces, so it's not like all races become Human.)
Really though, I've always maintained backstage/onstage independence.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 05, 2009 - 7:00PM
#1007
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
- Sesquipedalian
Date Joined:
May 20, 2001
|
Feel free to restart the thread.  (Closed because it's grown so big!)
Spoiler:
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
|
|
|
