Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7169921" data-attributes="member: 15700">Well, congratulations on missing the point again, I guess.&nbsp; I didn't make stuff up.&nbsp; Look at what modern day women are lifting, and compare it to the mid 70s of what men were.&nbsp; It's not near as far apart as modern day woman vs. modern day man.&nbsp; Which was the point.&nbsp; I.e., back then, it was &quot;no way a woman can be this strong&quot; because no one was then, but time travel a modern day woman to the 70s and she would blow their assumptions away.&nbsp; The whole point was that the rules were created on assumptions of the time that aren't as accurate anymore, so to stick with the same rules they came up with in the 70s because &quot;super realism&quot; is flawed.Firstly, having a class like the MU weak at low levels and powerful at high levels is not averaging by any definition of the word.&nbsp; We're not looking at the average power of the MU across all levels.&nbsp; We're looking at the power disparity individually, and saying that being weak at lower levels balances out with the great power they get at upper levels.&nbsp; In fact, that's the opposite of average because you need to intentionally avoid the average but look at each individual level independently.&nbsp; Again, you're stuck in this micro analysis when you need to look at the big picture of the game as a whole over an entire typical campaign run---as it was designed.Secondly, Gary didn't limit people's choices to punish them.&nbsp; The game was designed to be human centric, so the rules supported that.&nbsp; It's his freaking game, so he can design it the way he wants.&nbsp; No one is getting punished.&nbsp; If you don't like it, then ignore that rule like so many others did.&nbsp; To quote me, &quot;that's entitlement talk&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7169921, member: 15700"] Well, congratulations on missing the point again, I guess. I didn't make stuff up. Look at what modern day women are lifting, and compare it to the mid 70s of what men were. It's not near as far apart as modern day woman vs. modern day man. Which was the point. I.e., back then, it was "no way a woman can be this strong" because no one was then, but time travel a modern day woman to the 70s and she would blow their assumptions away. The whole point was that the rules were created on assumptions of the time that aren't as accurate anymore, so to stick with the same rules they came up with in the 70s because "super realism" is flawed. Firstly, having a class like the MU weak at low levels and powerful at high levels is not averaging by any definition of the word. We're not looking at the average power of the MU across all levels. We're looking at the power disparity individually, and saying that being weak at lower levels balances out with the great power they get at upper levels. In fact, that's the opposite of average because you need to intentionally avoid the average but look at each individual level independently. Again, you're stuck in this micro analysis when you need to look at the big picture of the game as a whole over an entire typical campaign run---as it was designed. Secondly, Gary didn't limit people's choices to punish them. The game was designed to be human centric, so the rules supported that. It's his freaking game, so he can design it the way he wants. No one is getting punished. If you don't like it, then ignore that rule like so many others did. To quote me, "that's entitlement talk". [/QUOTE]

Verification