Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 5838208" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Okay, maybe one of us is missing something.I ask about &quot;characters of level&quot;, and you say, &quot;He's level 1&quot;.&nbsp; Was I unclear about what I meant?When I make the distinction between &quot;common labor&quot; as unskilled, and &quot;Commoner&quot; as the class, was I unclear about what I meant?&nbsp; Character class is a meaningless distraction in this discussion, one that you seem to have added by intentionally reading &quot;unskilled&quot; as &quot;Commoner class&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, to be clear and explicit:&nbsp; I don't care what character class anyone is.&nbsp; When I say &quot;common laborer&quot; I mean someone do does unskilled work, work so common that anyone could do it, pretty much untrained.Clear now?&nbsp; Forget classes, multi-class or otherwise.&nbsp; We're just talking about levels here, as related to age.&nbsp; Or, from my point of view, that levels aren't related to age in any game system that makes any sense.If there can be an old ditch digger, (i.e. years of age but still unskilled), you suggest that he can be any level from one to ten.&nbsp; First level would blow your rule out of the water, since that character can't be both old and low level at the same time.&nbsp; Yet &quot;unskilled&quot; really requires the character no be leveled very much.&nbsp; Tenth?&nbsp; Unless the system doesn't award skill points with levels, that one is harder to do.&nbsp; Over all you seem to be actively trying not to relate the examples I'm asking about to your base position:&nbsp; If there can be an old man who is still level 1, then you can't equate age to level.If there can be a skilled craftsman with levels but of a young age, whether you call him a Commoner or a fry cook, then you can't equate age to levels.If, on the other hand, you keep bringing in tangents, such as character class, you can obfuscate all day.&nbsp; If that's the plan, do it by yourself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 5838208, member: 6669384"] Okay, maybe one of us is missing something. I ask about "characters of level", and you say, "He's level 1". Was I unclear about what I meant? When I make the distinction between "common labor" as unskilled, and "Commoner" as the class, was I unclear about what I meant? Character class is a meaningless distraction in this discussion, one that you seem to have added by intentionally reading "unskilled" as "Commoner class". So, to be clear and explicit: I don't care what character class anyone is. When I say "common laborer" I mean someone do does unskilled work, work so common that anyone could do it, pretty much untrained. Clear now? Forget classes, multi-class or otherwise. We're just talking about levels here, as related to age. Or, from my point of view, that levels [I]aren't[/I] related to age in any game system that makes any sense. If there can be an old ditch digger, (i.e. years of age but still unskilled), you suggest that he can be any level from one to ten. First level would blow your rule out of the water, since that character can't be both old and low level at the same time. Yet "unskilled" really requires the character no be leveled very much. Tenth? Unless the system doesn't award skill points with levels, that one is harder to do. Over all you seem to be actively trying not to relate the examples I'm asking about to your base position: If there can be an old man who is still level 1, then you can't equate age to level. If there can be a skilled craftsman with levels but of a young age, whether you call him a Commoner or a fry cook, then you can't equate age to levels. If, on the other hand, you keep bringing in tangents, such as character class, you can obfuscate all day. If that's the plan, do it by yourself. [/QUOTE]

Verification