Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9230953" data-attributes="member: 18">That's a truly terrible argument on multiple fronts.1) Most D&amp;D campaigns are set over the course of like, a couple of years at most. There are exceptions, but they're exceptions. The PCs will rarely age significantly. 2) People don't usually get stronger or more agile after their early to mid twenties. On a good day, they manage to keep their strength and some of their agility into their 30s or 40s. A handful of people really focusing on it might improve strength (even significantly, especially if they didn't work out in their 20s), but unless you were exceptionally un-agile at say, 23, you're not going to be more agile at 43. Also D&amp;D really doesn't model this at all - if it did, STR would be drastically easier to raise than other stats.3) Further, some people just get worse with age. Yeah some get a lot wiser or smarter, but an awful lot actually seem to lose the ability to think in a really rational way at some point in their thirties (you've met these people), and many others don't get any wiser, indeed some get stuck in a mindset such that they de facto get less wise. So the idea that people reliably get &quot;better&quot; over time is questionable in the extreme. Hell some people even get less charismatic, as they become increasingly self-obsessed or some veneer wears off.Just an absolute losing argument on its own terms there.That's not a rational argument, that's an unsupported statement of opinion, so, okay I guess? It doesn't make any sense, especially as many games are extremely good RPGs without base stats going up much, if at all. If D&amp;D had no advancement it'd be a reasonable point at least, but it has extremely extensive advancement, so it doesn't make any sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9230953, member: 18"] That's a truly terrible argument on multiple fronts. 1) Most D&D campaigns are set over the course of like, a couple of years at most. There are exceptions, but they're exceptions. The PCs will rarely age significantly. 2) People don't usually get stronger or more agile after their early to mid twenties. On a good day, they manage to keep their strength and some of their agility into their 30s or 40s. A handful of people really focusing on it might improve strength (even significantly, especially if they didn't work out in their 20s), but unless you were exceptionally [I]un[/I]-agile at say, 23, you're not going to be more agile at 43. Also D&D really doesn't model this at all - if it did, STR would be drastically easier to raise than other stats. 3) Further, some people just get worse with age. Yeah some get a lot wiser or smarter, but an awful lot actually seem to lose the ability to think in a really rational way at some point in their thirties (you've met these people), and many others don't get any wiser, indeed some get stuck in a mindset such that they de facto get less wise. So the idea that people reliably get "better" over time is questionable in the extreme. Hell some people even get less charismatic, as they become increasingly self-obsessed or some veneer wears off. Just an absolute losing argument on its own terms there. That's not a rational argument, that's an unsupported statement of opinion, so, okay I guess? It doesn't make any sense, especially as many games are extremely good RPGs without base stats going up much, if at all. If D&D had no advancement it'd be a reasonable point at least, but it has extremely extensive advancement, so it doesn't make any sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification