Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 2274846" data-attributes="member: 6533">There's something innately ridiculous about using Twain to defend against an accusation of snark let alone rudeness and vulgarity. (tempted to put an emote here but decided against it)Right, look, maybe I'm missing something.  Here's what I understand the point to have been:Azgulor expressed his reservations with IL as its presented.  The 'crutch' of his argument being that IL is not GnG, which he wanted it to be, because it lets you perform at the level of DnD only without magic.Wulf amended this argument by adding the term 'items' in italics for whatever value italics might carry.  And following it up with an agreement that you are not a part of IL's audience if you like GnG.Then some posts later Wulf states that a BAB system that gives you a high enough bonus with a bow that you can compete with a magic bow wielding bow man without wielding a magic bow is complementary to his churlish point.Now from what I can tell from the little that we have here, this point must be of one of two natures:1.) That the original addition of the word italicized word items was meant to imply that even though IL gets rid of magic items it is still an inherently 'magical' game given the power levels involved.-if this is the point then I disagree with it for the reasons I mentioned earlier.  Namely that I don't think you can claim that a thing is magical based on its efficacy alone, particularly if, as seems to be the case with IL, the default level of efficacy is being moved around.  Which is an important point since the only ways you can really distinguish magic items from non in DnD is through a specific flavor, which IL's character mechanic system lacks, and a difference in efficacy, which IL also lacks.But this point isn't a bad point in its own right.  I just disagree with what it means. 2.) That the 'churlish' point in question is simply that IL gets rid of magical items by changing the basic bones of the character system, among other potential changes.  Which seems to be the point that you think he's making.-if this is the point then I don't disagree as this is obvious.But I do have other problems with it.  I mean why bring this up in contrast to magic generally?  Is there something that Wulf knows about the necessity of magic in play from other parts of the system?  If so this would seem to contradict the idea Mike previously expressed about no class being essential for a party in play as long as they had a variety of classes within the party.  Is this some kind of knock on IL's GnG 'cred'?  If so I disagree with it for reasons related to above, and if not then why include it in the context of excluding people interested in GnG from the audience for IL?  I have more general problems with such a statment, but that's the only way it's particular to the argument as its developed since then and how it relates to my pointing out that the way he communicated that was problematic.  Or was he trying to emphasize the point positively?  In which case the context seems all kinds of crazy for it and I'd be interested in hearing him elaborate on why getting rid of magic items is good, if a different kind of good from GnG which is also good but not this kind of good.Again, I apologize if I've undervalued the term churlish, I only meant for it to convey something problematic in its association with snarkishness not something insulting.  I might argue with Wulf but I don't have a problem with him asife from dismissing Mac Cullum's complaint with an 'If you say so.'  He made up for that and I think everything's been dealt with pretty well since then, except for this apparent confusion over the direction of the argument. I've got no problems except wondering if I've apologized and explained enough to restore thread harmony.  I certainly think Wulf has, though I do expect that the elements of this that are teasing will and should continue in a friendly vein.  Cause you want to calm the snark not kill it.</blockquote>

Verification