Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1993114" data-attributes="member: 10201">Please identify the &quot;opportunities&quot; that i am mislabeling as liabilities, and the &quot;restrictions&quot; that i have misidentified as freedoms. Because, honestly, i don't even see how you're applying this analogy/analysis to my argument. Seriously.That's not at all what i said. I said that, if you choose not to apply consistency it will (1) be very noticable and (2) might have some significant unintended repurcussions. And, contrariwise, a lack of interaction between distinct subsystems means that, even if you totally screw up a subsystem, it won't affect the others, because they simply don't inter-relate.In other words, lots of variations on the same core. How is that more freedom than lots of variations on half-a-dozen radically different cores? It might not be less (orders of infinity and all that), but how is it more?This is, as a generalization, absolutely true. Yes. But not without repurcussions. Let's take a simple example: double all skill point allocations, and raise the max skill ranks to level +20. Suddenly, Tumble becomes a super-powerful skill, because the DC to avoid an AoO is based on the attacker's roll, and you've just given the tumbler a potential 10-15pt advantage. Likewise for any other task where a skill interacts with some other mechanic.Huh? Didn't you just apply a sensible analogy exactly backwards? How does a codified system give you more freedom than a lack of system? I can accept a claim that it gives no less--but how does it give more? More specifically, i fail to see how you can analogize, of the two systems (AD&amp;D2, D&amp;D3E), AD&amp;D to either &quot;freedom from opportunity&quot; or a prison cell. I'm not sure i'd use that analogy for either system, but surely, if anything, the system with greater codification is the one more deserving of that analogy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1993114, member: 10201"] Please identify the "opportunities" that i am mislabeling as liabilities, and the "restrictions" that i have misidentified as freedoms. Because, honestly, i don't even see how you're applying this analogy/analysis to my argument. Seriously. That's not at all what i said. I said that, [i]if[/i] you choose [i]not[/i] to apply consistency it will (1) be very noticable and (2) might have some significant unintended repurcussions. And, contrariwise, a lack of interaction between distinct subsystems means that, even if you totally screw up a subsystem, it won't affect the others, because they simply don't inter-relate. In other words, lots of variations on the same core. How is that [i]more[/i] freedom than lots of variations on half-a-dozen radically different cores? It might not be less (orders of infinity and all that), but how is it more? This is, as a generalization, absolutely true. Yes. But not without repurcussions. Let's take a simple example: double all skill point allocations, and raise the max skill ranks to level +20. Suddenly, Tumble becomes a super-powerful skill, because the DC to avoid an AoO is based on the attacker's roll, and you've just given the tumbler a potential 10-15pt advantage. Likewise for any other task where a skill interacts with some other mechanic. Huh? Didn't you just apply a sensible analogy exactly backwards? How does a codified system give you more freedom than a lack of system? I can accept a claim that it gives no less--but how does it give more? More specifically, i fail to see how you can analogize, of the two systems (AD&D2, D&D3E), AD&D to either "freedom from opportunity" or a prison cell. I'm not sure i'd use that analogy for either system, but surely, if anything, the system with greater codification is the one more deserving of that analogy. [/QUOTE]

Verification