Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6233217" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I am not at all sure what would be for instance more flexible about an AD&amp;D 2e Ranger. They had very specific features which pretty much meant you were going to dual wield an axe and a sword, period. In theory there was a bit less pigeonholing by mechanics, except you had to have magic weapons, put extra points into more proficiency, etc to really keep up, so in fact a 2e character would use basically 1 or 2 fixed attack routines 100% of the time. Its not like an AD&amp;D Thief EVER elected to fight toe-to-toe with a monster, unless he had a death wish. You did exactly what was on your character's 'tin', you hid somewhere and tried to get in a 2x or whatever damage backstab. There was no other viable option. The real ultimate problem with the reasoning behind question 73 is that it leads to reductio ad absurdum. EVERY rule in any RPG is crimping someone's idea about something. If you argue that rules should be removed to make the game better, then why have rules at all? Isn't the best game just make-believe story telling? Clearly this is a ridiculous answer. The upshot is you can't ask &quot;don't the rules get in the way?&quot; instead you really need to ask &quot;what does this specific rule do for my game, should we keep it or not?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6233217, member: 82106"] Yeah, I am not at all sure what would be for instance more flexible about an AD&D 2e Ranger. They had very specific features which pretty much meant you were going to dual wield an axe and a sword, period. In theory there was a bit less pigeonholing by mechanics, except you had to have magic weapons, put extra points into more proficiency, etc to really keep up, so in fact a 2e character would use basically 1 or 2 fixed attack routines 100% of the time. Its not like an AD&D Thief EVER elected to fight toe-to-toe with a monster, unless he had a death wish. You did exactly what was on your character's 'tin', you hid somewhere and tried to get in a 2x or whatever damage backstab. There was no other viable option. The real ultimate problem with the reasoning behind question 73 is that it leads to reductio ad absurdum. EVERY rule in any RPG is crimping someone's idea about something. If you argue that rules should be removed to make the game better, then why have rules at all? Isn't the best game just make-believe story telling? Clearly this is a ridiculous answer. The upshot is you can't ask "don't the rules get in the way?" instead you really need to ask "what does this specific rule do for my game, should we keep it or not?" [/QUOTE]

Verification