Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3758541" data-attributes="member: 18280">I can certainly see where this could be frustrating, but I think it is largely a combination of &quot;use of language&quot; issues and playstyle issues.&nbsp; Given the example,Rule X is bad and AD&amp;D1 never had it.
Rule X is good and AD&amp;D1 did have it.on the surface, one would think that Rule X is either good or bad, and either existed in the game or did not.&nbsp; However, these &quot;Rule X&quot; bits are never about an actual rule; they are about rules to cover a particular situation.&nbsp; I will use CR/EL as my example.3.X has CR/EL.&nbsp; 1e used a combination of Monster Levels and XP Values to help DMs judge the relative difficulty of fighting a monster.On a sliding scale, where 0 is no help at all, and 10 is the perfect failsafe help system, CR/EL is (for argument's purpose only), a 5.&nbsp; Monster Level is perhaps a 2, although using the XP themselves (coupled with an awareness of how special abilities affect combat) is perhaps a 6 or even a 7 (because many special abilities in 1e are binary -- save or die, you have magic weapons or not -- they might be easier to adjudicate).When the &quot;edition war&quot; occurs re: the CR system, one can easily say that 1e didn't have something like the CR system, because one is thinking of specific traits of the CR/EL system, and also state that there was analagous help.&nbsp; They can also state that not having something as codified as the CR System (which includes data that ML/XP did not) is good while simultaneously stating that having something like ML/XP is also good.From a language use point of view, while using &quot;A system to aid DMs in placing monsters&quot; and calling it &quot;Rule X&quot; may apply to the CR system and the ML/XP system both, it doesn't make the two systems co-equal.&nbsp; The sort of problem you describe above can easily arise as a refutation to the idea that the two are co-equal, especially over a long and involved discussion with many participants who may or may not be able to articulate why they feel that conflating these two rules into &quot;Rule X&quot; is wrong, although they know that it is wrong.The playstyle issue arises, of course, because &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; are relative (at least within this context).IMHO, of course.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3758541, member: 18280"] I can certainly see where this could be frustrating, but I think it is largely a combination of "use of language" issues and playstyle issues. Given the example, [indent]Rule X is bad and AD&D1 never had it. Rule X is good and AD&D1 did have it.[/indent] on the surface, one would think that Rule X is either good or bad, and either existed in the game or did not. However, these "Rule X" bits are never about an actual rule; they are about rules to cover a particular situation. I will use CR/EL as my example. 3.X has CR/EL. 1e used a combination of Monster Levels and XP Values to help DMs judge the relative difficulty of fighting a monster. On a sliding scale, where 0 is no help at all, and 10 is the perfect failsafe help system, CR/EL is (for argument's purpose only), a 5. Monster Level is perhaps a 2, although using the XP themselves (coupled with an awareness of how special abilities affect combat) is perhaps a 6 or even a 7 (because many special abilities in 1e are binary -- save or die, you have magic weapons or not -- they might be easier to adjudicate). When the "edition war" occurs re: the CR system, one can easily say that 1e didn't have something like the CR system, because one is thinking of specific traits of the CR/EL system, and also state that there was analagous help. They can also state that not having something as codified as the CR System (which includes data that ML/XP did not) is good while simultaneously stating that having something like ML/XP is also good. From a language use point of view, while using "A system to aid DMs in placing monsters" and calling it "Rule X" may apply to the CR system and the ML/XP system both, it doesn't make the two systems co-equal. The sort of problem you describe above can easily arise as a refutation to the idea that the two are co-equal, especially over a long and involved discussion with many participants who may or may not be able to articulate why they feel that conflating these two rules into "Rule X" is wrong, although they know that it is wrong. The playstyle issue arises, of course, because "good" and "bad" are relative (at least within this context). IMHO, of course. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification