Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 667981" data-attributes="member: 1149">Re: What are we arguing about?[/B]</blockquote>Nice spin but this was not my position. you will look up, if you read the posts and find i generally describe the more than one weapon approach as "common sense for an uncommon world." I do not generally refer to it as munchkin or as BAD play. Matter of fact, it is a good example of smartly PLAYING THE RULES or PLAYING THE GAME and those players who decide to design their character to match the things the RULES make sensible will reap the benefits thereof.Those, however, are not the only player-types i have. Some like to emphasize character and frankly could care less about figuring out the minmaxing rules aspects of a DND CHARACTER as opposed to a FANTASY CHARACTER. For my Gming job it is better if i do't run a ruleset that makes the latter run "uphill" against the rules as much. The more cases where PLAYING THE RULES provides a significant advantage over PLAYING THE CHARACTER (example given is the golf-baggies weapons factory DND-type fighter as opposed to the more traditional fantasy novel/movie type with one or at most two weapons and where often one weapon is special) then the greater the problem exists in sustaining a campaign with both types.See, you don't get it at all. its not that i think golf-baggie types are bad (insert your own selected "derogative" terms like munchkin or minmaxer or power gamer as you see fit) and that single weapon FANTASY-type characters are good (insert your own favorable terms like true roleplayers" as you see fit) at all. its that i do not want the RULES to favor one over the other any more than absolutely necessary. My game is a big tent, i just don't want player specific landmines in the rules to in and of themselkves discourage certain player types from my games.Actually this is not a point of mine at all. i never referred to the golf-baggie as metagaming and even defended it as reasonable due to generations untold and their stories of such beasts.i call this an inconcistency. the notion that magic SHOULD NOT trump DR... as long as the magic is in a weapon.... but in all other cases should...seems inconsistent to me.While i recall commenting on this aspect, i believe it weas a counterpoint. I would not liken this issue as as serious as the first one.of course, or i can invent new monsters or i can house rules it... all of which is irrelevent to the new rule and analysis of what it does. Every rule in the book can be changed.[/QUOTE]

Verification