Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6194641" data-attributes="member: 4937">Then I'm not sure what you want.&nbsp; You say you want 12 classes.&nbsp; You say 'more is better', but apparently not when it comes to classes.&nbsp;&nbsp; What do you want?&nbsp; 13 classes? 15 classes, and then we stop?&nbsp; That's not 'more is better'.&nbsp;&nbsp; 20 classes?&nbsp;&nbsp; If 'more is better', why not 600?Ok, let's start from scratch:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism</a>Orientalism isn't about the east per se, as it is about how the east is depicted by the west.&nbsp; Now, I have plenty of problems with some of the uses to which 'Orientalism' as a term is placed, since sometimes it is simply used to decry depictions that conflict with the person's particular world view or as a blanket rejection of any attempt to analyze or understand or critically examine eastern cultures by person's within western cultures.However, if my point is that the usual argument that, &quot;The Monk isn't appropriate for D&amp;D unless you are playing a setting specifically inspired by eastern culture.&quot;, is fatally flawed because the Monk isn't appropriately designed for an oriental setting either and really makes no sense with in it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only settings where a Monk makes the remotest sense are those that are specifically inspired by D&amp;D (say Diablo) where the archetype is entirely self-referential, or if you are specifically playing a setting like that of the Kung Fu TV series.&nbsp; In either event, both settings aren't the product of eastern culture, but of particular western views of eastern culture - that is, orientalism.&nbsp;&nbsp; Moreover, the whole notion that an eastern or western setting requires different base classes strikes me as orientalism.&nbsp; Well designed base classes should be robust enough to sustain changes in the cultural trappings without the need to change the class.&nbsp; Second edition interestingly enough tried this approach, albeit with the somewhat flawed mechanism of a 'kit class'.&nbsp;&nbsp; Although I'm not a fan of the kit class concept, and I reject Pathfinder's similar approach to building diversity within a class, the fundamental idea that a 'fighter' ought to encompass the fighter and fighting styles of every culture is one I champion.&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise, there is no real need for separate tables of eastern and western weapons given the granularity of D&amp;D weapons, except in the very rare cases of there being no counterpart.&nbsp;&nbsp; (And these are really rare, say the Urumi.)&nbsp;&nbsp; My personal preference would be to put all weapons on a unified table and note in the description, as Gygax did in the 1e PH, some of the different regional names for weapons of this sort.&nbsp; I just assume most readers will employ a dictionary when they don't know what a word means.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6194641, member: 4937"] Then I'm not sure what you want. You say you want 12 classes. You say 'more is better', but apparently not when it comes to classes. What do you want? 13 classes? 15 classes, and then we stop? That's not 'more is better'. 20 classes? If 'more is better', why not 600? Ok, let's start from scratch: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism[/URL] Orientalism isn't about the east per se, as it is about how the east is depicted by the west. Now, I have plenty of problems with some of the uses to which 'Orientalism' as a term is placed, since sometimes it is simply used to decry depictions that conflict with the person's particular world view or as a blanket rejection of any attempt to analyze or understand or critically examine eastern cultures by person's within western cultures. However, if my point is that the usual argument that, "The Monk isn't appropriate for D&D unless you are playing a setting specifically inspired by eastern culture.", is fatally flawed because the Monk isn't appropriately designed for an oriental setting either and really makes no sense with in it. The only settings where a Monk makes the remotest sense are those that are specifically inspired by D&D (say Diablo) where the archetype is entirely self-referential, or if you are specifically playing a setting like that of the Kung Fu TV series. In either event, both settings aren't the product of eastern culture, but of particular western views of eastern culture - that is, orientalism. Moreover, the whole notion that an eastern or western setting requires different base classes strikes me as orientalism. Well designed base classes should be robust enough to sustain changes in the cultural trappings without the need to change the class. Second edition interestingly enough tried this approach, albeit with the somewhat flawed mechanism of a 'kit class'. Although I'm not a fan of the kit class concept, and I reject Pathfinder's similar approach to building diversity within a class, the fundamental idea that a 'fighter' ought to encompass the fighter and fighting styles of every culture is one I champion. Likewise, there is no real need for separate tables of eastern and western weapons given the granularity of D&D weapons, except in the very rare cases of there being no counterpart. (And these are really rare, say the Urumi.) My personal preference would be to put all weapons on a unified table and note in the description, as Gygax did in the 1e PH, some of the different regional names for weapons of this sort. I just assume most readers will employ a dictionary when they don't know what a word means. [/QUOTE]

Verification