Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3699808" data-attributes="member: 1003">I'm glad Ridley's Cohort was able to express what I meant.&quot;Survival of the fittest&quot; is a very compact, meaningful phrase. Like &quot;E=mc^2&quot; or &quot;The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time&quot;, it is very meaningful if you have the tools to unpack it.&nbsp; It's loaded with meaning, and I actually see the processes it describes happening around me all the time, like the color green or the effects of gravity.Heh. Would you characterize Prestige Classes as an Intelligent Design, or a mutation?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; I'd be interested in a thread that discussed:1. The evolution of silver pieces from &quot;hoped for reward&quot; to &quot;assumed mechanic.&quot; Wealth has changed in D&amp;D from being a question of &quot;the potential of unlimited riches&quot; to &quot;the guarantee of what the average gamer should expect; no more, no less.&quot;2. The slow expansion of Skills from &quot;none&quot; to &quot;necessary for your class, but your character's additional knowledge is roleplayed&quot; to &quot;all possible skills.&quot; We've touched on this already, but I would really like to focus on how certain Skills are not &quot;skills&quot; at all (like Jump), and subject to physical limitations, while others (like Knowledge) are very much Skills.&nbsp; Also, if most Skills are untrained, does it make sense to say that someone who has &quot;maxed out&quot; on a skill is only 20% better at it then someone who's never even &quot;cracked open a book&quot;?3. In OD&amp;D a Fighting-Man had 1d8 HP and swords did 1-6 damage. There were no bonuses.&nbsp; Now a two-handed sword can do 2d6+7 (~5% chance of double that), while HP have only advanced to 1d10+Con.&nbsp; The &quot;arms race&quot; has favored damage output over survivability, it seems.4. In a day and age where Feats and Prestige Classes are playtested and forum-tested to within an inch of their lives, it seems like all choices are &quot;equally valid.&quot;&nbsp; That sounds awfully politically correct, doesn't it?&nbsp; Has D&amp;D evolved to reflect the (perhaps unconscious) political values of the recent generation of writers?5. It's fairly easy to judge how dangerous goblins are. A &quot;newb&quot; GM (in any addition) doesn't need CR to tell him that. CR is really useful for &quot;newb&quot; DM's when judging the more dangerous critters.&nbsp; However, was CR necessary because of the advanced level progression? In an older edition where you leveled slowly, the GM would have time to grow into his role and be able to better judge what his party can and cannot handle.&nbsp; Now, with parties leveling every third session, there's no time to adjust.&nbsp; Has D&amp;D evolved to create a generation of GM's that cannot (as) accurately judge threat and ability? Is this the wrong board to be asking this on, since EN World attracts the older crowd?Perhaps some more thoughts later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 3699808, member: 1003"] I'm glad Ridley's Cohort was able to express what I meant. "Survival of the fittest" is a very compact, meaningful phrase. Like "E=mc^2" or "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time", it is very meaningful if you have the tools to unpack it. It's loaded with meaning, and I actually see the processes it describes happening around me all the time, like the color green or the effects of gravity. Heh. Would you characterize Prestige Classes as an Intelligent Design, or a mutation? :D I'd be interested in a thread that discussed: 1. The evolution of silver pieces from "hoped for reward" to "assumed mechanic." Wealth has changed in D&D from being a question of "the potential of unlimited riches" to "the guarantee of what the average gamer should expect; no more, no less." 2. The slow expansion of Skills from "none" to "necessary for your class, but your character's additional knowledge is roleplayed" to "all possible skills." We've touched on this already, but I would really like to focus on how certain Skills are not "skills" at all (like Jump), and subject to physical limitations, while others (like Knowledge) are very much Skills. Also, if most Skills are untrained, does it make sense to say that someone who has "maxed out" on a skill is only 20% better at it then someone who's never even "cracked open a book"? 3. In OD&D a Fighting-Man had 1d8 HP and swords did 1-6 damage. There were no bonuses. Now a two-handed sword can do 2d6+7 (~5% chance of double that), while HP have only advanced to 1d10+Con. The "arms race" has favored damage output over survivability, it seems. 4. In a day and age where Feats and Prestige Classes are playtested and forum-tested to within an inch of their lives, it seems like all choices are "equally valid." That sounds awfully politically correct, doesn't it? Has D&D evolved to reflect the (perhaps unconscious) political values of the recent generation of writers? 5. It's fairly easy to judge how dangerous goblins are. A "newb" GM (in any addition) doesn't need CR to tell him that. CR is really useful for "newb" DM's when judging the more dangerous critters. However, was CR necessary because of the advanced level progression? In an older edition where you leveled slowly, the GM would have time to grow into his role and be able to better judge what his party can and cannot handle. Now, with parties leveling every third session, there's no time to adjust. Has D&D evolved to create a generation of GM's that cannot (as) accurately judge threat and ability? Is this the wrong board to be asking this on, since EN World attracts the older crowd? Perhaps some more thoughts later. [/QUOTE]

Verification