Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 3257854" data-attributes="member: 11760">I suppose it was naive to hope that folks defending the rule (especially since a lot of the arguments against it are a little thin, especially from people who never played prior to 3E) would do something other than spit the stupid &quot;they just want kewl powerz for their templated munchkin characters!&quot; line.The people who actually feel that way aren't stung by the line and the people you might actually sway over to your side will be turned off by this. If your only purpose in posting is to insult the knuckle-dragging 3E players, you might as well stay in the positive feedback loop of Dragonsfoot instead.Now then ...Anyone saying that 1E doesn't have an implicit setting needs to reread the 1E Monster Manual, where it specifically outlines the drow's place in the world -- as rumor, without stats. Later monster books would likewise make it clear that 1E was mostly meant to replicate Greyhawk. If your home campaign differed greatly from Greyhawk, you could change any rule you wanted to, but that doesn't make it a bad rule by definition.And as a game with a strongly implied setting, cosmology and so on, it was perfectly appropriate of EGG to say that the demihumans and humanoids just didn't have the right souls/spirits to advance in the same ways that humans did. He created a humanocentric setting and had the rules mechanically reflect that. That's a pretty standard concept in today's games of all sorts: Make the setting the natural result of the mechanics.I think the best argument against the rules is that they don't matter until the campaign has progressed a long ways. The theoretical balance doesn't matter, in other words, until the campaign is past 8th level. Given that plenty of campaigns don't get that far, it makes demihumans too good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whizbang Dustyboots, post: 3257854, member: 11760"] I suppose it was naive to hope that folks defending the rule (especially since a lot of the arguments against it are a little thin, especially from people who never played prior to 3E) would do something other than spit the stupid "they just want kewl powerz for their templated munchkin characters!" line. The people who actually feel that way aren't stung by the line and the people you might actually sway over to your side will be turned off by this. If your only purpose in posting is to insult the knuckle-dragging 3E players, you might as well stay in the positive feedback loop of Dragonsfoot instead. Now then ... Anyone saying that 1E doesn't have an implicit setting needs to reread the 1E Monster Manual, where it specifically outlines the drow's place in the world -- as rumor, without stats. Later monster books would likewise make it clear that 1E was mostly meant to replicate Greyhawk. If your home campaign differed greatly from Greyhawk, you could change any rule you wanted to, but that doesn't make it a bad rule by definition. And as a game with a strongly implied setting, cosmology and so on, it was perfectly appropriate of EGG to say that the demihumans and humanoids just didn't have the right souls/spirits to advance in the same ways that humans did. He created a humanocentric setting and had the rules mechanically reflect that. That's a pretty standard concept in today's games of all sorts: Make the setting the natural result of the mechanics. I think the best argument against the rules is that they don't matter until the campaign has progressed a long ways. The theoretical balance doesn't matter, in other words, until the campaign is past 8th level. Given that plenty of campaigns don't get that far, it makes demihumans [i]too good[/i]. [/QUOTE]

Verification