|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 26, 2016 3:53:10 GMT -8
FTR - I was referring specifically to the'ninja' class as it appeared in the likes of White Dwarf and The Dragon 'back in the day': the supreme martial artist with melee prowess, stealth and magic. You know, Batman!!!. Hell we only just got our heads around the Monk in a European centric fantasy setting then along comes 'the Ninja' with a rationalisation equally as oblique as the Monk. Not to mention the fucking Anti-Paladin: "yeah I'm a tough bastard except I gotta do evil cause I'm an Anti-Paladin, I cause wounds with a touch instead of heal and I want an unholy avenger and my mount should be red dragon because they're evil and I'm an anti-paladin and I'm gonna be a dick to everyone else at the table cause it's what my character would do". Fuck that shit, the hobby was young then but, like us, it's all growed up now . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 25, 2016 23:47:25 GMT -8
Because it's not an issue of being a 'ninja' per se, it's what a 'ninja' tends to be within a given system . . . it's a faux-Mary Sue, the poor man's Batman and an excuse to better than anybody else at the table at EVERYTHING. Back in the day people would design 'Ninja' classes for DnD and ADnD and TnT etc etc and they were always hugely overpowered, good at everything and so far and away from the historical truth as to be laughable - more like 'American Ninja' (the movie) - and they tended to attract 'that guy' as players. 'That guy' also tended to want to play an Anti Paladin or a Half Vampire or anything 'that guy' saw as having only mechanical advantages and no drawbacks (except RP fluff one's which could be ignored) . . . So in the context of 'that guy' wanting to bring his/her 'ninja' to the table - the answer is no, not so much because of the character more because of the player . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 25, 2016 5:22:41 GMT -8
Yup, I did assume that. I personally would not want to play in the first age, though I see how that would be a better fit. Still square pegging it though. D&D is not a generic system. Many of its mechanics are based on setting elements (Vancian Magic, divine magic, etc). I really don't see why people would chose to play this over the One Ring RPG made by the same folks other than laziness. Middle Earth already has a (presumably decent, I have never played it) RPG to its name. I see this less as supporting the fans and more about a grab for money. It has several systems - Decipher and ICE. The ICE fluff was very very good - detailed maps and personalities and loads of adventure hooks, you just had to throw away the RoleMaster stat blocks. To its credit, though, ICE did have MERP which was a paired down RoleMaster specific to Middle Earth (if RoleMaster had stayed as streamlined as MERP I might have stuck with it longer) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 25, 2016 4:35:22 GMT -8
The other assumption is that the only time period one has for a Middle Earth Campaign is during the waning years of the 3rd Age. Great and mighty magics were used and great, legendary, heroes walked the earth - eg: Beren and Luthien. There is the whole period during the rise of Angmar and the rule of the Witch King (the default for ICE's RoleMaster Middle Earth IIRC). There is also the Last Alliance and the first struggle against the first Dark Lord, Melkor, he who created the Balrog's . . . From the First age comes the tale of Earendil: "the Man Beren and Elf Lúthien, the daughter of Thingol, entered Angband and recovered a Silmaril from Morgoth’s crown after Luthien's singing sent him to sleep. It was inherited by their granddaughter Elwing, who joined those dwelling at the Mouths of Sirion. Her husband Eärendil, wearing the Silmaril on his brow, sailed across the sea to Valinor, where he pleaded with the Valar to liberate Middle-earth from Morgoth. During the ensuing War of Wrath, Beleriand and much of the north of Middle-earth was destroyed and reshaped. Morgoth summoned many Men to his side during the fifty-year conflict, which became the largest, longest, and bloodiest conflict ever fought in Arda's history. In the end, Morgoth was utterly defeated, and his armies were almost entirely slaughtered. The dragons were almost all destroyed, and Thangorodrim was shattered when Eärendil slew the greatest of dragons, Ancalagon the Black, who crashed upon it as he fell. The few remaining dragons were scattered, and the handful of surviving Balrogs hid themselves deep within the earth" Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 25, 2016 4:13:38 GMT -8
Actually Aragorn IS more than just a man, he is a Dunedain who are descendants of the Numeanorean's - They of the Westernesse, the greatest race of Man, who rebelled against the Valar. As a descendant of of Isildur his lineage has elven blood . . . he and Arwen Undomie have a common ancestor: Elros Tar-Minyatur, the first King of Númenor, being Elrond's brother and therefore Arwen's Uncle. Elrond chose to be of Elven kind and his brother chose to be of Man, but each still retained a bit of the other. For this reason Arwen was able to choose to become mortal when she married Aragorn and stayed in Middle Earth after the last ship sailed from the Grey Havens. Boromir was also of Numenorean descent, though far more diluted than Aragorn's line, and he kept fighting after how many arrows to the chest before finally falling? . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 21, 2016 3:40:47 GMT -8
Actually it wasn't Gary that invented the Cleric - it was one of his players that invented a Vampire Hunter which became the cleric class. The tale is well documented in 'Of Dice and Men' Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 20, 2016 15:25:54 GMT -8
I absolutely get not taking gaming advice from EGG, or any of the 'holy trinity' of Gygax, Arneson, and Wesely. The game they created is very, very different than the games we play today, their descendants. They and their experiences have next to nothing to teach me about running a modern GURPS game. I also don't take PC advice from the designers of the ENIAC, or car advice from Benz. What I don't get, at all, is the reflexive "Gygax? Fuck that piece of shit" attitude I seem to encounter all the time. (The rhetoric never seems directed at the other two, I assume because Gygax was much more outspoken and prolific). Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe it being a pet peeve means I'm more cognizant of it. But, like Hendrix above, it would be like saying "Hendrix? Fuck that poseur -- Stevie Ray all the way." It completely misses the point that there wouldn't be a Stevie Ray without Hendrix. Yes, sure, okay, maybe (maybe) eventually someone else would have invented D&D, and so on down the line. But those hypothetical people didn't -- Gygax actually did it. Wrote it up, mimeographed it, played it, got it out there. I'm not saying we have to lionize the guy, he sure as hell had faults and flaws. But the ridiculous venom that's so frequently spewed his way* just smacks of reactionary schoolyard shit-talk. "Oh, you like The Beatles? Yeah, they were untalented hacks." * Btw, I'm not saying you're doing this, @stevensw, or anyone else in this particular thread -- it just reminded me of it. I don't put Gygax on a pedestal, take his word as law, or think he's a superhero, so I can't really speak to that. I just think character assassinating the literal inventor of the thing one claims to have so much passion for is really petty and basically a dick move. Well dammit, now that I've typed the whole thing out, it kind of reads like an answer to a question no one's posing, since there aren't any examples of the kind of thing I'm railing against here! Ah, well, maybe I just posted too soon. I feel better anyway. Now I can sleep peacefully. I hear you brother . . . I feel exactly the same gall for exactly the same reasons all too often, TBH I just think there are much better things to do than shit on the legacy of people who are dead and gone. It's not like they can defend themselves so it smacks of beating on a soft target . . . hell, Freud got a lot wrong, but also got a lot right and he started the ball rolling allowing more modern therapies, like CBT, to exist - which is a remarkable feat given the context of the times he lived in. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 20, 2016 7:22:00 GMT -8
Besides it was an article by John Wicks putting forward his version of a disagreement between him and EGG. Basically his perspective of events written to defend his position. What really happened? Dunno, as we don't have an independent citation to draw on. Did EGG cast gamer slurs? Or did John Wicks perceive EGG's comments that way in the greater context of having a difference of opinion? The thing with Internet and librarys etc is that you can always find an opinion and opinions will always be diverse. Your archery instructor may have his knowledge informed by references that you haven't researched yet, references that may already critique the research you cited - thus he may not have felt the need to go back to the research you were citing. In psychology people often cite the Berkley Prision Experiment, very few actually read the research paper itself . . . Even less are aware that this 'forbidden experiment' has been repeated recently with a different outcome. There are a host of opinions sourced from the original experiments and how one interprets the variant outcomes of the two actual experiments is informed as much by actual data as it is by simple choice (preference nee opinion). Research is a learned skill as it requires the ability to disentangle opinions from facts and to collate those facts fairly across the broader sweep of all the opinions. It's unfair to say you 'know more now than your instructor', it just that you 'know different' and that's not the same. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 19, 2016 23:41:11 GMT -8
I can't cite my source, but since seeing the movie last week I've been listening to various spoilercasts that I'd previously avoided. There's some mention either in the novel, or somewhere, that Rey scavenges a flight simulator and practices on it nightly. There's also something to be said for speeders being sufficient training for spaceships -- in the SW universe. Luke had only used his landspeeder and the T-16s he used to "bullseye womprats" back on Tattooine, yet he is able to pilot an X-Wing expertly. In the sadly-still-canon prequels, Anakin has only pod-raced but is able to pilot a Naboo straighter with surprising ability. True, except the Falcon is a freighter and, as Han Solo points out to Luke, "it ain't like dust'n crops boy". Going from speeder to snub fighter I can see, but going from speeder to freighter is a bit different. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 16, 2016 7:17:34 GMT -8
It's just trappings . . . DnD magic is flash bang because we describe it so - plus several decades of adding more and more exotic spells the spell lists. Pair down the spell lists and redescibe there effects - the old 1e conversion of Lankhmar did it successfully: spell casting times were lengthened and spell recovery a well as limiting the spells available. Then of course it'll be a balance issue . . . in the Lankhmar conversion real magic was very rare so ANY magic granted a huge advantage to balance out the mechanical hindrances . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 16, 2016 4:25:13 GMT -8
Gandalf also casts fire and artefacts have power - sting, glamdring, mithral shirts. It's not 'flashy' but it is there, often existing on a another level of awarness - like Galdriel and Elrond weaving mighty magics to keep the shadow from their realms. A world Frodo sees manifest when he wears the ring. The white horses at the ford were pretty flashy and the shattering of the gate of Minas Tirith was also flashy. There is also power in words, runes and oaths. Not to mention summoning type magics. If you limit your DnD spell caster list to only fireballs and lightening bolts then you might have a point, but there are other spells whose effects can be 'subtle' merely thru the virtue of narrative trappings. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 16, 2016 1:45:00 GMT -8
By playing Middle Earth with slightly different assumptions about magic and the 'Angelic' Wizards. In the old ICE version The Wizards are exactly that, therefore not PC's, BUT mortals can learn magic . . . Like the Witch King (he started out as a mortal blah, blah). The Wizards restrained their power on Middle Earth: they followed certain rules to remain there. Could Gandalf, full Angelic, kick most arse - yeah, but he didn't because his role was to inspire the free peoples of Mlddle Earth to do it themselves. The Elves have magic and some of it can be passed on to mortals - Frodo invokes Elbereth Gilthoniel successfully because he heard elves use it. The men of old wielded great and terrible magics that became a challenge, in their hubris, to the Gods leading to the great fall and reshaping of Middle Earth afterwards - Aragorn and his kin retain, though diluted, some of that essence of power: it's one of the reasons Aragorn is so vital when he is so old and lives for so long and is granted the grace to choose his time to die. It's hinted that the men of the East dabbled in dark magics learned from the Dark Lord. So characters could use magic, even potent magics, but not have to be 'Angelic' Wizards. Noting that the mortals of Middle Earth called them Wizards, perhaps because it was a familiar title that best described them. The were in fact, amongst themselves and to those who knew what they really were, called The Istari. PC Wizards yes, PC Istari no Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 15, 2016 2:40:20 GMT -8
I'm absolutely loving the fact that HyveMynd has engaged in a discussion about Savage Worlds There is one thing that comes to mind: the other systems that use a classes/archetypes, a system heavily criticised. BUT it has just occurred to me that benefit of having an Archetype/Class system is that you can use a given Archetype that suits Your personality preference to create a PC which can then, within the context of the given Archetype, let You explore ways to experience RPing outside of Your usual tropes. OR you can do it the other way around, bring your usual RP tropes to an Archetype that isn't consistent with Your personality preferences - playing within the rules structure of that Archetype to push, but not break, the limits. For example: I usually play Bards, 'cause well 'Bard'. I like the RP aspect of the Archetype, etc etc (and as I've said in another thread the mechanical side of the Archetype is neither here nor there). But all my Bards have been wildly different: one was a 'thruthseeker type', another was a 'Jack Rackham type' (if you've seen BlackSails, though this was before BlackSails aired . . . so coincidence) and another was an 'agitator/schemer' (fond of hurling insults at opponents but petrified of 1 to 1 combat, preferring to manipulate circumstances to the party's best advantage first). Conversely I have enjoyed playing a Paladin, not an Archetype that attracts me on a personal level, and thru that I discovered that I can be as Fascist as the next person when given the Authority of The Law and the Religious Conviction to believe I (my PC) held the Moral Higher Ground. I'm still not sure if a public execution is really consistent with being a Paladin, noting that the 'evil doer' concerned was definitely guilty and unrepentant, the public part was a demonstration in maintaining public order, to reassure the innocent and as a warning to the 'evil doer's' undiscovered co-conspirators - noting on a real world personal level, consistent with the culture I have grown up and live in, I'm opposed to the Death Penalty . . . As to the Group Dissonance - yeah the GM is a fault, s/he should be trying to balance the playing needs of all the Players. Sometimes time, geography and the out of game social dynamic don't permit a wide choice in groups: at this point a clever GM will bring a Group together is such a way as to exploit the divergent play styles to make a truly good game, as each session s/he will play to each Players strengths and weaknesses in turn. The spotlight shifts almost logically, but such games tend to be more prep heavy as the GM has consider the various Player needs before hand and craft an appropriate series of encounters . . . all the while prepping contingencies for when 'Players Meet Plot'. I one group I had I knew I had to have at least one combat planned each session for the combat monkey's as well as a heavy social encounter for the RPer's and an 'informative encounter' for the 'knowledge seekers' . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 14, 2016 16:16:00 GMT -8
Who says you can't make money from a hobby I'd guess a good 2 outta 10 DnD games over the last 40yrs have been a home brewed a Middle Earth at some point (just those darn pesky licenses) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 14, 2016 16:08:46 GMT -8
More later (after I'm at work), but I believe every character we make is at least partially an idealized version of ourselves. Looking at the characters I have played . . . I'm pretty fucked up Aaron
|
|