Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:UrWdnT0bEaKbQPnfRVnyhQ@pipex.net...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Here's a hint: what is the punishment for failure in tyrannical
> > dictatorships? Now explain what happens when the project gets behind
> > schedule. Thats' right, buckwheat ... risk of death. Not from
> *accidents*,
> > but from *management*. You don't even understand the proposition you
> are so
> > pathetically attempting to disprove.
>
> A fascinating claim given that there is no record of that *ever* happening
> and that many pyramids were completed outside of the lifetime of the
> pharohs they were intended to accomodate. You are simply making stuff up
> now.
Are you asserting that there were no deadlines or milestones? Hmm?
> One author estimates 4,000 skilled stonemasons were involved with the
> construction of the Giza pyramid. These are the experts when it comes to
> the practical side of things.
No, they're just 1st level characters with Skill focus feats.
> > The officers and generals would deserve XP bonuses for "leading
their
> > army in battle" above and beyond anything their local units managed to
> > defeat. Thankyou for providing us with another relevant analogy.
>
> No then. Have you even read the guidance on bonus awards? The bit that
> says mission awards shouldn't exceed overall rewards for encounters and if
> they do it is a "very deviant" game?
Again, I ask you to please restrain yourself to replies that are
relevant. You have just displayed piss-poor reading comprehension and need
to stop being stupid in public. The DMG *actually* says that mission awards
should not exceed the scale of rewards for ALL THE ENCOUNTERS IN THE
MISSION. You asked about whether the general gets XP for every orc the army
slays; I say no, because I would assign XP for army encounters at a unit
level based on the threats each element of the army faced; grunts and
knights do very different jobs and some characters would get zero XP for
mowing through the cannon fodder that is actually a challenge for similarly
statured infantry grunts; there is no one "XP per orc". However, all the XP
gained by various units for the things they did in the battle _would_ set
the scale of the mission award pool, which as a DM, I then get to decide
whether to use 10% to 100% of it and allocate it to the commanders as I see
fit.
Given that we have already postulated that great works consist of many
mini-milestones ... why, hey! Look at that! It's almost as if the steps of
the process could be made to fit within exactly the same sort of system! A
labour of a lifetime is not just one encounter. The events of a clash of
armies, or perhaps more appropriately a campaign of such clashes, are also
assembled from smaller pieces.
But like it or not, the army's leadership does deserve story awards.
.. .and so does the leadership of a great work.
Your objection to this concept is absurd, given that the DMG provides
the very structures with which to implement it.
> > Your contention that XP story awards are "outside the standard
system"
> > is blatantly incorrect.
>
> 1) Its an optional rule and its use is recommended *only* with a modified
standard award.
And yet there are whole pages dedicated to them in the DMG.. it's almost
as if they're intended to be used!
> 2) Its a meta rule intended for PCs
Yes, because that's what the game is about. And yet, if an NPC character
were along with the party that received a story or mission award, you don't
think they would get a share? Hmm? Your claim that these can't be applied to
NPCS is *wrong*. Your claim that they can't be applied to exceptional
Commoners or Experts is also *wrong*.
> 3) The DMG discusses NPC aquisition of experience (including specific
> mention of the commoner class) and does not support your theories.
Page 107: "NPCS GAIN EXPERIENCE POINTS THE SAME WAY THAT PCS DO."
PCs can gain experience through story awards.
You. Lose.
Get on your knees and kiss my ass.
> > Your assertion that they produce "nonsensical results wrt combat
> > abilities" in a fashion that *normal* violence-and-story-award based
results
> > do not is *dead wrong*. Combat abilities - just like all character
> > abilities - are a result of training in the background and not
activities
> > adventuring.
>
> It's both and you know it.
I know no such thing. I know that time spent in combat in D&D amounts to
a few minutes. This is not when *learning* is done. There is no time to
practice. There is only apply what you know, or die. Hence the game's
assumption that challenges produce something *else* - but it sure as hell
isn't training.
> The better or even some formal training is why fighters and even warriours
derive more benefit from undergoing the same
> experience as the commoner.
Your logical construct falls apart quite quickly when the fighter
receives a mission award. What "benefit" did they get from that "fighting"
experience? What about a roleplaying award? Or one for defeating a trap?
(suppose he's multiclassed!). This issue has been done to death in the
past, and your position is INDEFENSIBLE due to the myriad ways XP is awarded
that don't include combat, and the mastery of new skills that would never
have been practiced in combat. Please don't waste the newsgroup's time
with your flat-earth bullshit.
> > The fact that some commoner managed to survive an act of
> > violence no more justifies his combat capabilities any more than
advancing
> > without such encounters does. It makes no sense for commoners to gain
> > combat capability *at all*, under _any_ circumstance, unless you are
Bradd,
> > and thus pointing this out is not a counterargument for anything.
>
> Take off the blinders. What was an archer if not a commoner?
<sigh> That depends on the archer. A commoner with the relevant martial
weapon proficiency could serve as one - but "archer" is generally a first
level warrior. Again, you seem to overlook that for every potential
commoner archer you can find, I can point out ten more commoners that can't
even manage a bow (women, children, fat shopkeeps...). Claiming that the
class receives combat training is *absurd*. _Some_ commoners take martial
weapon/longbow. That's not the same as training in self defense.
>What were the citizen levies that almost inevitably accompany the "proper"
armies
> during the medieval era? We have documented evidence that they turned up
> for battle armed with wood axes or mattocks with no armour. Are you
> suggesting that after a campaign (but not formal training) they shouldn't
> be any better at fighting or avoiding blows?
Correct. The ones that rated as commoners did one of two things: stood
there, shooting arrows really far away, or *died*. No-one taught them HOW
TO FIGHT while they were standing in lines doing target practice. Unless, of
course, someone did, in which case they are warriors now.
> > > > If one actually cared about levelling mechanics for commoners, we
could
> >> > neatly divide a set of tasks into town, city, county, and
nationally-relevant works (a
> > random sampling of such challenges, in no particular order, would be
"being
> the mayor for a year", securing key trading rights, magnificent bouts of
> > > > agriculture, breeding new horses, masterwork architecture, staving
off
> > > > plagues, yadda, yadda, yadda), and we could show how a "good
citizen's"
> > > > career in civil service or his craft would provide him opportunities
to
> > level.
> > >
> > > How many levels did I gain from redecorating my bathroom?
> >
> > Would you be so kind as to illustrate what "redecorating your
bathroom"
> > has to do with the examples above?
>
> Yes. It's about as meaningless as far as CR ratings go.
I notice you snipped the rest of the argument, *bitch*.
Stop being intellectually dishonest.
-Michael
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram