Cain Freemont wrote:It is so much easier to just label everyone as wanting to be the best, rather than seeing things from our real point of view, I suppose. Almost all of your posts in this thread seem to entail labelling everyone as wanting to be the best of the best or 'legal powergamers'.
Obviously you're not reading my posts.
I'm neither labelling anybody "medieval superman" (I was labelled so only days before, thank you, and was jesting), nor am I deliberately refusing to see your point of view. Let's say IF you did a lookup on posts of mine from the past, you'd see that I've vouched for many things in the past like:
- • increasing speed of skill gain
• making attributes hold more weight than skill
• skill caps and the possibility to see-saw skills as the player feels fit
• all abilities and usage of items not being tied to attribute ratings
• and many more.
All under the preface of making it easier for people like
you who seem to be horribly frustrated with a system of experimentation, and also for the people who would like to being play as a, say, "mage", or "warrior", or "rogue". Although mind you, since I was not defending my own point of view back then, I ran out of arguments for it quickly, and I see the same thing happening here, although defending a point of view this time which is more similar to my own personal one.
In short, your perception of my point of view is skewed by the limited view this thread offers you about me, and aside from that—what my point of view is, is not really important in this thread nor anywhere else, as I've learned something called
debating long ago, in which one becomes able to assume points of view that are not even one's own.
Almost all your posts seem to be leading a discussion in circles which is defending the point that character generation should remove all possibility for randomness and evolution of characters. As Martin wrote not all too long ago:
martin wrote:Let NPCs run around, fighting against monsters, earning money, and let the players be the static characters who buy and sell to and from the NPCs.
Just some more jesting on aside. Maybe it will grab some attention and move some people to read more.
Like Falk vom Wald's post preceding mine, or my mention that a GM is developing "archetype" templates which basically fill in all the blanks of what attribute is needed to play what, i.e., a standard Druid, a standard Mage, a standard Warlock, a standard Warrior, a standard Thief, a standard Bard, etc., etc., etc.
Any questions?
Or do you deliberately refuse to read... that what you (and others) are demanding is already coming into place?
And patience is only a virtue, when I say so (from now on).