Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2003-04-08 05:22:32
Converted from Phorums BB System



Tim Gray wrote:
-------------------------------
<i>I think we all get your viewpoint, Zoran. You don't need to keep restating it. It's a bit annoying when one's more general points about Extras etc get pulled back in to a discussion about a very specific hobbyhorse. Like:

"Still, let me turn the question around. What evidence/observations do you have that lead you to believe that the bandits/guards/soldiers/etc. in Hercules and Xena are less fit and healthy than normal people?"</i>
-------------------------------

Excuse me?! It's not a "hobbyhorse", it's the subject under discussion. One you picked. You offered <i>"Xena, Hercules, anything involving the Three Musketeers..."</i> as examples of what the Extras mechanic was supposed to be simulating. You then endorsed <i>Hercules</i> and<i>Xena</i> as the example *you* thought was paradigmatic of what the mechanic was supposed to be reproducing with <i>"If you're arguing that the Hercules and Xena shows don't have mooks... well, that's just bizarre. Hip deep, every episode."</i>

All I've done is try to stay on-topic and within the terms of reference *you* set. You, not me.

If you didn't to discuss <i>Hercules</i> and <i>Xena</i>, then why did you select them? Seriously. You could have picked any example or set of examples you wanted, but that was the one you choose. You, not me.

We take the mechanic, we compare it to the example you chose and we see if it measures up. As it turns out, it doesn't. The Extras mechanic does not accurately reproduce what happens in those two television shows. But that's not my fault.

Still, if you don't actually want to discuss <i>Hercules</i> and <i>Xena</i>, then pick another example. We'll test the Extras mechanic against that. Perhaps it will fare a little better. Pick anything you want. Just don't accuse me of having a "hobbyhorse" when I try to stay within the terms of reference you set and it turns out your example doesn't illustrate what you thought it illustrated.

As for restating my points, I'm responding to your quibbles, comments, objections and observations. If you understood the point the first time, then why do you keep bringing up irrelevancies such as pretending to not understand that the only way we can comprehend the characters is through the actors who portray them? If you would stop doing that I wouldn't have to keep offering clarifications.

In an ideal world, someone like you would pick an example and then proceed to explain, point by point, how the mechanic reproduces the details of the example in the game. You haven't done this. Instead, you made every attempt to weasel out of discussing the example and to change the subject. Now, when I finally ask you to explain your position, you turn around and hit me with this "hobbyhorse" nonsense. The example is yours, not mine.


-------------------------------
<i>In any case, one can say that "fit and healthy" is an imperfect criterion. As I mentioned above, this generates their soak score, so they do get the benefit. If you can't beat their healthiness, you can't hurt them. What they have less of is whittling-time. It's a different dramatic system.</i>
-------------------------------

Then why do the rules specifically state that normal people have seven -- not three, not five, not ten, but seven -- seven Health Levels? I just looked it up in the <b>Lunar Exalted</b> volume (the only one I have ready to hand right at this moment) and I find it on page 91: normal mortals have seven (7) Health Levels. If Extras have fewer than seven (7) Health Levels, they are crippled compared to normal mortals.

What part of that don't you understand?

Regards,

Zoran