Quote:
Originally Posted by smascrns
There's no way you can read those ridiculous ideas in what I wrote.
|
Sure I can. I can, I did, it wasn't very hard. It wasn't even a stretch. There's a reason I quoted your post. If you didn't like that I made exclusions for clarity, here's the whole thing again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smascrns
If that's the attitude there's not much to discuss, isn't it? I could say as much, but I just think you are missing my point. That point is very simple, actually. It doesn't matter if the concrete mook rules and modifiers are in Sorcerer or your head (they can always be in a players head since Sorcerer - and I apreciate this - leaves plenty of room for player creativity). The point is that you assembled it. You decided that these mods plus the mook rule make sense in the sword and sorcery genre. You decided that this is a sensible way to handle genre situations. In this sense you ruled how to handle those situations by combining things that are spread in the Sorcerer book. You may not like the word 'rule', that fine, we can use another one for the purpose. In any case, it was not the Sorcerer & Sword book that provided a way to handle mook situations with the materials present in the Sorcerer book, you did it. I just think it should be S&S to do it, that's all. Because for me that's the purpose of a genre book for an existing game. As simple as this. (Needless to say, you may have a different understanding of what's the purpose of a genre book for an existing game, but... you never said so.)
|
You said that if I "assemble" the rules and modifiers for a situation out of those that are listed in the book I'm now "house ruling" which implies that I'm not running/playing the game as I should. The logical conclusion to this is that book needs to tell me what to do in any and all situations. The video game comment is the extension of that - if choosing how and when to apply the rules in a book is "house ruling" the only way not to house rule is to play a video game because it will will always determine how to apply it's rules perfectly. No need for the poor stupid player to "house rule" anything. No need to go back to the core rule book when the supplement doesn't supply what is needed.
But really, I'm not sure why I'm getting involved. Throughout this whole thing you've never even considered another person's point.
And the review was a trap from the beginning. I mean, really, breaking down the page count mathematically? And criticizing the table of contents and index as wasted pages? That's a trap if I've ever seen one. If the book had been nothing but densely packed 8-point print from cover to cover you surely would have criticized it (and rightly so) for being hard to read and having poor organization and accessibility.
And then to go on and brag about your seminars and papers and how many languages you speak? It really doesn't help you sound any better, more intelligent, or more convincing, I have to break it to you.
But I suppose I should thank you, and everyone. Between this thread and the year old (but only recently read by me) commentary threads on Lev Lafayette's reviews of the 1st ed. AD&D books, I'm reminded why I generally stay well away from rpg.net.