Well just as a note the "anyone" really isn't a sociological tendency. For it to be a sociological tendency it would needs be more of a impact upon the way we interact with each other or the grup as a whole. (This from a soc major presenting a paper on the soc tendecies in RPG's at a symposium in AZ in a week) but all that beside to claim that to be humie is to be weak is to live in the world of D&D It is my understanding that in the world of DQ as described by 3rd ed book, The Giants dwarfs and elves are all dying off and the orcs and shapeshifters are all growing (Tolkienesque if you will) so thus humans are the survivors the adapters the overcomers. And besides to stregthen will's positition it takes so long to accumlate XP in this game to reach the levels of pwr that those of us who learned roleplaying on the pwr based gaming of D&D we are often far to frustrated with other races for their slow progression. However, DQ is by far the most actual role playing intensive system thus "special abilities" really never should be all that important.
Matt lust
William Hough <houghpt@yahoo.com> wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, it's all relative...to the
individual campaign, that is.
QUESTION: Why would anyone play a human character,
when an elf, dwarf, or halfling all have some form of
extended vision ability?
ANSWER: The key word here is "anyone"; is it not
impossible to ascribe a sociological tendency to the
entire gambit of gamers? Counter-query: Why would
anyone in my particular gaming group want to play
anything BUT a human when non-human characters
progress, on average, much slower than humans once the
XPMs are put into play?
However, in answer to the orignal question:
First, you have to roll some pretty mean dice to play
anything non-human. That's reason #1.
Second, you get only three chances at this. That's
reason #2.
Third, halflings lose 6(!) from Physical Strength
(yeah, yeah, I know, 5 to MD, but still?), elves
cannot resurrect the dead, dwarves have really bad TMR
(again, on average). I'll just bundle these up and
call the whole thing reason #3.
In my view, the XPMs are anything but a balancing
measure. Perhaps so because they are so unreasonable.
I wouldn't protest 1.2 here, 1.1 there, 1.3 there,
etc. but 2.0? 2.5? Sorry!
Also, let's be logical for a moment. The eventual
result of the XPM rules is the illusion that humans
are somehow smarter and therefore train much faster
and learn skills and spells faster than any other
race. Pure, unadulterated hogwash. If Master Tolkien
is any inspiration, the elves at the very least are
far more sophisticated.
To me, implying that the XPM rule makes sense in order
to maintain campaign balance is like saying that
AD&D's rule that heavier, thicker armor makes it
harder to hit such an adorned entity makes sense in
order to maintain combat balance. Doesn't do it for
me.
Here's where I believe the balance is, in addition to
the three reasons I mentioned above:
"[6.3]...If the player is a human character, none of
his characteristics are modified. He gains no
advantages and is subject to no restrictions."
Therefore (again, IMHO), the balance lies in each
race, not in the XPM system. You want to play an elf,
huh? OK, but you must roll 30% or less on percentage
dice, you only get one shot at it, and even if you
make it, you cannot ever resurrect the dead as a
Healer. Oh, but you do get this nifty extended
vision...
CONCLUSION: And that, my friends, is why I do not
employ the XPM system. To each his own, yes?
Folks, try one thing for me, even you dismiss all my
other arguments. Instead of forcing the player to
multiply XP costs by the XPM, why not be positive and
divide the appropriate XPM into experience awarded to
the corresponding character? Therefore, a dwarf
Adventurer character would gain 1600 xps per
successful session. Likewise, an elven Hero character
would gain 1200 xps per successful session. Yes, I
know this means a modification to rule [6.3].
Good Day.
Pat Hough
--- Rodger Thorm <rodger_thorm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The race multiplier is a balancing measure to make
> up
> for the bonuses that non-human characters receive.
> Otherwise, why would anyone play a human character,
> when an elf, dwarf, or halfling all have some form
> of
> extended vision ability?
>
> I concur, as well, about the increasing EXP awards.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.