Quote from: vytzka;591567Stupid question for a stupid thread.

What is anyone still interacting with that clown trying to achieve? And do they think it is going to happen?

It's more PR at this point.  If there were no responses, to a passerby it could look like there is tacit agreement, or at least no dis-agreement.  So it's important to show this isn't the place to throw out informal fallacies and unenlightened tripe.  There is a minimum requirement for any discussion to be taken seriously, and if we abandon that, Pundit may as well change the name to theRPG.NETsite.

Quote from: StormBringer;591597It's more PR at this point.  If there were no responses, to a passerby it could look like there is tacit agreement, or at least no dis-agreement.  So it's important to show this isn't the place to throw out informal fallacies and unenlightened tripe.  There is a minimum requirement for any discussion to be taken seriously, and if we abandon that, Pundit may as well change the name to theRPG.NETsite.

There have been whole pages in this thread with nothing except for posts by GC and posts quoting GC. I'd worry more about the image *that* brings us (as a forum eager to waste time on trolls) than I would about the converse.

I hate meta-posting myself, but the original topic is long gone.

Just to show it can be done with ease:

Specialization in D6 is a trap option. The investment seems like a good idea at first, but if you EVER plan to reinvest in the base skill, the points are lost. So if you can imagine ever using the skill in more than one way, don't do it.

But I still wouldn't ever use a pejorative to describe a person who chose it.

Also I would like to point out that the Rogue is a good class when desired result is to take on the role of an urban thief. Personally I find the 'Urban Ranger' to strain logic too much for versimilitude.

Quote from: beejazz;591604There have been whole pages in this thread with nothing except for posts by GC and posts quoting GC. I'd worry more about the image *that* brings us (as a forum eager to waste time on trolls) than I would about the converse.

I hate meta-posting myself, but the original topic is long gone.

Also a reasonable speculation.  I think my work is mostly done, however, and taking the spirit of Dan's admonition in the other thread, I will focus my efforts on drumming up business for my public domain/open source project instead.

Wanna join in?  

Quote from: vytzka;591567Stupid question for a stupid thread.

What is anyone still interacting with that clown trying to achieve? And do they think it is going to happen?

It was an amusement. Everybody likes an easy target now and again. But I agree, it's gone on too long. I IL'ed him this morning and I won't be playing anymore.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591605Just to show it can be done with ease:

Specialization in D6 is a trap option. The investment seems like a good idea at first, but if you EVER plan to reinvest in the base skill, the points are lost. So if you can imagine ever using the skill in more than one way, don't do it.

I'm not entirely sure what that means.  If I understand correctly, I have 5D in firearms, and a specialization in pistols of 6D.  I can spend three character points to get pistols up to 6D+1, but if I read it correctly ("Specialization improves when the base skill improves."), that same bonus would have been had by putting the +1 into firearms instead, and my character would also have a +1 for any other gun.  Except the very next paragraph sounds like you can only invest in the base skill or the specialization at one time, but it's not otherwise exclusive:

QuoteA character may improve a skill or any of its specializations but not both. In other words, a character may improve as many specializations as he desires at the same time, though he cannot improve them at the same time as he's improving the governing skill. Skills and specializations may only be improved by one pip each in between each adventure.

So, I could spend the character points for pistols this time, then firearms the next time, and get the benefit of both on pistols (but of course, both don't apply to firearms).  I assume you are referring to the opportunity cost of improving the specialization instead of the base skill, then?
(Rules quotes from the OpenD6 Adventure book; Chapter Three: Improving Characters; pg 43)
 

QuoteAlso I would like to point out that the Rogue is a good class when desired result is to take on the role of an urban thief. Personally I find the 'Urban Ranger' to strain logic too much for versimilitude.

Exactly.  In 1st edition, a 6th level Ranger is a 'Guide', and 7th level is a 'Pathfinder'.  Not the first words one thinks of in regards to an urban environment.

Quote from: StormBringer;591638but if I read it correctly ("Specialization improves when the base skill improves

I don't have my books here at work, but either it doesn't improve or it didn't used to in the prior edition.  I'll have to see which it is...

Exalted character creation is a bit odd. If you're building an experienced character, you can pay wildly different xp costs to end up with identical stats. It's also really easy to do so by accident. I would call that a trap option.

Mundane healing in FantasyCraft is a trap. You can sink real resources (i.e. feats) into it, but it is not relevent past ~3rd level (your ability to heal stops keeping up with the damage your group receives).

The monk class in 3.x (and I hear pathfinder too) is a trap. They are simply bad at what they do, and cannot keep up with other characters. (The Warrior NPC class in 3.x is NOT a trap option. It is also an objectively weaker class, but it's clearly labelled as such. )

That's off the top of my head. I'm not making any claims beyond "many RPGs have trap options" though.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591642I don't have my books here at work, but either it doesn't improve or it didn't used to in the prior edition.  I'll have to see which it is...

I'm not sure what changes were made from the original WEG book after Eric Gibson got a hold of it.  Nothing terribly drastic, as I recall.  That could be one of the things that got changed, though.  A tiny rule with a pretty big impact on the game.  Let me know after you get a chance to look that up.

Is Brain Damage a "trap option"?

Quote from: CRKrueger;591667Is Brain Damage a "trap option"?

Only if it is the result of incoherent gaming.

Quote from: StormBringer;591665I'm not sure what changes were made from the original WEG book after Eric Gibson got a hold of it.  Nothing terribly drastic, as I recall.  That could be one of the things that got changed, though.  A tiny rule with a pretty big impact on the game.  Let me know after you get a chance to look that up.

Star Wars 2e, page 13 - 'not'.  And 'must be improved separately'.

If they changed it after that, I never noticed.  We forgot about that option shortly after reading it...

Quote from: mcbobbo;591684Star Wars 2e, page 13 - 'not'.  And 'must be improved separately'.

If they changed it after that, I never noticed.  We forgot about that option shortly after reading it...

An argument could be made either way, honestly.  I can see improving them separately for game balance; spending points to improve two skills is too inexpensive and easily exploited.  For 'realism', I can also understand that improving your firearms (base skill) would improve pistols (specialization)  as well; if you are better at shooting guns, of course you will also be better at shooting pistols.

Taking the old way, it's definitely an opportunity cost 'trap'.  A character has 2D in firearms, but spends character points like a maniac and gets pistols up to 6D+2.  They can shoot the wings off a fly at 200m with a Glock, but put a 30-06 in their hands, and they have trouble hitting the ground consistently.  Conversely, spending all those points on firearms implies that taking pistols in the first place was a waste of points.

It's even moreso if the newer method is used.  It would be absolutely pointless to spend points in a specialization, as increasing the base skill makes the character better at shooting anything, and better at shooting pistols for the same cost.  Very low cost to obtain and improve specializations at generation, then essentially free to increase later on.  No question that would be a 'trap', if the players aren't aware of how it works.

Are we on page 13 and still not sure on the definition of basketweaver?

Literally, it is someone that is good at weaving baskets.

The connotation, however, is someone that is good at something that is not useful given the circumstances they find themselves.  

Insomuch as weaving a basket is unlikely to help in killing a dragon or exploring a dungeon, it is an example of a skill that is superfluous for the 'typical' adventurer.  

Further, underwater-basket-weaving is a well-known reference to extremely specialized but even more useless knowledge - further specializing in a sub-set of a largely useless skill renders the learner even less useful.

For the purposes of D&D or other RPGs, a Basketweaver is a character that lacks essential skills for survival, and particularly characters that are ultra-specialized in mostly useless arenas.

Such definitions necessarily depend on the nature of the campaign.  If there is nothing in the game world capable of killing a character, it's impossible to fail to survive based on character choices.  

Fundamental to Mr. GC's position is the concept of 'expected challenges'.  While this forum is pretty hostile to the concept of 'level-appropriate monsters' (even though they fully agree that in a sand-box people will tend to only seek out challenges that they think they can overcome), it should be clear that if some characters are noticeably worse than others, they'll either be more likely to die in a challenging situation for the 'tough' characters, or if the challenges are not 'tough', the 'tough characters' will easily dominate without relying on the contributions of the weaker characters.  

While that may be desireable for some games, that would not be something I'd encourage.  In my experience, it tends to make the game unpleasant, usually for the weaker character(s).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;591764While that may be desireable for some games, that would not be something I'd encourage.  In my experience, it tends to make the game unpleasant, usually for the weaker character(s).

I think its more that it makes it unpleasant for players who don't care about hacking the system to squeeze out every possible mechanical advantage at the expense of any kind of immersion.

Mr. GC made it clear that "basketweavers" were people who didn't "optimize their characters", meaning there's a VERY limited number of RPGs that it could even apply to (in this case Mr. GC seems to think D&D 3.5 is the special snowflake of the rpg world....yet he dislikes Pathfinder intensely...go figure). In other words, basketweavers are anyone who doesn't minmax or makes choices based on roleplaying or characterization rather than purely metagaming.