Results 61 to 70 of 88
-
10-29-2008, 05:53 PM #61
My view of the BRCS is that it makes utterly wrong choices, harms the setting, and reduces the value of the setting. I can express that politely as I just have, or I can call it trash. I also think that the very idea of a standard version is dubious to begin with, and harmful when it doesn't have a broad consensus.
I don't think that the time period between the cancellation of the line and creation of the BRCS was a dark age, I think it was a golden age when people put forth their ideas without someone saying that that their ideas might confuse someone because they were inconsistent with the "official" interpretation, even though that document shreds the original rulebook. I think the BRCS is a shadow that darkens the setting, and constant attacks on new ideas because they conflict with officialdom strangle the setting.
the wiki does not have guidelines telling people that is what they should do (but I think you have overlooked that aspect totally).
However, I will say that most people do not read the guidelines that do exist, they simply post material. I prefer that people simply post, and that moderators bring the new material into line with the policy. Obstacles to adding material should be as low as possible.
I did say that the BRCS should be the default 3.5 rules since it is the "official" 3.5 rules from this site (whether or not you agree has no basis in fact on this one).
I never said that other sets couldn't (or shouldn't be presented) only that their basis should be clear to avoid confusion
The process behind wikis in particular and creativity in general is a decentralized trial and error. Attempts to combat "confusion" by creating rules comes with a considerable cost. No one should ever decide not to post because they don't know all the rules and are concerned that they might be criticized for violating the rules.
Instead, guidelines should come after the fact, once a clear problem has revealed itself, and then adopted in as limited as was as possible.
Much of the guidelines written in the early days of the wiki make no sense now, because the wiki has evolved into directions that were unforeseen when they were written. Its bee-hive hairdo and the Sassoon bob cut all over again.
but again you seem to want to focus on attacking me for some reason.
In fact if the post hadn't stated that the BRCS was a useless piece of trash it wouldn't ahve stirred me up at all - but that starting post set the tone for the entire discussion.
-
10-29-2008, 06:03 PM #62
Nearly all NPC's use the exact same system, because they are simply copied out of the published materials, and have the score, and abilities that were published. The new characters I have made and that Elton has made follow the system in the rulebook. Exceptions would be hard to find.
-
10-29-2008, 06:22 PM #63
Wow,
I'm frankly appalled that this has been allowed to degrade to this level of posting. Last time I checked, the average age of posters on this forum was well above 12, so can we please act like it?
My two bits? The BRCS is needed. Period. It alarms me that a wiki moderator has such an antagonistic attitude towards the single piece of "cannon" documentation this community uses. No matter what your personal opinion of the baseline rules, if BR is to continue something is needed as a reference point.
Personally I have found that the wiki is peppered with land mines of misinformation, unlabled fan fiction, and creative whimsy. I find the entire wiki misleading and I have actually stopped using it for the most part. I simply cannot trust what is there because I don't know which is BRCS and which was the product of someone else's creativity. Also, no wiki can be used as a baseline, because by its very nature it is a changeable thing.
-
10-29-2008, 06:54 PM #64
Canon refers to facts of the setting established in published sources. An example would be the facts that Arlando el-Adaba has a Reynir bloodline of 15 with Alertness and Poison Sense. BRCS is not canon, it is a set of rules. A set of rules that makes the canon for 40% of characters impossible. If you respect canon, you cannot support the BRCS. Using the BRCS requires that you shrug (at most) at such serious revisions of canon characters.
Personally I have found that the wiki is peppered with land mines of misinformation, unlabled fan fiction, and creative whimsy.
It is not meant to be an authority, a standard, or to be official.
-
10-29-2008, 07:25 PM #65
IMO canonism always kills creativity, but that's just me. The BRCS I think tried to be more 3E in that it removed some randomness - a good thing IMO - but perhaps it put the 'gain-blood-abilities-threshold' a bit too high.
I like the wiki more and more - as a source of many wonderful bits and pieces of information...you can call me old-fashioned if you'd like, but I still think it's a mess that could benefit from a bit more structure (be it the BRCS rules or whatnot)...a beautiful mess, but a mess none the less
Seriously, the BRwiki suffers more from a lack of labeling than many other wiki's I've seen. I think that's a mistake. I know next to nothing about how to make wiki pages (I still can't figure out how to make a new one - maybe I lazy or just plain stupid!) but a few labels like "Canon", "BRCS" and "Fanmade" would have been very nice.
-
10-29-2008, 07:29 PM #66
Ok, but this doesn't help the fact that I find the 2E random system for generating bloodlines too random. Maybe that's just me, but I'd like something a little bit more standardized. Not saying that the BRCS has the perfect system (because that would be wrong - MY home-brew system is clearly the BEST!!!) but at least it is a system.
Hmm, maybe I'll try to figure out how to make a new wiki page and publish some alternate bloodline rules?
-
10-29-2008, 07:33 PM #67
-
10-29-2008, 07:35 PM #68
If you think the difference between adults and children is a false (dishonest) politeness, I think you are mistaken. Adults should be able to hear and express their honest opinions without having their feelings hurt because someone on the internet disagrees with them. The purpose of communication is not to maintain a polite decorum, but to directly and clearly express views.
-
10-29-2008, 07:47 PM #69
Sorry, I'm Canadian. We are raised to be polite and respectful in our communications. It comes with the "eh".
And I apologize for the apparent derailment of this thread. Back to bloodlines!
-
10-29-2008, 07:52 PM #70
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
2nd/3rd edition
By NaMaN in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 25Last Post: 06-17-2008, 08:56 AM -
4th edition
By Blastin in forum BRCS 4th EditionReplies: 127Last Post: 06-05-2008, 07:57 AM -
D&D 4th Edition
By RaspK_FOG in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 14Last Post: 07-04-2004, 07:52 PM -
BR 3rd edition
By Shade in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 43Last Post: 02-05-2003, 05:43 PM
Bookmarks