A while back on the rules line we had an animated discussion of the need for rules to provide rules for 200% characters to fight each other, and I sneered at all the players who spent their time explaining how different they were from the (obviously bad) AD&D power gamers and then worrying about how their illuminated Rune lord/priests with 175% attacks and 165% parries could fight each other. It was obvious that using the rules as they stand, no one ever reaches rune level without a great deal of "complicity" from the GM.
So my campaigns are about as different from those of Martin Laurie's as can be imagined.
However, I have enjoyed his stories, and at least some of the people piling on probably have "over-powered" campaigns as well. Martin has been paying some attention to the criticisms that have weight, and I think that some of his foes should pay some attention to the points he has been making. And could we PLEASE avoid personal insults, even "clever" ones?
Personally, I think all the evidence is that Onslaught would be forbidden access to many Humakti temples, and welcomed at many others. I think that the chances are that he would be dead by now, but then I look at NPCs with no capacity to be raised, like the scorpion queen K'rana, with something like 70 points of rune magic sacrificed for -- and who apparently is many years younger than Onslaught! Impressive!
I propose that we drop this line, which must have tapped a strong nerve of some sort, judging by the number of digests that have arrived in the last few weeks, and move on to the many other fascinating topics that lie before us, such as the exact nature of the farming tools in Esrolia, and how can a regular human tell a Brithini from a Vadeli, and so on.
Jim Chapin
Powered by hypermail