Author: KillerGM (---.70.74)
Date: 08-07-2002 06:56
First, I just want to say that I've been reading Coileen's articles, and follwing the comments in this forum, for a while now. I've kept quiet for no real reason, but having read the alignment article, I just wanted to make a few comments...
(And please note that I'm not trying to start a flame war or fan the existing ones. These are my observations on the artice, nothing more. I'm not saying these to be mean, I'm saying these to give a reader's opinion)
1) The summary, or lack thereof.
You said that you were going to summarize your assumpstions. If you did, I couldn't find it...all you gave is what ammounts to a table of contents, not a central point or anything along those lines.
2) The second paragraph.
Quoting:
Unfortunately, this is one of those "choices" that give the illusion of Free Will while making the alternatives so unenjoyable that there is really no choice at all. Where the group you are with is keeping a given aspect of a system [even if only for the sake of game balance], and your options are to play by the rules or give up gaming, another solution may have to be found. Instead of entirely tossing out the bad parts, to haphazardly mix with old, trusted, proven systems, you may decide to slowly tweak the bad parts. Coming up with an enhancement [to the rules] is so much quicker, and easier, than writing a new system from scratch.
What does that paragraph mean? First off, you don't define what "this" is in the first sentence (the previous paragraph last refered to your condining an alignment system), making that kinda unclear. Next, you seem to be implying that if you don't want to use a game's alignment system, you have no choice but to not play the game. And if the group I'm playing with wants to use a part of a game system I don't like, my only options are to grin and bear it, or to quit gaming entirely?
I hope that's not what you were saying, because if it was, that's the one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
It doesn't help my understanding that you go from giving only two options to then giving the third (tweaking the system).
The point I'm trying to make is that you're still not being clear as to what your topic is at this point. Do you want us to tweak our gaming systems to our liking? Most of us probably do that already. Do you want us to leave our friends because they like a subsystem I don't? Not gonna happen. Are you saying that if you don't like a subsystem in a game, you can't play it at all? I'm confused here...
3) Defining Chaotic Evil
You take your definition of Chaotic Evil from the old AD&D book (1st or 2nd edition? You didn't say.). But then you describe your idea of being evil as "pulling the strings for the brightly-painted guy on the well-lit stage; let said leader be the target of assassinations". Personally, I think that's more of a desription of Lawful Evil versus Chaotic...Lawful Evil is the "grand vizir" road to power, whereas Chaotic Evil is the "ravenous horde" approach. I just think that compaing the two is a bit pointless; they're too dissimilar.
4) "Peer Pressure"
In the first sentence of this section, you say that the first step is to get rid of the alignment system. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't most games already done this? The only RPGs I know of that still use them are D&D and Palladium. Well, there is one more, which is my next point...
5) "Global-Personal"
The new alignment system you give here is a good idea...the whole idea of personal alignment vs. the alignment everone else sees. However, this has been done in an RPG already...White Wolf's Nature/Demeanor. The "Nature" is your actual personality (your "Personal"), and the Demeanor is the personality others see (your "Global". I know you didn't present this as a completely new mechanic. But you just seem (to me, anyway) to be taking a mechanic from one game and putting it in another.
6) The raw steak comment.
What the hell was that about? What does that have to do with anything?
(not a complaint, it just threw me off)
BTW, raw steak shouldn't smell unless it's gone bad, in which case, don't eat it. Trust me, I worked in a butcher's shop for 8 years.
7) "Passive-Active"
Actually, I liked this section. No complaints here
8) "The Title"
Well, given your reasoning, I guess I'd have to agree with you here.
I do have to say that this is the best article so far in terms of writing style...apart from the points above, I had very little trouble following it.
I've never seen someone's writing style improve over time before...it's pretty neat.
Finally, I'll end my rambling with two suggestions...
1) Please ease up on the bracketed comments...a lot of them didn't need to be bracketed and doing it this way kinda breaks the flow a bit.
2) It might help your writing a bit if you have someone read your article before posting for readability, if you don't already...it might calm things down a bit around here.
KillerGM
|
|
