Class systems -- is there no escape?

[Curufea]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Any character that doesnt conform to the D&D Classes' date=' even with heavy "multiclassing".[/quote']

 

ie - nearly every fantasy character in any book.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

I personally think that classes add a lot to the game in a Fantasy genre. In fact, I think that one of the major problems with Hero when used to play Fantasy is the lack of a class system to provide structure and meaning to the various powers.

 

I grew up playing "that other system" as I'm sure most people here did. Although, I don't especially like to play it anymore, the class and magic systems have a way of sticking with you. I think it's a testament to the genius of Gary Gygax, personally.

 

Oddly enough, it's the "class" system that caused me to basically quit gaming completely.

 

I find them neither necessary nor helpful. I find them the exact opposite - restrictive and useless. Box Thinking at it's worst.

 

I too grew up on that "other system" and quite frankly - it's a crappy system. It sucks down to the utter core. I wish I could wipe it from my brain at this point it has tainted gaming thought so much. One man's genius is anothers raving lunatic I guess.

 

THE major strength of Hero to me is the lack of a class system. Points are self limiting, how I choose to spend my points tells me what kind of PERSON I'm playing, not what class they are.

 

If you don't like class systems' date=' don't use them. But, in a Fantasy game, classes are just about mandatory, at least the mage class. Magic needs to be restricted in some way.[/quote']

 

Again, not only are they not mandatory I believe they hurt the genre to the point of making it, for me at least, not fun and my suspesion of disbelief is simply killed dead. Real People pick up a diverse set of skills as they go through life, Fantasy Genre people are no different.

 

All that said, if you like classes by all means use them as you will. But don't claim they're "mandatory" to a Fantasy Game. Because they aren't, some people simply find them helpful. More power to them if so.

[Kristopher]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

THE major strength of Hero to me is the lack of a class system. Points are self limiting, how I choose to spend my points tells me what kind of PERSON I'm playing, not what class they are.

 

Again, not only are they not mandatory I believe they hurt the genre to the point of making it, for me at least, not fun and my suspesion of disbelief is simply killed dead. Real People pick up a diverse set of skills as they go through life, Fantasy Genre people are no different.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

[Lucius]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Edit: Von D-Man, my pedantic nit-picking aside, I want to express that the substance of your post was entirely valid and correct; I didn't mean to undercut it, and I basically agree.

 

Let us focus on the word mage, for instance, which comes from the Latin word magus, which in turn comes from the Greek word magos, which simply means "a wise man," but became synonymous with sorcerous powers during the Christian era of the Roman Empire and Early Dark ages of Europe.

 

 

Actually, it goes back to Persian, and was a word for a priest of the Zoroastrian religion. Prior to that it was a more general word for priest, and (according to my sources) before THAT it was a word designating a specific tribe that was supposedly famous for the quality of their priests.

 

Now, "Wizard" rather literally means "Wise one." And let's not even get started on "Witch...."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Or "palindromedary"

[Black Rose]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Why is it, when HERO doesn't even have classes, that these forums still see characters so often described as fitting neatly into the pidgeonhole of some narrow archetype, as they established by...that other game?

 

(I removed the name on the quoted post because it's not about this one post, it just makes for an easy jumping-off point to start up a discussion about something that's been bothering me.)

 

Just wanted to chime in, since it was my post used. In the thread in question, the question was how does one keep non-magic-using characters viable when you've already given them:

 

...I've set up casters to get spells at RC divided by 5... Also, they cast spells from an End Reserve, typically with a fairly large REC, but it only recovers once every 6 hours....

 

I've tried to balance defensive spells so that they either have negatives (things like Earth Skins though they last long have actual weight and cost a x2-x3, and FF tend to be high protection but cost END either every phase or every turn)."

 

So, your MU-ing types basically get an MP without paying for the base, and don't knock themselves unconscious using it. Not good for Gavin Swordswinger, is it?

 

The main reason I used the icky-bad "classes" was because:

1. I, too, started out with D&D and 1st edition AD&D, and the class concept is still in my head. Doesn't mean I don't ever make guys outside the box, but I am aware of how such would look in a class-based format.
   
2. I think certain abilities would naturally lead one down certain paths; if you can poison with a touch - or a kiss - it's almost a cliche that you'd become an assassin. If you can meld into the shadows, it seems a bit odd that you wouldn't choose a field that let you make the most of your natural talents, like thieving, or assassination, or bodyguard work. See? There's an out-of-the-box idea, right? I really can't see very many people saying to themselves "You know, I seem to be near impervious to fire, I think I'll become a gardener." without a really good explanation.

 

Anyway, that was what I wanted to say. Another thing I should point out is I was a bit tired when I posted that.

[Vondy]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Edit: Von D-Man, my pedantic nit-picking aside, I want to express that the substance of your post was entirely valid and correct; I didn't mean to undercut it, and I basically agree.

 

Actually, it goes back to Persian, and was a word for a priest of the Zoroastrian religion. Prior to that it was a more general word for priest, and (according to my sources) before THAT it was a word designating a specific tribe that was supposedly famous for the quality of their priests.

 

Now, "Wizard" rather literally means "Wise one." And let's not even get started on "Witch...."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Or "palindromedary"

 

From Webster:

 

mage

One entry found for mage.

Main Entry: mage

Pronunciation: 'mAj

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin magus

: MAGUS

 

magus

2 entries found for magus.

To select an entry, click on it.

 

Main Entry: ma·gus

Pronunciation: 'mA-g&s

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural ma·gi /'mA-"jI, 'ma-/

Etymology: Latin, from Greek magos -- more at MAGIC

1 a : a member of a hereditary priestly class among the ancient Medes and Persians b often capitalized : one of the traditionally three wise men from the East paying homage to the infant Jesus

2 : MAGICIAN, SORCERER

 

First, you need to nitpick the professional etymologists at Webster's, not me. Second, you need to nit before you pick: the Magos were the priestly class of the Medes (indo-iranian but not ethnically Persian) who were responsible for their funerary rites prior to their absorbtion into the Persion Empire in 550 BCE, and who subsequently adopted Zoastrianism, albiet in an unorthodox form called Zaruvanism. We don't know how long it took for them to adopt/create Zaruvanism, but we do see Herodotus using the term around 500 BCE in the context of the Medes and their rites, not the Persians and Zoastrianism - so the term clearly came into the Greek prior to its adoption by Zoastrianism. And, in defense of Merriem-Webster, it did come into English by way of Herodotus and the Greeks, not the Persians.

 

The "Zoastrians Invented Everything Fan Club" frequently neglect to mention these little details when propounding their pseudo-theories. Its why they typically avoid peer reviewed sources and aren't accepted in mainstream academia as serious scholars. The facts, when examined with a critical eye, seldom line up with their assertions. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. The Persians (Zoastrians) were a melting pot that absorbed everything they came into contact with. Indeed, there is no evidence that Zoastrianism was monotheistic as we understand the term prior to 600 BCE. It was a plurality of faiths rolled up into one, and referred to itself as a unity of faiths. This is born out by the Persian Emperors themslves from that era, who decreed all faiths of their subject peoples were equally valid. Al-Qadim, anyone?

 

Its a fine, but extremely critical, distinction. And one that makes a world of difference when evaluating the claims of would-be thinkers.

 

//Rant off.

 

Von "the benefits of the much derided classical education" D-Man

[Lucius]

Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

To further refine what I was trying to say, I don't mean either you or your dictionary are wrong. It's true that the word magus comes to English from Latin, and Latin got it from Greek. I was just trying to say that it didn't originate in Greece any more than it did in Rome or England.

 

I respect your reputation for getting your facts straight too much to question the assertion that the Greeks were using the word before the priestly caste it refers to were absorbed by Zoroastrianism. I'm sure my own understanding of the matter must have been at fault, and if I looked it up I'd merely confirm what you're telling me.

 

Meanwhile, your basic point is that these words - mage, warrior, rogue, priest, bard, wizard, fighter, thief, cleric, minstrel, etc. - and the associated meanings, both denotative and connotative, all predate the first role playing games by centuries. Even if D&D had not created the concept of "character class" we would probably still have SOME tendency to "pigeonhole" game characters into the same "types" we see in fantasy fiction - although in fact, our categories (and the way we think of them) probably would be even closer to the "source material" than they are now.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary observes that one man's Mede is another man's Persian.

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

~heavy sigh~

 

Why all the angst about words? If you don't like a certain word, use another. It doesn't mean that you're playing a class-based game! The words are just a handy way to describe yourself, as several others have pointed out. Without those handy descriptors, we'd all get bogged down in semantics as we try to describe our characters without using those terms.

 

Kinda like trying to describe a polar bear without using the word "white".

[CUnknown]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Ghost-Angel wrote:

All that said, if you like classes by all means use them as you will. But don't claim they're "mandatory" to a Fantasy Game. Because they aren't, some people simply find them helpful. More power to them if so.

 

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want, in any combination, with as many or as few limitations as they want, but to me that doesn't sound like any fun at all. Everyone would have some magic, and needless to say, magic would dominate the campaign.

 

Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.

[OddHat]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want' date=' in any combination, with as many or as few limitations as they want, but to me that doesn't sound like any fun at all.[/quote']

 

Your fun and my fun are not everyone's fun.

 

Everyone would have some magic, and needless to say, magic would dominate the campaign.

 

In Norse Myth, Chinese Fantasy, and many other types of Fantasy settings, that would be a valid approach.

 

Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.

 

A Class System, as it is being used in this thread, is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play.

 

Describing the mechanics, requirements, range, power and limits of Magic in your game has very little to do with "Class System" in the context of this conversation.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want, in any combination, with as many or as few limitations as they want, but to me that doesn't sound like any fun at all. Everyone would have some magic, and needless to say, magic would dominate the campaign.

 

Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.

 

I dont think that constitutes a "Class System" any more than saying that because you must have some WF's and a good CV and the proper gear to be an effective warrior an effective "fighter" class is imposed.

 

The way I see magic systems (and Ive made more than a few) is that the definitions of the peculiarities of how they work are the equivalent to the definitions of gravity and breathing and circumstantial perception modifiers and other environmental effects. Metaphysics, basically.

 

A character that wants to interact with those metaphysics takes the abilities designated as being appropriate to do so. This doesnt mean that they can't take other abilities as well if they so chose.

 

As with all things in a points based game, you get out of something what you put into it; so if you split your points between abilities thats fine, but you wont be as focused as a character that invested more heavily in something else.

 

If your concern is the opposite, that if allowed EVERYONE will invest a few points into magic and you don't want that, then you just structure your Magic Systems so that they have high costs of entry, require a "Gift For Magic" Talent that must be taken at character creation, difficult entry requirements such as lengthy training or need to find a special tutor, or a harrowing initiation trigger, some combination, or any other means of setting the entry bar higher to discourage casual use.

 

 

I guess what Ive been trying to say throughout this thread is that if you like Classes, GOOD NEWS! HERO supports that. If you don't like Classes, GOOD NEWS! HERO supports that too.

 

I see the HERO System as an encompasing / assimilating force. If there is something that you like and want in your campaign, there's pretty good odds that HERO can approximate it without too much effort. I wont go so far as to say it can do ANYTHING smoothly (as some folks would say) as I do believe there are things that are more trouble than they are worth.

 

Fortunately, Classes is one of those things that it can do effortlessly and moreever can support BOTH approaches in the SAME campaign. You can have characters built along the lines of broad "professions" with some structure for players that LIKE that, and also have individualistic characters that go their own way for players that LIKE that too, side by side. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

[CUnknown]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Oddhat wrote:

In Norse Myth, Chinese Fantasy, and many other types of Fantasy settings, that would be a valid approach.

 

Perhaps that approach is more valid in some settings than in others, but even in these settings there are certain power constructions that would "break the mold" and thus be illegal, I'm sure.

 

Oddhat wrote:

A Class System, as it is being used in this thread, is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play.

 

Describing the mechanics, requirements, range, power and limits of Magic in your game has very little to do with "Class System" in the context of this conversation.

 

Don't try to make this into a semantic arguement--I'm using the same definition of "class" that everyone else is using in this thread. Talking about the requirements, power, and limits of magic in the campaign is the essence of any mage class in any system.

 

I would argue that just about everyone who plays Fantasy Hero uses at least the mage class (of some sort or another). Those Fantasy games that don't use a mage class wouldn't have the appropriate Fantasy feel, or Norse feel, or Chinese feel.. they would feel more like a Champions game in the middle-ages than anything else.

[CUnknown]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Killer Shrike wrote:

I dont think that constitutes a "Class System" any more than saying that because you must have some WF's and a good CV and the proper gear to be an effective warrior an effective "fighter" class is imposed.

 

The difference is that the game system itself requires that someone who wants to fight effectively take combat levels and WFs, but it does not require KSs, perks, or magic skill to use the powers listed in the power section. If we require that for our games, we are imposing some sort of structure on the game--which is the same a class structure. A very limited class structure, but a class structure nonetheless.

[OddHat]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Perhaps that approach is more valid in some settings than in others' date=' but even in these settings there are certain power constructions that would "break the mold" and thus be illegal, I'm sure.[/quote']

 

The Characters in those settings can all potentially use magic to one extent or another. Some builds would violate the rules of magic in those campaigns; all characters would still potentially have access to magic, regardless of "class".

 

Don't try to make this into a semantic arguement--I'm using the same definition of "class" that everyone else is using in this thread.

 

You don't seem to be.

Talking about the requirements, power, and limits of magic in the campaign is the essence of any mage class in any system.

 

You don't need to have a "mage class" at all in HERO.

 

I would argue that just about everyone who plays Fantasy Hero uses at least the mage class (of some sort or another).

 

That may be true.

 

Those Fantasy games that don't use a mage class wouldn't have the appropriate Fantasy feel, or Norse feel, or Chinese feel.. they would feel more like a Champions game in the middle-ages than anything else.

 

A high power Chinese Fantasy or Norse Myth setting would feel pretty much like Period Superheroes.

[Cancer]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

I discourage specialists in my games - it leads to two dimensional characters with little background and if their specialties don't occur, they spend entire sessions being bored.

 

Plus if specialists are a common occurance, it makes the setting seem unreal.

 

Funny, I have the opposite reaction. My experience is that if you don't force specialization upon the PCs by making it clear that a broad array of situations and skills will be important in your game, then for PCs you get nothing but a bunch of ubermooks: uniform, faceless min/maxed ninja combat monster killing machines whose individuality is limited to choice of preferred weapon and whatever high-class equipment they've managed to take off the bodies of dead opponents, and whose "background" is just another sad, perhaps grotesque, litany of excuses for being a sociopathic monomaniacal hunter-killer. Spending precious character points on noncombat stuff? Dat's for L00z3rz.

 

To me, individuality must come from the choices made in specialization, and what the character has chosen that they can do well. If you as a GM don't reward that by providing specialized challenges to players, then you're affirming that all you really want in your campaign are ubermooks.

 

I recognize this can devolve quickly into arguments over the utility of skill adds, campaign flavor and character concept, and loud Power Gamer versus Roleplayer debates over what makes for a good game.

[StGrimblefig]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill' date=' a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.[/quote']

That depends entirely on how you define the term "class system" -- but that path devolves into purely semantic arguments that are counterproductive.

 

Realistically, the practice of magic (in most universes) involves learning "secret knowledge" and the study of things that the general populace either doesn't want to know or is better off not knowing. But then this also applies to most skilled professions in our universe, as well.

 

I am an embedded software engineer. I need to know certain things to be able to write programs. I have chosen to focus on real-time embedded software, because that is where my interest lies. I have not studied business programming, databases or 3D graphics programming, so that I could focus on real-time embedded programming. It is not that I COULDN'T learn anything about those other subjects, but if I had I wouldn't be as skilled at what I choose to do.

 

Does that mean that I am locked into an "Embedded Software Engineer" class? Not at all. However, the choices I have made make it impossible for me to be a Professional Footbal Player and still remain in my present profession.

 

I think that is what the class systems are trying to simulate. The fact that, in order to be good enough at a profession to be a "heroic figure," you have to have made choices that tend to preclude similar capability in other professions.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

The difference is that the game system itself requires that someone who wants to fight effectively take combat levels and WFs' date=' but it does not require KSs, perks, or magic skill to use the powers listed in the power section. If we require that for our games, we are imposing some sort of structure on the game--which is the same a class structure. A very limited class structure, but a class structure nonetheless.[/quote']

 

By your interpretation. Obviously, other people's interpretations vary.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

That depends entirely on how you define the term "class system" -- but that path devolves into purely semantic arguments that are counterproductive.

 

Realistically, the practice of magic (in most universes) involves learning "secret knowledge" and the study of things that the general populace either doesn't want to know or is better off not knowing. But then this also applies to most skilled professions in our universe, as well.

 

I am an embedded software engineer. I need to know certain things to be able to write programs. I have chosen to focus on real-time embedded software, because that is where my interest lies. I have not studied business programming, databases or 3D graphics programming, so that I could focus on real-time embedded programming. It is not that I COULDN'T learn anything about those other subjects, but if I had I wouldn't be as skilled at what I choose to do.

 

So youre not a Embeded Developer 20, and Im not a Business Developer 6, DB Developer 9, Web Developer 5, and Dan S. isnt an Epic Level Java Developer 14, Web Developer 10?

 

MADNESS!!!!

[Steve]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

That depends entirely on how you define the term "class system" -- but that path devolves into purely semantic arguments that are counterproductive.

 

...

 

I think that is what the class systems are trying to simulate. The fact that, in order to be good enough at a profession to be a "heroic figure," you have to have made choices that tend to preclude similar capability in other professions.

 

I agree with this assessment as well. A fighter is one who fights, a rogue (or thief for us more "old school" types) is one who picks locks and finds traps, a cleric is one who casts divine magic, and a mage is one who casts arcane magic. It's a pre-defined stack of boxes of abilities, and you gain a box when you level up. With multi-classing available, you can choose to be totally focussed on one of those box stacks, or you take some boxes from one stack and some boxes from the other but not be as good as someone who stacked their boxes to the roof from a single stack.

 

With HERO, you smash the boxes open and can pick and choose from among the pretty baubles inside. There's a granularity you simply can't get in a class-based system. Want to be a fighter who knows how to cast a healing spell, but doesn't want to turn undead or be a paladin? As far as I know, that can't be done in xD&D.

 

That means you can have a player make a fighter type with a single healing spell without being a cleric, or a roguely sort who has an invisibility spell without being a mage. So what? That fighter type has spent points that could have gone to another combat level, and the rogue has spent points that could have gone to skills. I agree with KS that if you want magic to be rarer and known to a more select few, give it a high cost of entry. That eliminates the dilletante spellcaster who only wants to be able to start a campfire without flint and steel or know a single healing spell.

 

If you define "magic" as taking the powers in HERO and requiring certain Limitations be applied to define them as spells or divine magic, that is classifying magic and how it works, not the people who know how to use it. It's defining laws of the universe.

 

How much player ability granularity is wanted in a campaign is defined by the GM. You can set up stacks of boxes that rigidly define abilities that players can have, like magic ability, or you can break the boxes open and let them play mix and match with the baubles inside. I prefer the latter myself, but YMMV.

 

EDIT: Whoa! This is my 666th posting.

[CUnknown]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CUnknown

The difference is that the game system itself requires that someone who wants to fight effectively take combat levels and WFs, but it does not require KSs, perks, or magic skill to use the powers listed in the power section. If we require that for our games, we are imposing some sort of structure on the game--which is the same a class structure. A very limited class structure, but a class structure nonetheless.

 

Killer Shrike wrote:

By your interpretation. Obviously, other people's interpretations vary.

 

I am using Oddhat's definition of a "class system", which is: "is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play."

 

According to that definition, it's difficult to have a different interpretation, Killer Shrike. You would have to explain how you thought that the structure we are imposing on the game is different from a class system, admittedly one which was extremely limited in scope.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

I am using Oddhat's definition of a "class system", which is: "is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play."

 

According to that definition, it's difficult to have a different interpretation, Killer Shrike. You would have to explain how you thought that the structure we are imposing on the game is different from a class system, admittedly one which was extremely limited in scope.

 

A) I dont have to do anything. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can tell me what I should and shouldnt be doing.

 

I know OddHat. Ive gamed with him. I consider him to be a good "net friend". I don't always agree with him (or he with me) and we've had a set-to or two, but I respect his gaming sensibilities and skills as a roleplayer, a GM, a content creator, and a general gamer. If there is one thing I am sure of, it is that he doesnt talk out of his rear end or blather about things. If he states his position its not just a random assertion, its backed up with some amount of thought and consideration.

 

Considering what he stated as his position, your responses to it, his refutation of such, etc it is clear that OddHat doesnt agree with your interpretation of his "definition".

 

And neither do I.

[CUnknown]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

A) Of course you don't have to! I thought you wanted to participate in this discussion.. I apoligize if you thought I was trying to force you to do something.

 

I'm saying I agree with OddHat about the definition. Perhaps you misunderstand me?

 

Anyway.. we don't have to be continuing this conversation, it's really a minor issue.. I don't mean to be making anyone upset.

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

~shrugs~

 

I really thought this was a rather silly premise for discussion to begin with... and now, it looks like people have begun arguing for argument's sake. Time for me to unsubscribe from the thread and disappear into the shadows.

 

Later!

[Curufea]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Funny, I have the opposite reaction. My experience is that if you don't force specialization upon the PCs by making it clear that a broad array of situations and skills will be important in your game, then for PCs you get nothing but a bunch of ubermooks: uniform, faceless min/maxed ninja combat monster killing machines whose individuality is limited to choice of preferred weapon and whatever high-class equipment they've managed to take off the bodies of dead opponents, and whose "background" is just another sad, perhaps grotesque, litany of excuses for being a sociopathic monomaniacal hunter-killer. Spending precious character points on noncombat stuff? Dat's for L00z3rz.

 

To me, individuality must come from the choices made in specialization, and what the character has chosen that they can do well. If you as a GM don't reward that by providing specialized challenges to players, then you're affirming that all you really want in your campaign are ubermooks.

 

I recognize this can devolve quickly into arguments over the utility of skill adds, campaign flavor and character concept, and loud Power Gamer versus Roleplayer debates over what makes for a good game.

 

It's more like-

if everone is a combat monster, except one player, do you run a solo adventure everytime you have a social situation with most of your players being bored?

If one character is skilled at magic, what do you do with all the other players in a situation that can only be handled by magic?

[Kristopher]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

From Webster:

 

mage

One entry found for mage.

Main Entry: mage

Pronunciation: 'mAj

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin magus

: MAGUS

 

magus

2 entries found for magus.

To select an entry, click on it.

 

Main Entry: ma·gus

Pronunciation: 'mA-g&s

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural ma·gi /'mA-"jI, 'ma-/

Etymology: Latin, from Greek magos -- more at MAGIC

1 a : a member of a hereditary priestly class among the ancient Medes and Persians b often capitalized : one of the traditionally three wise men from the East paying homage to the infant Jesus

2 : MAGICIAN, SORCERER

 

First, you need to nitpick the professional etymologists at Webster's, not me. Second, you need to nit before you pick: the Magos were the priestly class of the Medes (indo-iranian but not ethnically Persian) who were responsible for their funerary rites prior to their absorbtion into the Persion Empire in 550 BCE, and who subsequently adopted Zoastrianism, albiet in an unorthodox form called Zaruvanism. We don't know how long it took for them to adopt/create Zaruvanism, but we do see Herodotus using the term around 500 BCE in the context of the Medes and their rites, not the Persians and Zoastrianism - so the term clearly came into the Greek prior to its adoption by Zoastrianism. And, in defense of Merriem-Webster, it did come into English by way of Herodotus and the Greeks, not the Persians.

 

The "Zoastrians Invented Everything Fan Club" frequently neglect to mention these little details when propounding their pseudo-theories. Its why they typically avoid peer reviewed sources and aren't accepted in mainstream academia as serious scholars. The facts, when examined with a critical eye, seldom line up with their assertions. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. The Persians (Zoastrians) were a melting pot that absorbed everything they came into contact with. Indeed, there is no evidence that Zoastrianism was monotheistic as we understand the term prior to 600 BCE. It was a plurality of faiths rolled up into one, and referred to itself as a unity of faiths. This is born out by the Persian Emperors themslves from that era, who decreed all faiths of their subject peoples were equally valid. Al-Qadim, anyone?

 

Its a fine, but extremely critical, distinction. And one that makes a world of difference when evaluating the claims of would-be thinkers.

 

//Rant off.

 

Von "the benefits of the much derided classical education" D-Man

 

Excellent post, good information. Thank you.