Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfhunter107]

Apparently the Afgans have a sport that's like polo, but with a dead goat instead of a ball.

[Dutchling]

I heard that's how they do porn too :V

[Sergarr]

I'm guessing it's partly to prevent classes from becoming too MAD.

Though there is a feat that can change it to dex, I think. That it takes a feat to do it is kind of lame though, and your damage still depends on your strength.

What's bad about characters being multi-attribute dependent, aside from inability to min-max your character in a way where your max is gigantic and your min is negligible? With MAD, two characters of the same class can have a choice which attribute they prioritize first and therefore have different strengths and weaknesses. Otherwise you get crap like "all fighters should dump every mental stat (especially charisma) and boost strength to 18 because there's literally no mechanical reason to do otherwise".

This is the kind of crap that annoys me severely - that in a role playing game, your class (which is basically your profession) automatically defines your role (strong one for fighters, smart one for wizards, wise one for clerics, charismatic one for sorcerers) by making it mechanically the best choice by far. I can't be the only one who sees that problem, so why it's still there?

[Descan]

Apparently the Afgans have a sport that's like polo, but with a dead goat instead of a ball.

... Kind of? It's basically "Bring all the men of the tribes together, toss in an animal that they have to bring back to the goal area."

No other rules, as far as I know. It's basically a free-for-all on horse-back.

[hops]

Wasn't that how football used to be like?

[IcyTea31]

Yeah, but that became its own sport of rugby.

[Descan]

Probably. If the Afghan tribes had gone through settlements in the same way the Brits had, gone through the whole "King and Country and Empire" kind of thing, gone through settlement civilization as opposed to nomadic civilization, I could imagine Buzkashi becoming something like horse-back football with rules and teams and all that wotwot.

It'd still be dangerous, inherently, because of the horses, but it wouldn't be AS dangerous as a literal free-for-all.

Edit: Hell, look at the wikipedia page. There IS a regulated version, published by the Afghan Olympic Federation. Interesting!

[hops]

Football with horses sound awesome.

Probably would turn into a clusterfuck of injuries and broken necks though.

[Kadzar]

So American football, then?

[hops]

Yeah but with more hooves.

[hector13]

John Inverdale and his "Rose-Cunted glasses".

That's quite the slip of the tongue there, John. Whenever I think of the word "tint" it takes me a long while to get to crude terms for female genitalia.

Funniest thing I've heard for a while though.

[Bauglir]

The flip side of the weapons thing is that Dexterity is already kind of a god-stat. It controls the single most important roll at high levels (Initiative), it feeds AC at least slightly for even the most heavily-armored characters, it controls a saving throw (though the least important one), and it has a bunch of useful skills to boot. Strength... just doesn't have that going for it. It's got, what, carrying capacity and damage? Putting to-hit modifiers actually encourages diversified stats, rather than the reverse.

[Sergarr]

The flip side of the weapons thing is that Dexterity is already kind of a god-stat. It controls the single most important roll at high levels (Initiative), it feeds AC at least slightly for even the most heavily-armored characters, it controls a saving throw (though the least important one), and it has a bunch of useful skills to boot. Strength... just doesn't have that going for it. It's got, what, carrying capacity and damage? Putting to-hit modifiers actually encourages diversified stats, rather than the reverse.

But it actively discourages the archetype of "strong guy missing the agile one", which is one of the most classic staples of literature.

And if dexterity is that good, wouldn't it make sense to split it into several sub-stats? Like Agility and Precision.

[Greiger]

A friend just referred a conversation he had on another forum to me.  It made him WTF, even though he barely played DF at all and has mostly just seen me play it. It also made me WTF.

"If you liked Dark Souls you'll love Dwarf Fortress."

(Friend): These two things have nothing to do with each other.

"Both are held up as 'hard' RPGs."

(Friend): Uh. If DF has any hype at all about anything? It's got hype about how utterly insane it is.

Now I'm all for somebody trying to get the word out about Dwarf Fortress (since it is awesome) but I can't think in even the loosest sense how DF is anything at all like Dark Souls.  And I'm sitting here trying to figure out exactly how that comparison could even possibly fit.
-------
Current topic: Yea that was one of the things that weird-ed me out about DnD rules, yea strength makes it easier to pierce armor, but when you are wearing no armor one of your strengths is not being slowed down by 90 pounds of platemail while trying to move around.

I kinda tried to make a homerule about strength only affecting your to hit against opponents in heavy armor, and dex in all other cases, but never actually got around to implementing it in a game, and there would be all these edge cases anyway.

[Bauglir]

The flip side of the weapons thing is that Dexterity is already kind of a god-stat. It controls the single most important roll at high levels (Initiative), it feeds AC at least slightly for even the most heavily-armored characters, it controls a saving throw (though the least important one), and it has a bunch of useful skills to boot. Strength... just doesn't have that going for it. It's got, what, carrying capacity and damage? Putting to-hit modifiers actually encourages diversified stats, rather than the reverse.

But it actively discourages the archetype of "strong guy missing the agile one", which is one of the most classic staples of literature.

And if dexterity is that good, wouldn't it make sense to split it into several sub-stats? Like Agility and Precision.

You're not wrong, but they apparently decided the trope was an acceptable sacrifice, and that maintaining iconic D&D things like the 6 particular stats was mandatory.