Edgwyn

Maybe because I am used to it I tolerate major details being dropped out of movies that have been made from books a lot better than I tolerate lots of new material being added, much of which seems really different from what the book intended (a bigger problem in the Hobbit, but present in Jackson's version of the LOTR as well).

Now if only we could get the GIFTS to say "G'Day Mate", though I am now struggling to remember if I have ever heard an Aussie say that outside of a commercial.

Since the topic disappeared, I read War Maid's Choice by David Weber A Rising Thunder by David Weber A Memory of Light by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson The Road of Danger by David Drake Star Wars: Scoundrels by Timothy Zahn So, two Space Operas with a lot of politics, two fantasy (I enjoyed the way the WoT ended) and one Star Wars version of Ocean's Eleven. I still have some catching up to do, so I have five star wars novels on the shelf (I keep finding it hard to get through the Fate of the Jedi). I am not sure what I want to get next, a fantasy series, a historical fiction series or a real history book.

My perspective is from someone with a BS in Electrical Engineering and an MS in Management, so a "hard" degree and a "fuzzy" degree if you will. While the EE degree taught me a lot of fundamental concepts, it did nothing to prepare me to actually work in design/construction, that all came from on the job training, using the fundamentals that I learned while getting the degree. The MS, being more focused (MS vs BS) did have some classes with more direct application to my career as a manager, such as labor law. I believe that training in one's primary language (english to a fair number of us on this board) is necessary to make that complete, competent individual. That of course does not require an actual english Department to accomplish and in fact, an English Department may well be worse at it than a History Department or a Liberal Studies Department or especially a Communications Department. I believe that most college graduates need to be able to articulate their thoughts properly in oral and written form. Having successfully avoided humanities classes in college (AP classes + Engineering Major), the best communication training that I received in High School was from History Class. The drill of doing five paragraph essay after five paragraph essay taught me far more about how to frame and support an argument than trying to find the symbolism in a Faulkner novel ever did. Ultimately, I am not interested in being trained for creative writing, I want to be trained for effective writing (I never expect to publish a short story, much less a novel), but there does need to be a place for those who wish to study and pursue creative writing (as a profession or advocation). I believe that the "fuzzy" classes have a very important place in college as part of the quest to produce culturally literate students. Unfortunately, too often, the minimum humanities requirement does not aim for cultural literacy, it serves as either a stepping stone into a humanities major, or aims for indoctrination in a politically correct school of thought. My college had what we (tech majors) referred to Physics for Poets, Rocks for Jocks and Stars for Studs where "fuzzy" majors could get the concepts of science without having to learn calculus. Unfortunately, there was not an English for Engineers or Political Science for Physicists geared to develop cultural literacy in technical majors without all of the extraneous garbage. That said, when I did my Masters, I found it depressing as to what level of mathematical competency was sufficient to graduate from college. The three classes that my "fuzzy" friends found daunting (and took a GPA hit in) required math no higher than pre-calculus. So, what does it require to be that literate or truly educated adult? English? Math? Physics? Poli Sci? History? Economics? Communications? Physical Education? Psychology? Ultimately I believe that they are all important and while our undergraduate degrees are broad in our field of concentration or major, they are not necessarily broad enough to truly educate us. Finally (I promise), what is a "useful" degree? If useful means leading to meaningful employment of your skills, then a two year degree in dental hygeine or fire science is more useful than an under grad (four year) degree in English, Psychology, pre-Med, pre-Law or Physics. On the other hand, a four year degree in teaching, engineering or nursing is very useful. Some career paths are open without a degree, some with a two year degree, some with a four year degree, some with a masters and some with a doctorate. With enough specialization, any degree can be "useful".

I suppose that would explain the whole stereotype that men like dogs and women like cats as well.

In AD&D 1st Ed, a good fighter had str as their highest skill, but did not neglect Dex and Con. Each characteristic in AD&D represented far more things then just one attribute. One roll of the dice in combat represented a full minute of thrust parry counter thrust dodge etc, and in all of that time, you (if you rolled high enough) got to roll one die for damage. And then, the results could mean different things depending on who you were hitting. For example, rolling an 8 for damage with a long sword (the max) against a typical first level character or monster equated to a successful strike that penetrated the chest cavity or skull resulting in quick death. Against a typical tenth level character or monster, that same 8 damage represented a moderate laceration of a non-vital area, but get enough of them and the creature or person would die of a death of a thousand cuts. A character with high constitution and a high level, therefore high hit points cannot physically take more damage than a blue whale, they have just become far more adept at avoiding damage. The different attributes represent far more than just their titles and game balance is far more important than conceptual consistency, One of the things that we all tend to forget when trying to imagine what fantasy combat is like is that the rules assume that most people are wearing some sort of armor or have unnaturally tough skin. One could certainly program a CRPG where high strength helps your blows penetrate the armor of an opponent, high dec/agility helps you hit the opponent more often, having a low endurance results in your blows getting weaker the longer that a combat lasts, high strength allows you to hit more often because you can more your sword faster, etc, but you would have to hide all of that mechanics from most players, because it would be just too darn complicated to track and deal with. The general conventions that get used for determining if a attack hits are greatly simplified, but a lot more fun than real life.

Yes I do, it is debatable if I have salt on my french fries or french fries under my salt. Fortunately, I do not eat french fries very often.

I was wondering what was taking so long. As to the shoveling snow, why bother, there will just be more soon the way this winter is going.

Now that I think about it, I salt very few foods, but those that I do (french fries, tortilla chips, pretzels) I tend to salt to excess.

I like both, but will almost always pick sweet over salty.

I believe that the answer is going to be different for each person. I want a relatively simple town with few inhabitants that provides memories by advancing the plot. One way to make a town memorable would be an emotional reward for the player that has completed multiple quests (What if in Avadon 1 when you really wanted to be a hand, you were rewarded partway through the game with your promotion to hand instead of it happening for showing up). Another way would be to build an emotional bond between the player and a NPC in the town through repeated visits and then have the NPC have a significant emotional event (positive or negative) (I am hoping for such in Avadon 3 with Polus).

Towns are necessary to the stories, which are the strengths of Spiderweb's games. Part of the way that I choose to enjoy the Spiderweb games are with the Randomizer/Synegizer lists and hint guides. It is pretty easy to figure out who I need to talk to that way and especially, who I need to return to. I find the first visit to any town enjoyable from an exploration aspect (mostly finding out what stores there are plus any secret rooms), but I do not want to have to click on every NPC in the town to figure out which ones are worth talking to. Color coding would work well I suppose. I realize that having a bunch of inhabitants with nothing useful to the PC adds to the realism, but I find it more fun if I don't have to talk to them all. The early wizardry games were great because the only town dialogue was purchasing supplies. That said, the rest of the plot was really simplistic. I enjoy the story building and quests from the Spiderweb games more than "kill werdna he is bad" or "find super cool suit of armor" being the entire detailed plot of the game.

The worm that is swallowing it's tail will choke and die and the universe will end. But there will be a restaurant there at the end.

Jenell's attack with the Sage Rod is not the same as Nathalie's attack with the sage rod. Jenell's is spirit claw which I believe is energy versus Nathalie's fire bolt and so different resistances pertain to them. A useful way to think of the staffs and rods that are equipped as weapons is that they are not the wands of this game, or the Rod/Staffs/Wands of D&D, they are a focus for the caster's innate powers and can improve the effectiveness of those powers, but they do not have any inherent power (like fire) of their own. The Avadon series is far more class specific than the Exile/Avernum series, but you are correct in that scrolls and such are not class specific and anyone can heal. Jenell's ability to heal without burning up consumables can be useful, but many find her summoning ability most useful.

I would never advise dishonesty period. But Alorael's point about triage is spot on. The odds are good that some point in your work life, you will find yourself with more tasks then what you can accomplish. The first choice is always to become more efficient and do more with less. This can be accomplished by coming up with better ways to do something, or applying only the appropriate amount of effort to get the necessary result and not one bit of effort more. The reality is that is not always possible and sometimes you just have to decide what you are not going to do (usually based on someone else's criteria) and be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

The blood should come out easier then repairing all of the damage to the clothes from fire and acid. The great thing about a junk bag that does not count towards encumbrance is that you can put on a new outfit after every fight.

While I do not necessarily disagree that the USSR government was the best that Russia every had, a government that killed off so many of its own people and oppressed so many more still does not seem like a prize. While the US government did a lot to discredit/destabilize/destory the Castro government in Cuba during the early part of his reign, other than maintaining a very week trade embargo, Cuba has been ignored by the US for the last 20-30 years. That has not stopped many people from choosing to escape the workers paradise and move to the US. As to Venezuela, that only "immense and concerted efforts by the USA to destroy and discredit them" in "the present day" seem to have been purely an invention of Chavez to keep himself in power, justify his ruining of their economy and purchasing of arms and improving his street cred. Venezuela has really been ignored by the US, and saying that it is doing well is a huge stretch. I think that I agree with what I believe to be Alorael's point that countries that have drifted gradually into socialism through their internal legal processes have done better than most of the countries that have had a "worker's" revolution.

The socialist revolutions that most quickly pop into my mind have all resulted in a ruling class that controls the majority of the country's capital and less social mobility than most capitalist societies. That said, I am not sure how to reduce campaign spending, with the evil not being the actual spending, but the quid pro quo that it buys.

While the legions themselves fall out of use in Western Europe (where arguably there was not anything large enough and organized enough to field a professional army like the legions), heavy infantry did dominate Western European battlefields until around 1000 AD and then did again around 1400 AD.

Alorael's 2nd and 3rd paragraphs made me post this: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Sir Winston Churchill

Modeling education is even more complicated, because while there is indeed a wage differential, there is also a point of diminishing returns. When the market gets saturated with a particular skill set, the value for that skill set (just like for any other commodity) goes down. However, it is often years after the investment before anyone can make a case for the supply exceeding the demand and noticing that the wages are dropping compared to historical norms. I read a quote once (I can't attribute it though) that the most expensive military is the second most powerful. There is of course no non-destructive way to measure. There is not a liter or meter of national defense. Too much spending can put the nation's economy at risk, too little can also hurt our country's and the world's economies (that whole Pax-Americana thing). Of course for the debate on how much is too much, you have to compare apples with apples and pick your favorite yard stick to match your desired outcome: Defense outlays in constant dollars, defense outlays as a % of the discretionary Federal Budget, defense outlays as a % of the total Federal Budget or defense outlays as a % of GDP. Generally the folks that want to cut defense spending will use straight dollar figures and ignore everything else that has changed in the economy and the folks that want to sustain or increase defense spending will use the % of GDP figures ignoring everything else that has changed in the economy. Since there is not an easy way to measure output, nobody talks about capability, only money.

While it is certainly possible that Redbeard could have a family and great-grand kids and all that and uses his own portals to sneak off to see them, I doubt it. He seems way to addicted to his job and way to paranoid to form an attachment to something or someone that could be used against him.

Going back a few posts to why nobody copied the legions, since there has already been a better explanation of why the roman legions died out within the empire than I could give. The legions were professional soldiers with outstanding training and discipline. While the Roman sword drill was undoubtably easier than musket drill, mastering all of the formations required a lot of work. And then there is a lot of practice required to chance formations in the middle of the chaos and stress of battle. A single big block like the earlier phalanx requires training and discipline. The formations of the Romans were far more complicated and therefore required a lot more training and discipline. All of this training and practice is really expensive. You have to have a sophisticated economy with a sufficient surplus of resources to support a professional army as opposed to a militia. I also seem to recall that the Roman legions had some tactical issues against the Parthians. The Roman Legion was a very powerful formation, but there is a limit to how fast a legionnaire could move due to their heavy equipment and relatively tight formation. Against opponents who could be counted on to come at the Roman formation (either due to the opponents aggressiveness or good tactics by the Romans), life was good. A primarily mounted opponent, especially one with substantial numbers of archers could prove difficult for the Legions as long as they were smart enough to not let themselves get to close to the Romans. Hit and run tactics can be effective against a more powerful but less tactically mobile foe. Some of the crusaders ran into the same problems a 1000 or so years later.

Among the old time CRPGs, Wizardry had prestige classes, and that was during the time of 1st Ed AD&D, you also gained in your characteristics (Str, Int, etc), but you did not have skills and could not radically change your character. The first three games in the series essentially used the same convention. Going back to the original post, even though I believe that I was around for "Old School" paper and computer RPGs, I have no idea what "old school" actually means in this context. While AD&D was the industry leader and arguably inspired the vast majority of the 1970s and 1980s CRPGs (kind of hard to get more old school for computer games than that), there were competitors to AD&D with different rule sets, and due to copyright restrictions and personal preferences of the programmers, the 1970s and 1980s CRPGs tended to use AD&D concepts, but did not try and implement AD&D rules. Actual, successful (imo), computer implementation of the AD&D rules came after the "Old School" CRPGs. I suppose Baldur's gate uses an "old school" PAPER RPG leveling construct, though certainly by the mid 80s and probably earlier there were PAPER RPGs with skill point type systems instead of AD&D leveling type systems. I think that the sentence would have to be edited to say that they use "old school AD&D leveling" if you wanted to be accurate. I suppose an equivalent debate would be are the Spiderweb games "old school" or are they turn based with lower-res graphics than the current state of the art? Other than the fact that I enjoy them and they are turn-based, I do not consider the look of the Spiderweb games that close to the early Wizardry, Sierra-OnLine, Bard's Tale, since those did not have top-down graphics. I suppose the interface is fairly close to Ultima's. I never did play Rogue in its' early forms so I can't throw that in.

I wonder if there is any reliable literature on the proper employment of swords versus chain and plate armors. As was pointed out earlier, most of us have a pretty strong heroic fantasy lens to our perceptions of how to use a sword. I do not consider the various fencing disciplines a good start because they are all so stylized. The better sword fight scenes in Hollywood movies tend to be fencing based. Good Japanese movies tend to be Kendo based and to me, that is not any closer to what I am curious about. I know that it is too much to expect a written field manual for a society where the majority of the combatants were close to illiterate, but I can dream can't I? 7.62x39 is the traditional AK-47 round (as opposed to the newer 5.45x39 of the AK-74).