> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug > Meerschaert > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] If Thoughts Could Kill - Illithid reference > violation? > > > Martin L. Shoemaker wrote: > > >Where in the SRD does it state that Driders are human-like? They have > >appendages, because they hold swords and use bows. That's all it > says. That > >could make them squid-like. > > > I'm not talking about the *draft* SRD. I'm talking about the real, > honestly, as-they-are-in-the-MM creatures.
Fair enough. But if somebody today is using Mind Flayers, they're doing so either outside the safe harbor or else under the auspices of the OGL, the Draft SRD, and the Gentlepersons' Agreement. Ryan's contention was that the material in the SRD was not by itself sufficient to reach the conclusion that Mind Flayers are humanoid. Heck, if I'm using the MM, I don't need "advances as class" means "humanoid", because I can just read the MM text and look at the pictures. > >And I have cited examples that refute it: creatures that are not > in any way > >described IN THE SRD as humanoid yet advance by class. > > > Very well, then. I can see your point--but I'm not limiting myself in > this discussion to the MM. I'm noting an apparant continuity between > "humanish" creatures (everything from humans to angels, Succubui, > centaurs, and driders) and the "advances by" line. I think there's some basis for a knowledgeable gamer to see that continuity. But this may be one example where Wizards has shared the results of their development, but not some of the principles they use during that development. (And for the record, I think they have every right to have their own "proprietary" development processes and only publish the results of those processes. No criticism is implied.) > Legal standings are moot, but ideas are not--so I'll stay focused on the > ideas. > > IDEA: If the apparant rule holds true, then "advances by character class > only" creatures can be a flag for "humanish", and WotC can leave it as > is and the rest of us can enjoy the clear hint that the beasties are > "humanish." > > IDEA: It sounds like a good rule in general, and fitting "nicely" in > with the rest of the system is a hallmark of game design. I heartedly > suggest that game desingers reserve "advances by character class only" > for "humanish" beings, and give all non-humanish beings at least a > two-or-three HD advancement. Ideas well worth discussion. I'm not sure I like the restriction, honestly. As a rule of thumb, it's good; but why preclude interesting variations? Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
