@SAMAS: Yeah, I think you and I are done for now. You have failed to stop strawmanning, failed to heed my very simple request, and have instead opted to make a nuisance of yourself. You are free to keep your opinion, however don't expect me to accept it as gospel, just because you tout it so. Also, when I say that (and can prove that) I've said something, telling me I haven't is not gonna convince me. The same thing goes for what I have not said.
Perhaps, if you cease your annoying attempts at reading into my posts, in order to back your argument, that I am saying something I am not, then perhaps you and I can continue something constructive. Until then, I'll probably continue to read your posts over to see if you make an interesting point about the subject at hand, but otherwise, don't expect to see a response from me.
@Aelryinth: Hey Aelryinth. You're late to the party I'm afraid, I was about to leave :(
Am I to understand that you maintain that circumstance and planning(and planning for circumstance?) cannot advance a lowish-mid-level character, beyond a person with no such drive, but who just happen to be higher level? Surely roleplay can help a player overcome challenges well above their normal paygrade, so roleplay (or in world actions, if you will) should be able to help an NPC do the same, right? Could it not be said that the math would not -usually- back up the fluff?
@Selk: Ho there Selk, and a fair welcome to you too :) Thank you for your sympathy. I'm afraid I don't agree with the point about you not being able to be a skilled tactician and whatnot, without being a good combatant. I can certainly see the point you're making about the relative escalation of skill, following the progression of levels, but surely the system is open enough for us to make a character who is weak(ish?) in combat, but can outdo his betters(by betters I mean certain people of higher level) in key areas?
It appears to me (though I may be wrong, so pardon me) that I'm hearing alot of "If you're not high enough level, some unscrupulous person within your organization will take you out, by virtue of being higher level", but does that generalization not avoid the 'human' aspect of the characters?
Perhaps I am a level 2 commoner trying to make a name for myself with the local guild, and maybe I -could- be easily outdone by Brian over there, who just happens to be level 6. But what if Brian likes me? What if Brian wants to see me succeed? What if Brian is non-confrontational, and achieved his level through a series of reactionary behavior, rather than proactive behavior? What if I am high in my hierarchy by virtue of lucky circumstance, and there -is- a person lower down the rung, who is gunning for my position, but he does not have the right skill(knowledge:local, or somesuch) to actually put together the pieces he needs to advance? Or perhaps he is so far down the rung, that despite him knowing in his heart of hearts, that he is better than me, he cannot make himself go through the effort it would take to deal with all the other people on the ladder, and then deal with me, not to mention the pre-planning? Again, this could be argued to be a corner-case, but don't the corner-cases deserve some love every now and again? That is, provided it even is a corner-case and that the human-element does not(should not?) seep into the explanation of how character A managed B?