Thiago Cardozo's page

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

My main problem with 4e comes from the way it teaches a new generation of RPgamers our loved hobby. It is true that experienced players can grab mostly any set of rules (3.5, 4e, or even Chess) and construct a role-playing experience.

I started playing RPGs with AD&D some 16 years ago. The amount of fluff, tips on roleplaying, and literary references that came with the core books really aided me and everyone playing at the time to understand what RPGs were all about.

I keep hearing these sorts of comments from people who don't like 4e. I have to think that I read a very different set of books than they did, because I see plenty of roleplaying possibilities in 4e.

First of all, I am sorry if my comment did not resonate well with you. I did try to word it in a polite and clear manner to avoid it, but alas.

Roleplaying possibilities exist in any game people decide to play. Roleplaying games are, or should be, of course, specially built for it. As I stated before, in my personal experience D&D is not, in any of its iterations, the RP game system which more easily creates the ambience for it, due to its dissociated mechanics. I think, for motives previously exposed, that 4e worsens this. However, one can always inject it if one knows what it is doing

Flavor and role-playing depend on the players and the DM - anybody who started playing very young knows that, because when we were young, very young, we probably didn't understand the rules well enough to play correctly. But we still had fun, because when you're a kid roleplaying comes naturally. And you know what was exciting? The bits where you got to fireball the troll. And it's still exciting in 4e.

My first games with AD&D hardly resembled the correct rules. First of all, I was too young. Secondly, english is not my native language, and the details of that complicated system eluded me :). However, the sheer amount of flavor that came with the material showed me clearly what that game was all about and had my creative juices running for a long time. Not all people are born with a creative mind so powerful that can create lots of interesting things out of nowhere. The quantity and quality of fluff I had access to in AD&D during my "role-playing formative years" helped my gaming today. Today it is quite easy for me to use 4e and create a campaign or game my players will enjoy, given my background. I am not sure I could do it back then.

Now, with a more on-topic comment:

I agree with everyone that says this article showed too few references to support its claims. Even though it raises some interesting ideas.

My main problem with 4e comes from the way it teaches a new generation of RPgamers our loved hobby. It is true that experienced players can grab mostly any set of rules (3.5, 4e, or even Chess) and construct a role-playing experience.

I started playing RPGs with AD&D some 16 years ago. The amount of fluff, tips on roleplaying, and literary references that came with the core books really aided me and everyone playing at the time to understand what RPGs were all about.

You see, I really loved 3e and 3.5. I think they really refreshed the way the game was played. AD&D was somewhat restrictive in character creation without the splatbooks, and those, most of the times, frankly sucked. I do think it sacrificed a bit in the descriptive department, specially in the monsters descriptions.

Now 4e is a whole different animal. As is well pointed by many of you, rules are not needed for roleplaying. However, some sets of rules lend themselves more naturally to roleplaying than others. Among RPGs, D&D in all its iterations is, ironically, not the most roleplaying-friendly due to the amount of dissociated mechanics it brings with it. However, the amount of effort put on fluff in past iterations compensated this problem. It seems to me that 4e worsened somewhat the dissociated mechanics aspect of the game while phasing out most of the fluff (both in quantity and quality IMO) we had come to expect from D&D products. Of course experienced players can tap into a wealth of knowledge they acquired during their game years. This is, of course, not so for newer players. It seems to me that many of them might lose a lot from this.

Hi everyone!

Ok, this is what is happening:

My players are itching to investigate a) the Old Light and b) Chopper's Isle.

However, I did not read the full RotRL AP and I'm not sure if these places will be further developed. I skimmed those and found nothing, but I am sloppy sometimes. I would like to know if the Old Light is just an old, now-ruined war machine as is implied or if there are any rooms, secret entrances or stuff like this ?
What about Chopper's Isle ? Anything to it in the future ? I was thinking in creating a mini-adventure related to Jervas' hideout but I need to be sure that afterwards I won't have to retcon stuff or change the whole thing.

This is a great move. I was ordering the dead-tree version only, but for this price I'll HAVE to get the PDF as well. Guess my players will love it too!

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Hill Giant wrote:

I also dislike the term "scientist". It implies that only certain people can do science, when in fact everyone does science (to various degrees of rigor). It also tells me nothing about the person, since it does not speak to how he or she applies science.

Well, we do need a name for our job ;)

Well presumably you have a more specific job title related to your particular field of interest. I suppose it's like calling someone a businessman without specifying what sort of business they do; without further details one can only assume.

This is true. However, in my country at least, it is quite common to refer to yourself as a scientist, researcher or something like that instead of a chemist or physicist. Both are possible, but "scientist" and "researcher" are terms usually employed to specify that your work involves research, since, for instance, chemists can do other things beyond research. I see no problem with it, though I think this is more of an aesthetic decision.

As for "everyone does science" if you look at the method at its simplest - observe, hypothesize, test - you'll likely to find it in all sorts of places, not all of them traditionally associated with Science(tm).

I understand what you are saying. I have no interest in derailing the subject of the thread, but I must point out that this description of the scientific method is somewhat innacurate. Scientific propositions are generalistic instead of individual. Discovering, for instance, the best arrangement of blocks to climb to a window may involve the three steps you cited above. However, unless you derive some general law or hypothesis concerning optimum block arrangements, and test it afterwards in different situations, this was not a scientific endeavour, being more of an engineering feat.

Collection and interpretation of data can also be scientific by itself. Not all scientific work must involve the construction of scientific hypotheses. However, it is expected that this data be obtained in a very specific way, and put into context with known general theories, be it by adding to their generality, or by questioning them. Also, the development of new experimental procedures for these objectives are also considered scientific research.

Once again I reiterate that anyone can be a part of this process, be it as a hobby or professionally, having formal education or not. But scientific investigation resembles only superficially the ordinary kind of investigation we usually pursue for solving daily tasks.

I also dislike the term "scientist". It implies that only certain people can do science, when in fact everyone does science (to various degrees of rigor). It also tells me nothing about the person, since it does not speak to how he or she applies science.

Well, we do need a name for our job ;)

I partially disagree with the "everyone does science" statement. The use of the scientific method, however loosely defined it might be, is implicit in the construction of scientific knowledge. It is, of course, possible to not have any formal degree, or education, and be a scientist (take Faraday as an example). But doing science is not something which is associated to all means of rational or empirical knowledge pursuit.
Besides, being a scientist is an occupation (formal or informal). Saying that the term implies only certain people can do science is like saying the term "trader" implies that only certain people can trade stuff.

On the other hand, I completely agree with your second statement. The mere fact of being a scientist doesn't exclude the possibility of being sloppy or (worse) a moron.

Seriously? (I've read too many of Courtfools posts - I'm starting to use his prose).

My experience as a player has been that one of the most significant differences between 3.5 and 4E is a major lack of restoration, especially in combat but outside of combat as well. Once in combat you mainly only have your second wind. If you have leaders around they can do stuff that allow you to access your healing surges but this kind of healing is very limited. Generally along the lines of some characters getting a boost beyond the second wind but there is not enough for everyone. Hence against something really tough like a Dragon you can very easily get to a point where every last drop of healing has been accessed and if you go down now you stay down because the Cleric has nothing left to help you with. My character is an amazing healing Cleric in my party (multi-class into warlord for the bonus healing, I wear +1 Exalted chainmail magic armour that helps with my healing and I've chosen powers that often say things along the lines of if I hit then some one nearby gets to use a healing surge. Nonetheless in tough fights we've just run dry on a fair number of occasions.

Out of combat things are less critical but they are also in some ways even more extreme compared to 3.5 where, in my experience, after a couple of levels there simply was no such thing as being out of hps. You left when the casters were out of good spells otherwise you used Wands of Cure Light Wounds or Vigour to bring everyone up to full hps after every fight. This just does not work in 4E because healing surges are such a limited resource and its very hard and very expensive to get access to healing that does not depend on healing surges.

Note that I am not saying that there is too much restoration overall but it seems to me that the healing options during combat seem to have increased. Of course we played at a relatively low-level so it is possible that I got this impression due to a comparison with low-level combats from previous editions. It seemed to me that the players had so much recovery that the monsters were designed with more hit points in order to present a fitting challenge. I guess this made the combat drag a bit. It might be a problem associated with our expectations but I am not sure. This, if it is a problem, which after reading your answer I'm not sure, can be corrected by some houseruling. The flavor and dissociated mechanics problems are more difficult to work around, I think.

Here opening a covenant for those who have been elightened by a taste of the broth of Thoguth! That His Shapelessness be pleased!

That's quantum mechanics, not string theory. And the "observer" can be anything the ball interacts with, like the atoms in the floor for instance. It does not have to be a conscious "observer." IMHO using the word "observer" to describe that type of situation was one of the dumbest choices of words ever made by physicists. It leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

That.

What I meant is I'd much prefer it if these 3-4 comparison threads had more proposals by posters they think would make (insert game of your choice) better, especially as to how to give game X some of the good stuff they like from game Y, such as the earlier posts as to how to emulate some 3E characters in 4E.

I have been a DM since 1990, having followed all iterations of D&D up to 3.5. 4e caused me pause but I eventually tried DMing a mini-campaign. I have to say I did like some of the changes, but I can't see myself playing it again due to some critical changes. In the spirit of JRM's comment,I list my personal thumbs up/down for the system (in comparison to 3e) and what could me made to improve it, in my opinion of course.

The good:

1. Improved survivability/options for low-level characters;
2. Better skill system;
3. Faster adventure prep;
4. Harder to min/max your character towards an uber-munchkin build.

Taking Reflex, Fortitude and Will as target numbers is an interesting concept, though I'm not sure if it is really an advantage

What is worse:

1. The bland descriptive prose, including races, classes, monsters and abilities. It stinks;
2. The dissociated mechanics. It is true D&D always had this in some level, but it has become the major issue to me and to my players;
3. Combat rounds go a bit faster, but combat seems endless because of the amount of restoration players have available;
4. The absence of a magic system. This an aesthetic personal view, but I think different mechanics for magic make it feel different from other more mundane pursuits.
5. Keeping track of the many conditions in both PCs and monsters was problematic. Maybe it was a lack of experience with the system, but we felt it was a bit overwheming.

What I think could make it better

1. Writing better and more interesting descriptions. This also might help (in some cases) with the issue of dissociated mechanics.
2. Tone down or restrict somewhat the use of healing surges during combat. Diminish monsters hit points a bit.
3. Reduce the reliance on temporary bonuses and conditions to differentiate abilities.

I don't think the problems with dissociated mechanics and the magic system could be completely solved without major changes to the system, which would, of course, defeat the purpose. However if design of abilities was flavor --> mechanics instead of the other way around, it might lead to a better experience.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

This is an interesting point that becomes clear with a thoguth experiment.

Good explanations, but your typo really caught my eye.

The Thoguth Experiment.

I'm gonna use that.

lol, I was going to correct it, but I'd better leave it this way as reference. It resembles a mad wizard's dabbling with the occult. And a "Big Bang Theory" episode title.

There are a number of things that I find fascinating. First, it doesn't appear that we can find evidence that RNA is naturally forming outside a "creature".

This is partially true. There is, in fact, evidence [which was just bolstered by that article I originally posted] that RNA can be formed in the absence of any biological machinery. However, as you correctly pointed out, there is no evidence that, nowadays, any such process is happening (at least that I know of). There are two good reasons for this:

a) Conditions on earth nowadays are vastly different from earth on its beggining. There is some evidence, for instance, that our atmosphere had much less oxygen before life emerged, which would be crucial to the long-term stability of RNA chains before they had a "protective coating" (i.e. membrane). Note that this is only of one of the differences, but I would not want to bore people to death.

b) There were no self-replicating biological entities to compete for the molecules needed for RNA formation. Hence RNA only competed with itself. It would be reasonable to assume that these precursor molecules would be more abundant in that time (at least in a free, available state), than nowadays, thus allowing RNA to form. Today, to obtain these molecules, we have to eat :)

So what if it's "life"? That wouldn't have meant anything on its own. No, this "life" immediately had the ability to self-replicate. For absolutely no reason.

Well, not for no reason. The molecular mechanism for RNA self-replication occurs by the same laws all other chemical processes follow, and can be understood by the same tools (chemical theory). Different chemical structures confer different abilities for substances. For instance, acids "burn", RNAs "self-replicate", and glue, well, "glues". There is no reason to single out self-replication as having no reason.

There are no natural predators. There is no Darwinian situation going on.

It is true that in ths hypothesized RNA world of ours there are no natural predators, unless, of course, a given replicative RNA strand also has the "ability" to disassemble otherstrands for its tasty ribonucleotides. Even if we discard this possibility, the quantity of ribonucleotides was not infinite, implying that, at some point, strands which, for instance, replicated faster, would have an advantage. At that point, Darwinian selection kicks in.

Yet this strand is genetically designed, right from the beginning to duplicate itself

This is an interesting point that becomes clear with a thoguth experiment. Let us assume that the ribonucleotides are already there (our soup). The four kinds of RNA ribonucleotides will, slowly, start to assemble (we already know that this process happens), forming chains with approximately aleatory ordering. If only one of the gazzilion possible ribonucleotide sequences that were formed has the chemical capability to self-replicate, it will start to do just that. In the end it will surpass in quantity all the non-self-replicating ones, since its production is not aleatory anymore, but guided by an advantage. There is no design in it.

I hope that it didn't read like gibberish, Moff. I can be somewhat obscure sometimes :)

The are a lot of what seem to me to be 'ifs' in there: '...can be formed...', '...plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules...', and '...potential early-Earth geochemical models...'.
If the abstract is at all a fair summary of the article, the conclusion looks to me as if it is rather more about improving experimental procedure, than 'by George, I think we've definitively cracked the chemistry of how life could have begun'.
Potentially interesting, but I am cautious.

As zombieneighbours already pointed out, this is a product of the scientific writing style, which is (usually) a very careful discourse. In the specific case of "can be formed" there is no "if" implied in that phrase. He is communicating an observation that the nucleotides can be formed by doing the procedures described. The others are merely the product of caution. It pays to not be grandiloquent in your statements when a fellow scientist who knows better can prove you wrong. :)

Thank you for the links, though, Thiago.
...

Just doing my part :)

This is all fascinating. Really. And I truly understand so little of it.

What's interesting to me is that I see all this and I think -- "This is all really cool. That there is a process and "laws" in place that can even make all this happen given the complexities variations, mutations, and so on... God must have had a hand in this -- it's too awesome for him not to be involved in it."

And then the other side says -- "This is all really cool. The spontaneous nature of things, the different laws of the universe, isn't nature great -- and God wasn't involved at all, nature just happened."

This is an interesting discussion all by itself. I have a friend who is from the Methodist Church, but has a completely scientific world view. To him, God selected the universe "rules", whathever they are, knowing that they would lead to life. He even acknowledges that, from a scientific standpoint, God is an unnecessary axiom, in the sense that it does not add any more predictive power to theories than if we choose to say he does nor exist. However, he points out he believes he exists anyway, keeping his existence as a faith element. Thus he can study science and follow a religion without having to splice his brain in two. He merely has to abandon the idea of a literal interpretation of scripture. I found this a very elegant solution.

I, on the other hand, am an atheist. Guess I should point it out in the interest of full disclosure :)

Let me put it in layman's terms for you Moorluck....You can make stuff that RNA molecules assemble themselves from from by mixing a lot of smelly stuff in a flask. The smelly stuff is the same kind of simple smelly stuff that could naturally form in the ancient oceans. It's not clear from the abstract whether they performed the experiment or just figured out the chemical reactions that would cause this to happen.

They did perform the reactions :) It is important to make it clear, though, that they are not necessarily the reactions that did occur at the time. However, it is a proof that there is a possible chemical pathway, which of course is the only thing needed for it to happen. If there are other possible pathways remains to be seen.

Do you have a link to the article or the abstract?

the doi of the article:

doi:10.1038/nature08013

link to the abstract

link to editor's summary

If we follow this particular line of reasoning we inevitably go back to the Aristotelian perspective where rocks fell because they intended to. No, my personal viewpoint is that for some reason (or, perhaps, for no reason at all) things behave the way they do. The fact that this behavior can be rationally codified by means of the scientific method tells more about our ingenuity as a species than about the metaphysical reasons of "why things are like they are.".

It still begs the question of why, however.:)

Molecules do not ask why (at least we can't hear them do it) :) I would say the notion of intent is not inherent to existence.

I have to chuckle at the endless debate over the existance of the Divine, despite being intrigued and absorbed by the debate that question poses. A non-believer will try to quantify an answer based on observable facts and phenomana. A believer will not see the point of the debate, because belief does not require proof. Thus, two mutually exsclusive viewpoints.

I have to refer back to an earlier post, the author of which presently escapes me. They stated "Science answers questions. Religion doesn't, ever." That is patently untrue, in that religion answers many questions, but the answers are not always palpable, and not always relevant beyond the time they were written. After all, they reflect an imperfect understanding of a perfect being, or beings, and their desires. Science, too, tries to answer every question, and is also sometimes found to be incorrect, or that those answers are no longer as relevant as they once were. You might say for the non-believers then that science is an imperfect understanding of an imperfect world.

Then comes the issue of evolution, and the flaws in many organisms, and the conflict with the idea of intelligent design. In that the framework of evolution, these flaws make perfect sense. They pose no realistic impediment to the propagation of life, and thus are acceptable. In terms of intelligent design, one could argue that those flaws reflect errors in said design, and thus a substandard designer. But that presents a flawed assumption that we know the intent of the design, and that the designer was attempting to create something perfect, instead of something just good enough. That goes back to the Divine plan for things and our inability to understand that plan.

Somewhere along the way a question usually pops up about the value of faith, especially by those who do not share it, and the demand for proof of that object, being, or principle. If a person has faith in something, in some higher power or principle, and that faith gives them the strength to press on despite the...

I guess the debate is so common nowadays because of attempts to mask faith-derived notions as scientific propositions and to teach those as such. When this is attempted, I think it is perfectly licit and expected that the topic becomes then open to a debate where scientific standards are demanded. In this context (and I reiterate, in this context only), Intelligent Design is debunked as pseudoscientific nonsense. Should one confine his ideas concerning the Creation to a metaphysical or theological discourse, the possibility of attacking it scientifically vanishes, of course.

Uh... Kirth, I need ya man, I feel stupid. :p

You are not stupid, my ability to communicate scientific concepts sucks. Well, this is a good time as any to practice it.

Ok, among the many Origin of Life hypotheses (which should not be confused with the Theory of Evolution), one of them involves the idea that a particular type of molecule (the RNA) was the first self-replicating entity which would eventually lead to life as we know it.

This is usually considered a reasonable hypothesis since some types of RNA have been shown to be able to self-replicate in the presence of ribonucleotides, the very building blocks which constitute them. It is as if a Lego motif was able to copy itself in the presence of the convenient Lego bolcks. Note that this replicative power of RNA is not mere speculation, it is a known scientific fact.

However this "Replicant RNA-hypothesis" had a problem. There was no known way to produce the ribonucleotides (i.e. the Lego blocks) from simpler chemicals which were known or suspected to exist before life came about in conditions which could be available at the time. Thie work reported by these fellows has just shown that such a chemical route does exist.

Hope I made myself clearer this time :)

OK does somebody want to explain to me what the funny elf just said? :p

The idea is that, up to this moment there was no chemical route known which could transform simple chemicals in prebiotic conditions into the molecular building blocks of life (e.g. the ribonucleotides). Now there is! It is a very exciting scientific find and,I think, of some relevance to the discussion at hand.

Sorry for dropping the news with no further explanation. I guess I was relying on Kirth to explain it since he has been doing a great job in doing it in a very clear way :P

Hi everyone, I have been lurking for a while now and just read something that I have to post :)

This week in Nature:

At some stage in the origin of life, an information-carrying polymer must have formed by purely chemical means. That polymer might have been RNA, but until now this theory has been hampered by a lack of evidence for a plausible route in which the ribonucleotides could have formed on prebiotic Earth. Here, just such a route is reported.

Discuss! :)

Wow, it took me a long time to read the whole thread. It was a compelling read all the way, and I enjoy discussing this topic lot. I have been lurking for a while now, but there is something that compelled me to write.

I might be mistaken, but there were some comments at the start of the discussion regarding evolution which I do not think were properly addressed. Even though it happened way, way down the thread, my fingers are itching. :)

It seems that a criticism of evolution involves the idea that we evolved from apes, while the apes themselves did not evolve. However, it must be pointed out that evolutionary theory does not say in any way that we evolved from apes. The correct description is that human beings and apes evolved from a common ancestor, not from one another.

I hope that this adds something to the discussion, at least to those who have been into it from the beggining :)

Ah, in the interest of full disclosure I am an atheist ;)

I originally told the players to use 15 points since the party has more than the usual 4 players and I am using the PFRPG Beta, but I was afraid that it might not be enough. Guess they will be happy to know their characters are about to get a tad stronger. Thanks for helping!

I'm just getting ready to DM AP#1 for a group of 5 players using the PFRPG Beta rules and I'm wondering: Given the deadliness of some encounters, how many points should I give the players for their ability scores to ensure that at least some of the characters survive at the end if they play smartly ?