Balance... whatever it is

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

hurt those who want to use them (for whatever reason). You can always choose not to use an existing rule. But you can't choose to use a rule that doesn't exist. Seems pretty abundantly obvious to me...

If the occupational tables were presented as the option, rather than the inverse, I'd agree with this. However, I believe as presented the opposite was the case.

(I'll also note its entirely possible to use a rule that doesn't exist; if that wasn't true custom and house rules wouldn't be possible).

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

If the occupational tables were presented as the option, rather than the inverse, I'd agree with this. However, I believe as presented the opposite was the case.

I don't see how this make any difference in a GM's ability to use whatever his preference is. I'm also not sure that either was the "rule" while the other the "option". The tables were there. The rule was "either roll on the table, or choose".

Considering that at the beginning of this thread you didn't know that occupations could be changed, it seems a bit odd for you to be playing ruleslawyer as to whether some specific component of the occupation tables was an optional rule or not.

It just seems like you're going out of your way to find a reason to be against something. Something you apparently didn't use anyway. Hence, why I'm puzzled.

(I'll also note its entirely possible to use a rule that doesn't exist; if that wasn't true custom and house rules wouldn't be possible).

Sure. And you "can" choose not to use the random rolls. One of those is a much easier and less burdensome thing to do...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

I don't see how this make any difference in a GM's ability to use whatever his preference is. I'm also not sure that either was the

It doesn't make any difference in what he can do, but it does in what many GMs _will_ do; most GMs using RQ3 would use the rolls because that's what was presented as a default.

Considering that at the beginning of this thread you didn't know that occupations could be changed, it seems a bit odd for you to be playing

More accurately, I'd forgotten it. I'm sure I knew it at one time, but since it was in the same category as picking them in the first place, I didn't consider it all that relevant back in the day, nor do I consider it any more now when I've been reminded of it.

ruleslawyer as to whether some specific component of the occupation tables was an optional rule or not.

Since it has quite a bit of impact as to usage in the field, I don't think its odd at all.

It just seems like you're going out of your way to find a reason to be against something. Something you apparently didn't use anyway. Hence, why I'm puzzled.

I _did_ use it for quite some time; in fact, when using RQ3 proper I never did otherwise, because I didn't find simply picking acceptable either. It wasn't until I saw the RQ4 take on the matter that I had anything I liked any better.

Sure. And you "can" choose not to use the random rolls. One of those is a much easier and less burdensome thing to do...

And if I thougt it was particularly hard for a GM to put together occupations from a description of how they did it, I'd agree with the latter being burdensome. The latter also has the virtue that it allows the GM to decide for himself what's appropriate for previous experience professions in his game, rather than taking what the people who put the tables together decided. So as it is, the default approach in RQ3 appear to be the worst of all worlds.