As one of the old school Variant masochists, I figured I'd get your read on the Variant versus Style thought . . .
"Think globally, drink locally."
|
Where "Realms Beyond" Began
|
Quote:As one of the old school Variant masochists, I figured I'd get your read on the Variant versus Style thought . . . Well, you asked for a ruling on whether a person qualified as variant scum: Yes, you qualify as Variant Scum, (pending an official ruling from Lemming ...) ... That is Variancy indeed! If Lemming disagrees, he can go watch liveandletdive at joecartoon.com.. I read it as: "If this is a variant, then person is variant scum." If you want the conclusion, I can't give it to you; I don't consider myself one to dispense that title. Moreover, I think someone can fit in with crazy variant folk without having played a "variant" per se. So, I didn't see that I could answer your question. But if you want distinctions, I can provide those. Never killing Diablo is not a variant. (Though it was the motivation behind one of mine.) That's like saying "I'm the never-kills-Butcher variant" or "I'm the always-does-dlvl-16-Retribution-style variant." These are random restrictions players impose on themselves. A variant is a collection of restrictions that are not random (some connecting idea exists). It may seem that "variants" get all the glory. You don't hear so much about "restricted" characters. Well, why not? They're usually not written down. If someone wants a restriction, it's easy enough to think of one without looking through a list. Moreover, there are no rules to "iron out" as with a variant, so there's little motivation to consult with anyone about viability or "If I wrote this, would anyone else ever play it?" In short, variants tend to leave more history. Character Distinctions
Variant and Restricted are mutually exclusive with Vanilla. If you're vanilla, you're not the other two. "Restricted" and "variant" are not mutually exclusive qualities. Dr. Zed's Zoomed UltraPure Goth Warrior was the only time I ever co-oped with someone else who used zoom. Zoom itself is not a variant; playing zoomed all the time is just a restriction. So, the following character possibilities exist:
What's interesting is that none of the above combinations are necessarily more difficult than the others. It's possible to make up restrictions and variants (and therefore combinations of these) that are just as easy as a vanilla character. Moreover, it's possible to saddle yourself with so many restrictions your character is more difficult than any existing variant. So, in terms of difficulty:
I've not said anything about styles or roles here. It hasn't been necessary, but I'll be complete: Style How a character plays. In D1 styles are usually derived from item use: Tank, Artillery, LAW, CAT, Stealth, Axe, CC, etc. In D2, I believe styles are more derived from skill use, e.g. CB Sorc, Whirly Barb, Thrower Barb, Singing Barb. Every character has a style regardless of restricted or variant qualities. Styles themselves are not considered restrictions. Styles are not necessarily combinable. For instance: Tank, Artillery, and LAW imply something about the quality of your armor class. So, a Tank LAW is impossible. However, Stealth implies nothing about your AC, so a Stealth LAW is fine. Role The player roleplays the character. Roles can exist on any character: restricted, variant, vanilla. Roles do not imply restrictions, but they can justify them. -Lemmy
Hi,
So the original variant, the naked mage, was not a variant? After all, the whole thing can be summed up with one restriction: play a mage who only uses cursed items. Most of the rules just amplify or clarify this one distinction. The only other rule, the streak, is just an arbitrary stunt. While I applaud your attempt to bring confusion out of chaos  I think you are "over working" the problem. I suspect the best answer is "I know a variant when I see one, and if you play with this crazy group for a while, you will too."  --Pete
"What I tell you three times is true." -- The Bellman
Quote:Originally posted by Occhidiangela@Mar 30 2004, 03:16 PMHail and well met, Occhidiangela. And thanks for the welcome.I see Shark's found his way here to proclaim his scumminess. :laugh: Send your wife and brother my regards, ya old skumbaagen! I'll be sure to ask for a demonstration of your reet skillzors in Hung Gar when I visit you. I do hope I'm as de-staffed as a girl could get without bringing toys of questionable nature into the picture. *snerk* Perhaps I qualify as restricted scum, which sounds terribly uncomfortable now that I think about it. Maybe that added to my eventual fall away from all things Blizzard. I should mention the rogue class was my first love, and that I merely fell onto the path of a sorcerer simply because it seemed the swiftest class with which to clean out hell/hell to find goodies for friends, and later for use as tourney prizes as well. Was rather busy with two jobs and college back then to do more than one or two hell runs each night before Teh BED beckoned. [/excuse] But if anyone remembers a Jisa(SSW~cp) from the Rogues Gallery, that'd be me as well. *pokes 30ftSmoof to cease and desist lurking and say his piece too* Met him there. Though the Sisters of the Sin Wars dissolved sooner than I'd hoped, it was a fun learning experience, my first guild, and what prompted me to get ICQ as well. All good memories of good people whom I hope are doing well, where ever they are now. Oh goodness, Jarulf's guide. I still recall him stopping by the Trading Post now and then. I wish I'd printed the whole thing out. I think I lost it when Ye Olde 200 died. *glances about* So when do we end with the intros and get to the espresso and biscottis? ^_^
"Just because you feel certain an enemy is lurking behind every bush, it doesnât follow that you are wrong."
So the original variant, the naked mage, was not a variant? After all, the whole thing can be summed up with one restriction: play a mage who only uses cursed items. Most of the rules just amplify or clarify this one distinction. The only other rule, the streak, is just an arbitrary stunt.
While a person can just know "I can only use cursed items" and *almost* play the BNM right, it is a bit of a stretch to say that this is the only rule. Outside of the clarifications on what items are cursed, we still have several other distinct rules that are related by a theme (a disdain for gear leading to a warped devotion to cursed gear). One such rule is that the BNM must use the items he has which penalize him the most. Another rule is that he cannot get rid of any cursed items unless his pack his full, or he can give them to a fledgling BNM. Then we have the sequence of corruption item rules, which may be a bit arbitrary but are still tied to theme by the idea that a corruption item being the ultimate curse will be held in special regard. What we have here is a system of rules bound by a common theme. I share Lemming's opinion that this is essentially the difference between a variant and a restricted character. I don't think Woody ever stated it that way, but he did use the axe warrior as an example of a non-variant and say that a variant has to be more involved than that. Of course, the natural follow-up question would be "Even assuming BNM is a variant, what about Naked Mage? They clearly only have one rule." Ehhh, I'll let Lemming try that one. According to the Variant Archive, he does consider it a variant, because it has a rule and a role that are consistent with one another. But that isn't much different from the "lumberjack" who only uses an axe
Quote:So the original variant, the naked mage, was not a variant? After all, the whole thing can be summed up with one restriction: play a mage who only uses cursed items. Most of the rules just amplify or clarify this one distinction. The only other rule, the streak, is just an arbitrary stunt. The BNM's restriction is "Play a mage who uses the worst fully cursed items available." In practice, however, this becomes impossible if the BNM finds an item "of Corruption." Therefore, the item is given special status. Hence, the Streak is not arbitrary. It allows the BNM to use even the most debilitating cursed item, one he cannot normally use with any expectation of survival. Quote:While I applaud your attempt to bring confusion out of chaos I think you are "over working" the problem. I suspect the best answer is "I know a variant when I see one, and if you play with this crazy group for a while, you will too." Mayhap. But I find my definitions consitent, and it helps to have something available when people start calling "Poison Dagger Necro" a "varient." :axe: -Lemmy Quote:Originally posted by Occhidiangela@Mar 31 2004, 09:31 PMHow about this? http://realmsbeyond.net/diablo/variantslingo.html :D Quote:Of course, the natural follow-up question would be "Even assuming BNM is a variant, what about Naked Mage? They clearly only have one rule." Ehhh, I'll let Lemming try that one. According to the Variant Archive, he does consider it a variant, because it has a rule and a role that are consistent with one another. But that isn't much different from the "lumberjack" who only uses an axe. At the time I wrote that (2.5 years ago), I wasn't using the same definition of "variant" vs "restriction." I've refined it since then (as seen above). Allow me to borrow your reasoning, Nystul: While a person can just know "I can only use cursed items" and *almost* play the BNM right, it is a bit of a stretch to say that this is the only rule. Let's substitute NM qualities: "While a person can just know "I can equip no items" and *almost* play the NM right, it is a bit of a stretch to say that this is the only rule." Is it still true? I don't think so. With just that rule, a Naked Mage is fairly straightforward. I say "fairly" because, well, there are still two interpretations of the rule. 1) "I can equip no items (in combat)" -- i.e. the "reading glasses" approach 2) "I can equip no items (ever)" -- i.e. anti-readers And either interpretation allows one to play a NM "correctly" as any NM who'd read the "rules." So, it really is just one restriction. Thus, not a variant. I do consider it to be very much in variant spirit (espc. Woody's "Annoy the cheaters" example set forth by the BNM), and it's one of few "restrictions" that ever caught on widely with non-variant folk. All this talk of NMs reminds me: Naked Mage 3@30'd by an old face some of you may recognize. -Lemmy |