06-08-2003, 10:36 PM
...anything that's not mainstream has been dubbed "variant." And to that I say
Bah!
Variants of old were written out, which made them far easier to critique as "variant," "collection of unrelated restrictions," or "Using an axe does not a variant make." You drew an important disctinction with this:
Every variant has a build as the base of it - if it did not, then it would be kind of difficult to play.
I'd be more generic and say every character has a build -- variants included -- but doing something weird does not a variant make. It makes you different, sure, but remember: Some people are weird, but some people think they're Richard Nixon. In days of yore, those people had rooms at Woody's Asylum.
A Mageazon, if played as a Sorceress, is a variant.
Generalized:
A variant is composed of *linked* ideas. The author (or, in these days of non-written vars, I suppose the player) decides how to interpret the concept into the game. The concept dictates the rules, but everyone can still have a slightly different take.
Insofar as roleplaying goes (which is probably quite scant in D2, but nevertheless), rules can be bent, broken, or discarded as necessary for the role. And what is the role? Whatever you're trying to play plus any personality/inherited/racial traits.
Written variants are very nice when it comes to combinations. You start with two independent concepts and blend them, already having the restrictions on paper -- a template. Far easier, IMO, than starting with a blended concept and trying to think up all applicable rules. I wish people would get back to this. :p
Of couse, you could play simply any old Amazon and use Immolating Arrow and Freezing Arrow for your primary attacks, but if you base your build as trying to imitate the Sorceress, then it's a variant.
I'd still want to see the written version before I called it a real variant. <i>Ex:</i> "I'm playing an Amazon pretending she's a Sorceresss-playing-as-an-Amazon and, as a result, I play no differently from normal at every stage of the game."
[o: *LEMMING* :o]
Bah!
Variants of old were written out, which made them far easier to critique as "variant," "collection of unrelated restrictions," or "Using an axe does not a variant make." You drew an important disctinction with this:
Every variant has a build as the base of it - if it did not, then it would be kind of difficult to play.
I'd be more generic and say every character has a build -- variants included -- but doing something weird does not a variant make. It makes you different, sure, but remember: Some people are weird, but some people think they're Richard Nixon. In days of yore, those people had rooms at Woody's Asylum.
A Mageazon, if played as a Sorceress, is a variant.
Generalized:
A variant is composed of *linked* ideas. The author (or, in these days of non-written vars, I suppose the player) decides how to interpret the concept into the game. The concept dictates the rules, but everyone can still have a slightly different take.
Insofar as roleplaying goes (which is probably quite scant in D2, but nevertheless), rules can be bent, broken, or discarded as necessary for the role. And what is the role? Whatever you're trying to play plus any personality/inherited/racial traits.
Written variants are very nice when it comes to combinations. You start with two independent concepts and blend them, already having the restrictions on paper -- a template. Far easier, IMO, than starting with a blended concept and trying to think up all applicable rules. I wish people would get back to this. :p
Of couse, you could play simply any old Amazon and use Immolating Arrow and Freezing Arrow for your primary attacks, but if you base your build as trying to imitate the Sorceress, then it's a variant.
I'd still want to see the written version before I called it a real variant. <i>Ex:</i> "I'm playing an Amazon pretending she's a Sorceresss-playing-as-an-Amazon and, as a result, I play no differently from normal at every stage of the game."
[o: *LEMMING* :o]