作者 主题: VV的读书笔记  (阅读 7956 次)

副标题:

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #15 于: 2016-12-25, 周日 21:27:50 »
【天赋神权】名词——秽脉 Awnsheghlien
原帖:http://tieba.baidu.com/p/4065340644
译者:谜之奇异果

劇透 -   :
来源《Birthright Campaign Setting——Atlas of Cerilia》
译者本人


塞黎利亚(Cerilia)上最危险的生物即是秽脉(Awnsheghlien)——这些生物吸收了秽邪之亚扎雷(Azrai)的真髓。就像其它的血继(Blooded)存在那般,他们能够借由掌控领地、以及通过血篡(Bloodtheft)收获力量。因此,他们亦是最为强大的敌手,因为他们不断地啃噬不幸的望裔与愚蠢的诸王。


一只秽裔(Awnshegh)是任何受到亚扎雷之血灌染的生物——他们将神之真髓俘于自身之内,而不是将其归还地上。这个过程会使凡躯不堪重负,并且会致使躯体的扭曲——当其塑造出更加强大的肉体时。这些畸变通常是对内心之中某些方面的映射。


某些秽脉创造出了映射其主子之名的仆者。例如,海德拉(Hydra)就催生了大量的多头生物,而戈尔贡(Gorgon)则允许其稚小的孩子们蔓延于西塞黎利亚散播恐怖。而那些想要与秽脉作战的勇士应该谨慎注意的是屠戮海德拉(hydra)与屠戮海德拉(Hydra)是全然不同(的概念)。


在我的一生中,我曾遇到过三只秽脉。其中之一是无名的流浪者——嗜血与凶爪所筑之怖。我和我的同伴把那一只杀了。而第二次则是海龙兽(Seadrake),我航过时它把船弄沉了。全赖我对神秘技艺的稳当掌控,我自己的小命才得以保存了下来。


而我遇到的最后一只秽裔即是戈尔贡,尽管那已经是超过四十年以前了,(但)我仍记得那次遭遇,就好像那是昨天晚上的噩梦一般。我被派遣到了Kal-Saitharak(戈尔贡的城堡,位于其领地之内)作为外交任务的一部分与戈尔贡探讨通过Mur-Kilad之道贸易的可能。我发现戈尔贡是极其聪慧而且能说会道的,但我意识到了一股渗出恶毒耐性的氛围,而环绕他的憎恨都被制约住了。他坚持要自己被称为Prince Raesene。不幸的是,我的一位同伴以不慎之言冒犯了他,而戈尔贡则以其可怕的凝视杀害了他。任务以失败告终——虽说我们被饶过了一命。


*这里出现了两个重要术语。Awnsheghlien是复数形式。
*天赋神权中有很多小修大改,你会看到很多和灰鹰,国度,龙枪几乎完全不同的概念,哪怕用了同一个词,所以不要问“为什么不是那个意思”。这对你而言可能是一个全新世界。
欢迎来到塞黎利亚。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #16 于: 2017-02-08, 周三 04:32:27 »
tsr08441 - The Worlds of TSR

以后再有谁批判2版画风的,就拿这本书糊他熊脸

劇透 -   :
链接:http://pan.baidu.com/s/1gfokMUR 密码:gaod
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #17 于: 2017-02-10, 周五 04:22:26 »
原帖地址:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b8e80ae0100u1gc.html

奥德赛某位老苦力dalao写的翻译经验,看了简直感动到一塌糊涂,并且受益良多,这样看来我根本就不用写什么《os苦力入坑必读》之类的帖子了
以后校对就不用喷翻译了,直接把这个甩苦力脸上,耶!

以下全文(以及,稍微校正了一些微小的错别字:):

艾赫的苦力导学贴

谨以此文献给在奇幻沃土上默默耕耘的苦力们

P.S.怀念怀尚在人世青萝君

干了好几年的无薪苦力,最近总是想要在尚能填坑之年留下点东西,正赶上被催书评,于是就有了这篇充满了无病呻吟的牢骚与极尽刻薄之能事的文章。

苦力新人可以适度参考,若是内文所述能提供帮助,笔者将不胜荣幸。当然最根本的,如果苦力们都按这篇小文里的标准翻译的话,校对人员的任务会轻松很多……

一、标点

笔者将在这一小段内容概括地说明一下翻译中需要特别注意的事项。为什么要浪费笔墨介绍这种妇孺皆知的微末细节?能问出这个问题的读者一定都是未曾读过某可敬作家兼编辑——Philip Athans先生——的作品(例如War of the Spider Queen V: Annihilation,即《蛛后5》)。如果你从来没有读过英文小说,或者对文学殿堂还抱有未破灭的幻想,那么请允许笔者提出忠告:趁早打消那些不切实际的念头,先好好把这篇小品文看完。

1.逗号

在逗号用法上,汉语与英语之间存在着较大差别。举例来说,汉语中可以用逗号隔开复句中的两个分句,但英语不行,呃,容笔者再想想……好吧,不行。

所以又怎样?对于英文作品中一连串的短句该如何处理,总不能全都用句号对不对?虽然标点符号在某些情况下算入文本总字数,不过这种充数手段太过卑劣,笔者不推荐;理清原文中两个句子的逻辑关系,去掉句号、代以逻辑连接词无疑是更过硬的凑数手段。

汉语中,标准的逗号是“,”——胡乱沿用英文中的逗号会给校对人员带来麻烦,也会影响翻译作品的形式一致性。

2.分号

分号的停顿长于逗号,可以向下容纳逗号,可以间隔并列成分,可以间隔含意对立的语句……很多时候,分号可以替代句号使用。仍需要注意的是,英译汉时常要把英文的分号改换成中文的句号。

3.冒号

这里有个例子。

他意在刺中它,甚至砍掉它的脑袋,然而他的对手显示出了惊人的敏捷:它脑袋一偏,瑞厄德的剑仅仅在它耳朵上开了个口子。(取自《蛛后5》)

这段话中,冒号起到的作用是解释说明;在另一种情况下,冒号间隔的两个句子是总起与分述关系。

4.引号

汉语中,标准的引号应形如“”和‘’——胡乱沿用英文中的引号会给校对人员带来麻烦,也会影响翻译作品的形式一致性。还有,引号的使用涉及比较重要的直接引语,此处简要说明。

确定直接引语的标点不能以原文的形式(即原文的标点使用)为依据,而应该从译文的语义层次和逻辑关系着眼。

范例一:“总有一天,费瑞恩,”昆赛尔说,“我要让你趴在地上,舔我的靴底。”

前半段引语没有表述完全或者无法单独成句,则用逗号。“某某说”之后的标点一般与前半段引语一致。

范例二:“布鲁诺王并非孤身一人。”瓦拉斯·修恩给贾拉索提了个醒,“我可没有那份闲情逸致跑到崔斯特的营帐附近转悠,等着他看出马脚把我逮个正着。”(节选自《刚特格瑞姆》)

前半段引语表达了完整的意思,与后半段引语的相关性较差,此时可考虑用句号。注意这种情况较少出现。

范例三:“可以。”费瑞恩说着,扭头瞅了妲妮菲一眼,后者似乎仍旧处于法师法术的影响下,全无声息;武技教官挑起眉毛,饶有兴趣地盯着奥法学院的导师,“杰格拉德归我处置,瓦拉斯归你。”

引语和插入语的长度不小于单句,则引语的前半段用句号,插入语除个别情况使用分号,其余情况一律用逗号。

接下来讨论“想”出现时的状况。

基本上,“想”和“说”的处理方法一致,不过对于下述情况,插入语前逗号和句号均可使用。

反正是什么干的地方,他想。(节选自《蛛后5》)

5.破折号

想敲出标准破折号,记得要将输入法设为半角中文,然后按[Shift]+[-]键,注意后者位于主键位区。

另外,用中文输入法打出来的破折号是两个一组;插入成分若不在句末,其两端应各有一组破折号。切记不要把一组破折号拆开使用。

6.省略号

还在因为“。。。”形式的省略号哑然失笑吗?还在因为数不清省略号有多少个黑点而担忧恐惧吗?还在因为敲省略号也得切换到英文输入法而痛苦不堪吗?

May the Lady of Pain be with you.

话说回来,试试[Shift]+[6]如何……

二、数量词

英语里的量词一般可以当名词使用,而汉语的量词一般不可以;英语里的数词和量词一般不是成对出现的,而汉语里的数词和量词经常结合在一起使用。

这种差别造成了很多麻烦:一个烧火棍,一个火柴盒,一个不能说的秘密,一个命运,一个烛台,一个卷轴,一个被弗拉尔砍掉了半边脑袋的恶魔大君,一个名为桑克索斯特的史拉蟾,一个泰舒尔家的高等精灵法师……等等等等不胜枚举。

另外,应该是“一条狗”还是“一只狗”?这个问题困扰了笔者十四年。

言归正传,解决办法有两个:其一,强制所有英美文学作家学习汉语,并改用汉语写作;其二,敦促苦力们多下工夫,使用合适的量词……慢着,这条暂时保留,先容笔者回过头重新考虑下前一条如何?

三、语气助词

英语中几乎没有句末语气助词,而汉语中这类词汇则比较丰富。为什么笔者使用了“比较”,而不用“异常”修饰“丰富”?原因在于异常的语言是日语,不是汉语。但是如果你认为日语的语气助词令人发指,那么笔者必须遗憾地告诉你,令人发指的是某些从日语中搬过来的汉语表述。

在日语中,各种助词的句法功能是如此重要,以至于把所有实词囫囵摞在一起也克制不了成堆的助词。经常面对这种异常语言的苦力们偶尔翻译出颇有双锤擂鼓之风的词句也就情有可原了——将心比心,大家都做过苦力,深知这活儿不好干。

但是,就算再辛苦,也得注重翻译质量是不是,也得有自己的独立思考是不是,也得符合汉语的表达习惯是不是?

“亲友“敢不敢翻译成“死党”?

“差不多点”敢不敢翻译成“适可而止”?

“会被杀”敢不敢翻译成“会没命”?

“武运昌隆”敢不敢翻译成“旗开得胜”?

“家族”敢不敢翻译成“亲人”?

“才能”敢不敢翻译成“天分”?

“诸君”敢不敢翻译成“各位”?

敢不敢直接省略“さん”和“様”,代之以对等的尊敬语气?

敢不敢把句尾表推测的“吧”省略,代之以对等的“也许”“可能”“大概”?

敢不敢把陈述句句尾的“呢”都删掉,这个字明明应当用在疑问句和感叹句的句尾来着好不好?即使拼音和罗马音的字母都是NE也不能乱来啊,再这么胡搞就当真要成为Neutral Evil和Nude Emperor了别说笔者没规劝过。

四、被动语态

被动语态的翻译有两种类型的问题亟须处理:一,表示被动的系词总是被翻译成“被”;二,被动句的表达方式很别扭,影响阅读的流畅度。

不妨尝试对译文做些加工。首先可以用“受到”“遭受”替换掉某些“被”,然后对于剩下的被动句采用补全主语的方法将其还原为主动句。

五、祈使句

这是一类很要命的句子,因为英语中的祈使句有时隐藏得很深,不容易挖掘出来。

"Let's leave here," Magadon said to him. "This is futile. And he is mad."

注意前半句,这是一个直接引语,并且应该算作祈使句。它的意思是什么?笔者猜读者老爷您的脑袋里一定在回荡“让我们离开这里”,对不?啊哈!

不过你们不觉得“走吧”更简洁明了吗?

另外,笔者窃以为全句的翻译应如下示:

“走吧,”玛伽顿对他说,“这没用;更何况他疯了。”

六、疑问句

少用语气词,更不要连用相同的语气词(这一条对于任何形式的句子都适用)。

另外,有些连续出现的疑问句,只有最后一个句字的句尾加问号。

七、本地化

1.求雅替代

Those driven by uncontrollable hunger were dead now.
Those driven by simple self-defense were dead now.
Those driven by foolish pride were dead now.
Those driven by instinctual survival were dead or were fleeing.
Those driven by cunning remained, knowing only one could emerge in the end.
被不可抗拒的饥饿驱使的,魂飞魄散。
被单纯的自保本性驱使的,尸骨无存。
被愚不可及的骄傲驱使的,形神俱寂。
被本能的求生欲望驱使的,朽烂泯灭,或是苟且偷生。
被细腻的阴谋诡计驱使的,现在依然存活。他们知道赢家只能有一个。
对其余所有的生命来说,他们面前只有苦役或消亡;没有其他选择。(节选自《蛛后5》)
2.头衔

奇幻翻译的老大难问题。比方说Master和Mistress,这两个词同样出自《蛛后5》:前者指地位较高的男性,后者指女性;与Host和Hostess的用法有那么些相似之处。

Master比较好办,中文有一火车皮的词汇能指代男性上级;Mistress则有些棘手,因为男尊女卑的社会给妇女找个够格的称谓不太容易,况且如果本土气味太重,有很大可能被人说成是在乱弹琴。

或许可以借鉴一下笔者的优秀同僚想出的办法,即“同词不同称”:“Master”用在瑞厄德身上,意指“(格斗武塔)教官”;用在费瑞恩身上,意指“(奥法学院)导师”;费瑞恩称呼昆赛尔“Mistress”,意为“(蜘蛛教院)教长”;妲妮菲称呼昆赛尔“Mistress”,意为“女主人”。

不过,采用这个方法也未必能将问题圆满解决,因为“Mistress”在瓦拉斯称呼昆赛尔或是崔斯特称呼丽芮尔(?)的场合完全无法举出一个有效的替代称谓。

相比之下,your majesty, your highness, your grace, your holiness, your honor简直不能称为问题。

3.成分补全

简单介绍下两类待补全的表达。

一类是物主代词+名词,如“她的照片”。这里没交待清楚是“她”拥有照片,还是“她”被映入照片,所以在翻译中应适当据文意进行补充。

另一类是范畴词缺失,如”There were two reasons that…”推荐翻译成“关于……有两方面的原因”。

4.同位语

像是Klauth the Red,可以翻译成红龙克劳斯,简单否?

但如果是Azoun the Great呢?

同样糟糕的还有Jemorille the Exile等。

5. 修辞

①转类

The beauty of nature,和“Silence!”都属于这种;前者等于The beautiful nature,后者等于“Be silent!”

②头韵

例子:”You will wane. You will wither. You will waste away.”好吧,笔者承认更喜欢他的”Suffer! You will all suffer!”

这个玩意在汉语译文里很难体现,把三个押韵的单词对等地翻译成包含相同数量音节的汉语词汇就已经很困难了,如果你还想得寸进尺地押上一个中文的韵……当笔者没什么都说好了。

③提喻

The epic task fell onto his shoulders.

记不清楚了,大概是这样的。在汉语里提喻几乎得不到体现,上一句的译文可以单纯地看做对” The epic task fell on him.”做联立翻译并求文雅解的结果。

④拟古

Ed Greenwood先生就是凭借这项修辞手法,辅以某番茄手的翻云覆雨,毁掉了伊尔明斯特系列在国人心中的口碑。

拟古手法使用的古词一般限于晚近英语,也就是用到sate, saith, thine, thou, yer, yon等为止;如果某无良作者祭出中古英语那无异于自寻死路。

⑤强调

《蛛后之战第五卷:湮灭》中有不少斜体表示的强调内容,翻译的时候一般只需要用字体相应处理就可以,但是有些情况下被斜体标记的可能是连词或介词,其中以后一种情形最为难缠,建议标记与介词相关度最高的实词或短语。哦,你认为被标记的词语应该与原文保持一致,这么说来尊驾要横跨半个自然段去斜体化与in对应的“在太古红龙——这个称号并不源于它驻足凡尘那上千年的岁月,亦不取自于它蹲踞着便能填充一座高达三十尺的钟乳石洞的庞大身躯,而是源于它与日俱增履及神祇的智慧——卡劳斯希萨姆里纳恩培卢杜纳西维特斯汀兰辛蒙提拉契脑海中”吗?

6.主语删减

连续看到多个句子的开头都是清一色的“他”肯定让人心烦,这时候可以考虑把这些语句的谓语置于同一句话当中,无形中可以省略掉不少单调的主语。

“坦桑索尔,”梅莎心不在焉地说,她的眼睛始终盯着窗外的百灵鸟,“莉尔菈来了,在楼下等着你。”

上面的一小段话可以改成如下形式:

“坦桑索尔,” 始终盯着窗外的百灵鸟的梅莎心不在焉地说,“莉尔菈来了,在楼下等着你。”

7.连绵词与叠词

如蜿蜒(动词)、朦胧(形容词)、叮咚(拟声词),将这种音调相近、偏旁相同、分拆后不具有明确意义的词称作连绵词。叠词就不说了,大家都懂。

需要注意的是,有些词的不具有叠词形式,比如“笔直”,既不能说笔笔直直(最近的调查结果表示这种用法是存在的,笔者对此仍然存疑)也不能说笔直直。

最后,“很好”不具有叠词形式。

8.情态动词与虚拟语气

这两样东西汉语里都没有,完全略去似乎也不影响表意,但也有”We shall see”和”You will see”这种捣乱的坏分子。前者(结合上下文)可以译为“走着瞧”,后者可以译为“时机未到”“天机不可泄露”或者“到时候你自然会知道”——诸位老爷请自行定夺。

9.直译与意译(文化习惯与语言习惯——圣者)

在翻译中找不到到适合直译的等价词汇时,有些译者便退而求其次,选取了某些对等的表述方式:笔者认为这么做无可厚非,然而关于这种做法的讨论却无时无刻不在地球的某个——也可能是多个——角落回荡。

深入讨论意译的有效性是逻辑学家语言哲学家符号学家的工作,笔者能做的只有声明一点:意译不能违反文化传统,也不能与约定俗称的词义冲突。由于语言也是文化的一部分,根据有效的三段论,意译也不能违反语言习惯。

不知诸位是否听过《圣者三部曲》,就是The Avatar Trilogy?单看中文名没啥特别的,不过和英文原名一对照……

这译名是第一命名者心血来潮的恶搞吧,就像“内功精湛的耗子太极拳师使出一式野马分鬃”什么的?

按照惯常的理解“圣者”指的是具有“圣”这种特质的人,而作为圣者,理应具有一个个体应享有的自主权利,如此一来,在D&D——或更进一步的FR——中漫天乱飞的“某某某的圣者”这种描述便显得荒诞无稽,因为后者听起来像是在表达“某某某的奴隶”“某某某的备胎”“某某某的拳击沙袋”。

简而言之,“圣者”这个翻译的失败之处在于将一个与本土文化不相恰的词项硬生生挤占——并在某种程度上覆盖——了该词原本的含义,与“世界观”的翻译大体属一类错误,却比后者更为严重。

10.亲属关系

①与父亲同系的长辈

父亲的兄弟为伯父和叔父;父亲的父亲为祖父,父亲的母亲为祖母;祖父的兄弟可以通过添加序数词称呼,也可称为伯祖父、叔祖父;祖父的姐妹为姑祖母(姑奶奶)。

父亲的姐妹称为姑母,姑母的丈夫为姑父;祖母的兄弟为舅祖父(舅爷爷),祖母的姐妹为姨祖母。

②与母亲同系的长辈

母亲的兄弟为舅父;母亲的父亲为外祖父,母亲的母亲为外祖母;外祖父的兄弟仍为外祖父,外祖父的姐妹为外姑祖母(姑姥姥)。

母亲的姐妹称为姨母,姨母的丈夫为姨夫;外祖母的兄弟为外舅祖父(舅姥爷),外祖母的姐妹为外姨祖母。

③堂兄弟姐妹及其配偶、子女

堂兄弟姐妹即叔伯兄妹/姐弟,包括伯父叔父的子女、祖父及其兄弟的孙子孙女、曾祖父及其兄弟的曾孙与曾孙女……

(堂)兄弟姐妹的配偶依次称作嫂子、弟妹、姐夫和妹夫;(堂)兄弟的子女为侄子侄女,(堂)姐妹的子女为外甥外甥女。

④表兄弟姐妹及其配偶、子女

表兄弟姐妹指姑表兄妹和姨表姐弟(这是一种被称作互文的危险技巧,请不要模仿),包括姑母的子女、姨母的子女、祖母兄弟姐妹的孙辈、祖父姐妹的孙辈、外祖父及其兄弟姐妹的孙辈、外祖母及其兄弟姐妹的孙辈……

表弟姐妹的配偶依次称作表嫂、表弟妹、表姐夫和表妹夫;表兄弟的子女为表侄表侄女,表姐妹的子女为(表)外甥(表)外甥女

⑤部分姻亲的称呼

男方(对外)称妻子的兄弟姐妹为大舅哥、小舅子、大姨姐和小姨子;(对外)称妻子的父母为岳父岳母。

女方(对外)称丈夫的兄弟姐妹为大伯子、小叔子、大姑姐和小姑子;(对外)称丈夫的父母为公公婆婆。

笔者举出《XXX泣XX》作为练习。(本来想从《冰火》里出习题的,可那里的关系太乱了,遂作罢)

鲁道夫:乔治和玛利亚的舅父

杰西卡:巴偷乐的堂姐(妹),罗萨的侄女

安洁:克劳斯的侄女,乔治的表妹

到此,笔者突发奇想:以上称为以父系社会为基准沿袭至今,对于女性占据主导的黑暗精灵而言,有没有必要把亲属称呼作相应变换?

不论结论如何,我都要感谢《海XXXXX》的译者给笔者带来的将亲属关系阴阳倒错的启发,在此致以最高敬意。

八、翻译中的常见错误及不当表意

说起这个笔者就来劲,以至于心甘情愿地冒着被人鄙视和受人敌视的风险,倾尽全力地书写这一小节。唔,但可惜的是,毕竟错误太多了,捡了西瓜丢了芝麻,难以枚举,所以仅仅举出几个为广大群众喜闻乐见的错误。

1.在某某那里/根据某某

多见于学术专著的翻译,不评价。

前者建议改成“某某则认为/提出/声称”,后者建议改成“根据某某的理论/认识/观点”。

2.为了某某起见

成分赘余,建议去掉“为了”“起见”其中之一。

3.“世界观”

Worldview作为专有词汇,最早见于马克思主义哲学专著。后来大概某个野生译者翻译旅游杂志/游戏前瞻/小说预览,对着偶然遭遇的worldview一筹莫展,然后一拍屁股,想起自己经常迟到加早退的某门课上听过这个词,遂键盘一敲,写下“世界观”三个大字,顿时全身总计三百六十万个毛孔洞无一不舒坦,而“世界观”这“世界架构”的劣化产物也应运而生。

现今在网游中常见的名词“世界观”与哲学专有词“世界观”严重冲突,属于性质极其恶劣的文化传播事故。

4.是……的

“罗丝是不可能复苏的。”

该句子与“罗丝不可能复苏”等价,故第一句话中有两个字是无用的——不对,有两个字无用。

我真正要表达的是,与此类似的结构并不一定完全无用,它与省略掉它后的句子在节奏感和感情色彩上存在区别。想要翻出流畅的译文,应注意不要过多过频使用包含这种结构的句子。

5.为什么……的原因

蠢,略。

九、关于“的地得”【搬运者自行加黑】

每逢TIF的项目完工,最痛苦的莫过于责任校对,大把大把待纠正的标点和一山一山的“的地得”误用,直教人看得求生不得求死不能,偏偏这些错误靠替换功能还无法尽善尽美,只能手工纠正,辛劳的校对人员由此成为TIF的一级消耗品。闲话打住,重归正题。

通常情况下,“的”出现在形容词和名词之间,“地”出现在副词和动词之间,“得”出现在动补之间或形副之间。虽然现在有一律“的”化的趋势,不过那是邪道,好孩子不要学。

笔者有没有说过几乎任何一篇小说的翻译完结后都有约1000个“的地得”错误需要纠正,其中有150个左右是笔者自己犯下的……啊,又跑题了。

既然大家对“的”“地”的用法都很熟悉,笔者就说明下得的用法好了。

首先抛开“动词补语”这种艰深的词汇,来看几个直观的例子:

费瑞恩·米兹瑞姆的嘴贫得厉害;

杰格拉德力气大,跑得快,跳得高;

昆赛尔今天起得格外早,她现在正和妲妮菲一起靠在混沌之舟的栏杆上,舒展身体;

“你说得对,费瑞恩,”瑞厄德满脸痛切,“死掉后我才明白,如果当初我没有跟赫丽斯特去地表,而是和你……”(Yoooooo!)

“得”除了例一中连接副词与形容词,在其他几例中均用来连接动词及其补语。

请有志于苦力事业的同学举报没有教授相关知识的语文教师并自行补完相关课程。想干翻译,语文基础是非常重要的,甚至说是最重要的因素也不为过。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #18 于: 2017-12-23, 周六 00:03:50 »
以下是龙杂志1980年总第38期上的一篇文章的机翻,因为说得太tm好了所以我急于放出来。我会尽快进行精翻。
翻不动了,自力更生吧。

善良不是愚蠢:圣武士与游侠
作者:加里·盖加克斯

在一些高级的d&d球员中,似乎存在着一种持续的误解,那就是所谓的“好”一词实际上指的是什么。这个问题模棱两可,当然,如果没有清晰的定义好,邪恶怎么能知道?道德和伦理的戒律是基于宗教教义、世俗法律、家庭教义和个人对这些组合原则的看法。如果一个人深刻地反映出了这些问题的原因,就会让人感到不安,因为很多人都无法决定好行为的权利和错误,除非其中一个人认为这个游戏是幻想,因此意识到这是一种无法在日常生活和想象的环境中形成平行的问题,这是一种无法理解的现象。为了立即澄清这一记录,并为所有参与者定义“好”这个词,它意味着字典中定义的所有东西都是由一个人的道德和道德教养和土地法律所定义的。
温和的读者,如果你对某一行动有疑问——这尤其适用于所有玩游骑兵和圣骑士的人——把它与你的现实生活联系起来。最可能的是,在现实中被认为是“好”的东西在幻想中是“好的”。相反的情况并不完全正确,所以我要对一些东西进行量化。
好的并不意味着愚蠢,即使你的DM试图强加给你这个概念。这样的断言本身就是愚蠢的,而接受这种说法的人是愚蠢的。然而,为了量化“好”,我们还必须考虑到ad&d校准系统中的三个修饰词:1)合法;2)中性;和3)混乱。
1)对良善的合法看法表明,为最伟大的人提供最大利益的次序是最好的。它进一步假定,混乱带来的结果削弱了对大多数人有利的能力。因此,没有法律和秩序,美好就会化为乌有。
2)从中立的观点来看,好的东西也许是最纯粹的,因为它不关心秩序或个人自由高于整体的好,所以对什么是好的定义没有限制。无论结果如何,都是可以接受的,而使用的手段不应被认为是对任何生物造成的伤害,如果有另一种方法能够达到理想的效果而不让他人生病,或者更好的是,在某种程度上也能带来好的结果。
3)从个人立场出发的混乱观点是有必要的。混乱的本质是个人的意愿,自由不受约束,人的权利高于一切。好是首先应用于自我;之后,对周围的人;最后是那些远离自我的人——如果你愿意的话,会产生连锁反应。重要的是要明白“好”对自己并不意味着“坏”,尽管对自己的“好”可能不会给别人带来好处,或者任何好处,就这一点而言。然而,后一种情况是正当的,只有当它使个人在可预见的将来能够更好地为他人带来真正的“好”。
AD&D环境对现实世界的一个好处是,我们确实对善与恶有相当清晰的定义——如果不是概念上的(从本文的必要性来看),至少是名义上的。角色和怪物都有方便的标签,以方便识别他们的道德和道德地位。黑色是黑色,灰色是灰色,白色是白色。黑色、灰色和白色的色调都有强烈的色彩,但无论如何,这些大的标签都是可以阅读的。
在任何竞选活动中,最后的仲裁者都是DM,这个人在这些对齐标签上象征性地印上了精美的图案,但他或她必须遵循规则书的大致轮廓,否则就必须面对他或她的竞选活动不是AD&D运动的事实。此外,参加这种活动的人可以停止玩。这是对裁判的行为表示不满的最可靠和最直言不讳的方式。实际上,标签和它们的一般含义是在ad&d规则中定义的,具体的细节必须由参与小组的成员来定义。
根据年龄、文化和神学训练的不同,对善的看法也不同。一个孩子看不出父母受到的惩罚有什么好处——让我们说玩火柴。文化对善的定义可能是在吃完东西后大声打嗝,或者是杀死任何一个执行某种禁忌行为的人。对善的神学定义就像文化的定义一样多种多样,有些文化的定义受到宗教的影响和影响,而宗教信仰的不同之处在于不同的文化。那么,一个作品在描绘善与恶、法律与混乱、以及(如果存在于现实中)之间的中间地带,是不可能的。然而,这并不意味着“好”可以是任何想要的东西,任何告诉你的人,实际上,这句话的意思是“好”是愚蠢的,应该得到嘲弄的嘲笑(至少)。
龙杂志第36期(1980年4月)的圣哲咨询专栏中包含了一些与圣骑士和游骑兵有关的有趣问题和答案。让我们根据前面的情况来研究这些:
一个有圣骑士角色的玩家问这个角色是否可以“让一个人死亡(谁)被严重的伤害并且不想活下去。”尽管在明智的建议中给出的答复是一个强烈的否定,但在这里我们可以提出,这个问题的实际真相可能在别的地方。玩家不会给出圣骑士所提供的神的名字。这是在AD&D条款中合法良好行为的关键。记住,“好”往往与现实有关,但并非总是如此。它也可能与过去所感知到的,真实的或虚构的事物有关。在后一种情况下,圣骑士可以很好地在剑点进行转换,一旦接受了“真实的方式”,就会立即派遣新的皈依者。这就保证了浪子不会回到从前的邪恶方式,把现在被拯救的精神带到一个更好的地方,顺便让世界上一个潜在的麻烦制造者。这样的行动是“好”的:
1。邪恶被(至少有一种生物)所限制。
2。Good已经取得了转变。
3号。现在皈依者希望在来世得到奖励(而不是折磨)
4。好的民众更安全(至少有1个因素)。
因此,一个圣骑士实际上可以执行“安乐死”,如询问玩家所要求的那样,前提是他或她的神学的信条允许这样做。虽然不太可能,但还是有可能的。
另一个例子是一个具有圣骑士角色的玩家,他想要结婚并开始一个血统。同样,我们的明智建议是否定的。尽管许多宗教禁止结婚并要求独身,但这绝不是普遍的。当然,关键是神的服务。DMs不使用特殊的,具体的神灵将会回到“圣骑士”这个词的起源,并意识到独身不是那种圣骑士的状态。此外,尽管罗马天主教会要求其牧师的“西行”,但“犹太基督教”的教义——基督教将婚姻和养育子女视为“神圣的”,即“善”。因此,除非某个特定的神灵要求其战斗仆从的独身,否则就没有可能的理由让圣骑士不结婚生子。这是一个常识问题,而DM,如果他或她不是任意的,可能会同意游戏的精神,允许婚姻和孩子。(这一定是一场漫长的战役,否则它的参与者就会全神贯注于游戏的不同寻常的方面。不管....)
第三个询问涉及一个游侠角色。作者声称,他或她的DM和一个合法的护林员一起,坚持认为受伤的维恩是受到保护的,而不是被杀死的,除非它袭击了当事人。这是一个典型的例子,玩家被告知(合法的)好等同于愚蠢。断言一个有邪恶倾向的杀人怪物应该受到一个合法的护林员的保护是纯粹的精神错乱。有多少人会立刻冒这个险?有多少受害者会被判处死刑?简而言之,这不是任何公认的标准的“好”!这就像一只狂犬,一只凶猛的大象,或是一只吃人的老虎。
如果仔细考虑了好,与之对比并与邪恶形成对比,那么常识将使大部分,即使不是全部的,关于圣骑士和游骑兵的行为的问题都能得到解决。考虑到这个角色的神祗是在了解了善的基础上才得到的。此后,在文化基础上的“世界”道德和伦理教育必须规范。这些概念可能来自神话或其他来源。重要的是,“善”的定义是建立在理智和合理的基础上的。观点是不同的,所以绝对的准则(尤其是在游戏中)是不可取的,也是不可能的。


原文:
劇透 -   :
There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding amongst a segment of ADVANCED D&D® players as to what the term “good” actually means. This problem does cut both ways, of course, for if good is not clearly defined, how can evil be known? Moral and ethical precepts are based on religious doctrines, secular laws, family teachings, and individual perceptions of these combined tenets. It might be disturbing if one reflected deeply upon the whys and wherefores of the singular inability of so many players to determine for themselves the rights and wrongs of good behavior — unless one related this inability to the fact that the game is fantasy and therefore realized (rationalized?) that this curious lack must stem from the inability to draw a parallel between daily life and the imagined milieu. In order to clear the record immediately, then, and define the term “good” for all participants, it means everything defined in the dictionary as augmented and modified by one’s moral and ethical upbringing and the laws of the land!
Gentle Reader, if you are in doubt about a certain action —and this applies particularly to all who play rangers and paladins — relate it to your real life. It is most probable that what is considered “good” in reality can be “good” in fantasy. The reverse is not quite so true, so I’ll quantify things a bit.
Good does not mean stupid, even if your DM tries to force that concept upon you. Such assertions are themselves asinine, and those who accept such dictates are stupid. To quantify “good,” however, we must also consider the three modifiers in the AD&D™ alignment system: 1) lawful; 2) neutral; and 3) chaotic.
1)   The lawful perception of good dictates that the order which promotes the greatest good for the greatest number is best. It further postulates that disorder brings results which erode the capability of bestowing good to the majority. Therefore, without law and order, good pales into nothingness.
2)   Good from the neutral perception is perhaps the purest sort, in that it cares not for order or individual freedom above overall good, so there are no constraints upon the definition of what is good. Whatever accomplishes the good result is acceptable, and the means used should not be so fixed as to bring bad to any creature if an alternative way exists which accomplishes the desired good without bringing ill to others — or better still, brings good to all in one degree or another.
3)   The chaotic views good from an individual standpoint, of necessity. The very stuff of chaos is individual volition, freedom from all constraints, the right of person above all else. Good is first and foremost applied to self; thereafter to those surrounding self; lastly to those furthest removed from self — a ripple effect, if you will. It is important to understand that “good” for self must not mean “bad” for others, although the “good” for self might not bring like benefits to others — or any benefit at all, for that matter. However, the latter case is justifiable as “good” only if it enables the individual to be in a better position to bring real “good” to others within the foreseeable future.
One of the advantages of the AD&D environment over the real world is that we do have pretty clear definitions of good and evil — if not conceptually (as is evident from the necessity of this article), at least nominally. Characters and monsters alike bear handy labels to allow for easy identification of their moral and ethical standing. Black is black, gray is gray, white is white. There are intensities of black, degrees of grayness, and shades of white, but the big tags are there to read nonetheless.
The final arbiter in any campaign is the DM, the person who figuratively puts in the fine print on these alignment labels, but he or she must follow the general outlines of the rule book or else face the fact that his or her campaign is not an AD&D campaign. Furthermore, participants in such a campaign can cease playing. That is the surest and most vocal manner in which to demonstrate displeasure with the conduct of a referee. In effect, the labels and their general meanings are defined in the AD&D rules, and the details must be scribed by the group participating.
Perceptions of good vary according to age, culture, and theological training. A child sees no good in punishment meted out by parents — let us say for playing with matches. Cultural definitions of good might call for a loud belch after eating, or the killing of any person who performs some taboo act. Theological definitions of good are as varied as cultural definitions, and then some, for culture is affected by and affects religion, and there are more distinct religious beliefs than there are distinct cultures. It is impossible, then, for one work to be absolute in its delineation of good and evil, law and chaos, and the middle ground between (if such can exist in reality). This does not, however, mean that "good” can be anything desired,and anyone who tells you, in effect, that good means stupid, deserves a derisive jeer (at least).
The Sage Advice column in issue #36 of DRAGON™ magazine (April 1980) contained some interesting questions and answers regarding “good” as related to paladins and rangers. Let us examine these in light of the foregoing:
A player with a paladin character asked if this character could “put someone to death (who) is severely scarred and doesn't want to live.” Although the reply given in Sage Advice was a strong negative, it is suggested here that the actual truth of the matter might lie somewhere else. The player does not give the name of the deity served by the paladin. This is the key to lawful good behavior in AD&D terms. Remember that “good” can be related to reality often, but not always. It might also relate to good as perceived in the past, actual or mythical. In the latter case, a paladin could well force conversion at sword point, and, once acceptance of "the true way" was expressed, dispatch the new convert on the spot. This assures that the prodigal will not return to the former evil ways, sends the now-saved spirit on to a better place, and incidentally rids the world of a potential troublemaker. Such actions are "good,” in these ways:
1.   Evil is abridged (by at least one creature).
2.   Good has gained a convert.
3.   The convert now has hope for rewards (rather than torment) in the afterlife.
4.   The good populace is safer (by a factor of at least 1).
It is therefore possible for a paladin to, in fact, actually perform a "mercy killing” such as the inquiring player asked about, provided the tenets of his or her theology permitted it. While unlikely, it is possible.
Another case in point was that of a player with a paladin character who wishes to marry and begin a lineage. Again, our Sage Advice suggests a negative. While many religions forbid wedlock and demand celibacy, this is by no means universal. The key is again the deity served, of course. DMs not using particular, specific deities will harken back to the origin of the term “paladin" and realize that celibacy is not a condition of that sort of paladin-hood. Also, although the Roman Catholic church demands celibacy of its priests, the doctrines of Judeo- Christianity hold matrimony and the bearing and rearing of children as holy and proper, i.e. “good." So unless a particular deity demands celibacy of its fighter-minions, there is no conceivable reason for a paladin not to marry and raise children. This is a matter for common sense — and the DM, who, if he or she is not arbitrary, will probably agree with the spirit of the game and allow marriage and children. (This must be a long- range campaign, or else its participants are preoccupied with unusual aspects of the game. No matter....)
The third inquiry concerned a ranger character. The writer claimed that his or her DM combined with a lawful good ranger to insist that a wounded wyvern was to be protected, not slain, unless it attacked the party. Here is a classic case of players being told that (lawful) good equates with stupidity. To assert that a man-killing monster with evil tendencies should be protected by a lawful good ranger is pure insanity. How many lives does this risk immediately? How many victims are condemned to death later? In short, this is not “good” by any accepted standards! It is much the same as sparing a rabid dog or a rogue elephant or a man-eating tiger.
If good is carefully considered, compared to and contrasted with evil, then common sense will enable most, if not all, questions regarding the behavior of paladins and rangers to be settled on the spot. Consideration of the character’s deity is of principal merit after arriving at an understanding of good. Thereafter, campaign "world" moral and ethical teachings on a cultural basis must rule. These concepts might be drawn from myth or some other source. What matters is that a definition of “good” is established upon intelligent and reasonable grounds. Viewpoints do differ, so absolutes (especially in a game) are both undesirable and impossible.
« 上次编辑: 2018-01-18, 周四 21:55:56 由 Victor »
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #19 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 21:59:42 »
机翻第二弹

Tolkien in Dungeons & Dragons
by Rob Kunlz

Many people who play and enjoy D&D still have their complaints to offer TSR in one form or the other. One which crops up persistently is the comparison issue between Dungeons and Dragons and that of J.R.R. Tolkien’s works. Some people get to the crux of the matter by stating the obvious disagreements between Tolkien’s conceptions and fictional characters as compared to their representation within the D&D game format. In some cases I believe they (those who send in pro- Tolkien letters) are trying to impress the creators of D&D as to the worthiness of their Tolkien quoted statements. I will attempt to explain our position on D&D in conjunction with other worlds of fantasy which influenced its conception and specifically to clear up the fallacious beliefs regarding Tolkien’s fantasy as the only fantasy which inspired D&D. But first, parts of a letter from a concerned player in the same line..,
"I was influenced greatly by the writings of Tolkien and was led into the world of fantasy by the inhabitants of the Shire. For this reason 1 prefer as player characters elves and dwarves. I feel that the ’roll three dice method' of determining the prime requisites of the players is fair and equitable for humans but is ultimately unfair to the non- humans.” .. .“I feel it is only fair to these non-human beings to make a concession as follows: For elves roll three dice but put a limit of no less than 12 for strength and IS for intelligence as minimums so if less is rolled the minimum automatically applies. The dwarves as a people are a race of miners and smiths, therefore a strength of less than 14 would be almost unheard of.” . . . “In Tolkien the elves made some of the most powerful offensive weapons ... I realize that the many varied enchanted blades could not be forged by mere warlocks but feel that one could be enchanted to a mere + I by six months of hard work.”
One might say that 1 am knit-picking without reason in presenting this letter.! for one believe that this may be a minor problem in the D&D field but it, along with other disorganized ideas about the actual way (or the right way) of playing D&D create a noticeable dividing line between the way we at TSR play the game and the way we intended it to be played. Individualism within the game itself is stressed and we do not actively go out of our way to remonstrate people for exercising their imagination within their campaign. We also hope that those people will respect the way we play for we think the designers know best.
The game was designed stressing the human aspect of play, humans being ultimately the strongest and predominant race on any earth. With a few exceptions most worlds of Fantasy and Swords St Sorcery writers are predominantly inhabited by humans. Elves, dwarves and hobbits were the minority races on Middle-Earth and were never in the spotlight for long time periods. Furthermore, D&D was not written to recreate or in any collective way simulate Professor Tolkien’s world or beings. A few were included such as Balrogs, Ores etc. for it was recognized that Tolkien made some impressions upon the Fantasy literary world which were worth including in D&D, but not to the extent of basing the game system around them. That is left up to separate judges — but in doing so they excommunicate themselves from the actual D&D system. As I stated earlier we support creative imagination but we also support the premise of D&D. Those who base their games around a single work such as LOT are playing a campaign based around Middle-Earth and since D&D was not written to create a basis for one world, it is thus not strict D&D. Players must remember also that dves, dwarves and similar creatures were around before Tolkien took to the field and determinations of advancement etc. are left to the separate authors or judges as the case may arise. Tolkien's elves may have been on the average better than a human of his world but in D&D it can be quite the opposite. On the other side of the coin, though elves and dwarves are limited to the level they may attain they gain early advantage (noticing secret doors, sloping passages etc.) which partially makes up for their lower levels later on.
One must also remember that this system works with the worlds of R.E. Howard, Fritz Leiber and L.S. de Camp and Fletcher Pratt much better than that of Tolkien. If one is to branch away from the D&D system, let’s say towards Tolkien’s world, he will be disappointed to find that most spells, characters etc. do not funaion well within the epic world of Tolkien’s design. The Professor was concerned with presenting a well-told tale of sheer magnitude and greatness culminating with the end of the story, end of the characters, end of the world for all it was worth, for what more was there actually to do? There was not a continuing story line possible, for the story itself was in faa based around the destruction of the Ring and all those events which were spawned from it. As we would say at TSR “END OF ADVENTURE"
What I am saying is that for a role-playing, continuous adventuring world, Tolkien’s does not fit well within the D&D game style. Thus, difficulties will always be found when one attempts to combine D&D and Tolkien’s Middle-Earth into one. One last piece of information which might help those people out there who are confused about which "light” Dungeons A Dragons should be taken in or how the game was inspired; I suggest you read the following. This is an excerpt taken from the foreword to Dungeons and Dragons, written by Gary Gygax.
“These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don’t care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howards' Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber’s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons and Dragons to their taste.”
May you never be caught in a dead end by an iron golem!
托尔金在龙与地下城
许多玩和享受D&D的人仍然有他们的抱怨,以一种形式或另一种形式提供TSR。《龙与地下城》、《龙与地下城》、《托尔金的作品》的比较问题是一个持续不断的问题。有些人通过陈述托尔金的概念和虚构人物之间明显的分歧,与他们在d&d游戏格式中的表现相比,找到了问题的症结所在。在某些情况下,我相信他们(那些用托尔金书信的人)试图给D&D的创造者留下深刻印象,让他们相信他们的托尔金所引用的那些话的价值。我将尝试解释我们在D&D的位置与其他幻想世界的联系,这影响了它的概念,并且明确地澄清了关于托尔金的幻想的错误的信念是唯一激发了D&D的幻想。但是,首先,一封来自有关玩家的信件的部分内容是相同的。
我深受托尔金的著作的影响,并被夏尔的居民带入了奇幻世界。因此,我更喜欢扮演精灵和矮人的角色。我觉得“掷三骰子法”来决定玩家的首要要求是公平公正的,但最终对非人类是不公平的。”……。“我觉得对这些非人类的人来说,做出这样的让步是公平的,因为精灵们掷出了三次骰子,但他们的力量是不低于12的,智力是最低的,所以如果最小的是最小的,那么最小值是自动适用的。”矮人作为一个民族,是矿工和铁匠的种族,因此少于14人的力量几乎是闻所未闻的。”。“在托尔金,精灵们制造了一些最强大的攻击性武器……”我意识到,许多不同的魔法叶片不可能是由术士锻造的,但我觉得只要用6个月的努力,就可以把它变成一个+ I的魔法。”
有人可能会说,在给这封信的时候,我毫无理由地捡起了这件东西。首先,在D&D领域,这可能是一个小问题,但它和其他一些关于用D&D的方法的不合理的想法,在我们的游戏规则和我们想要的方式之间产生了明显的分界线。游戏中的个人主义是有压力的,我们不会主动去反对人们在他们的运动中锻炼他们的想象力。我们也希望那些人会尊重我们的游戏方式,因为我们认为设计师知道的最好。
这个游戏的设计强调了人类的游戏,人类最终是地球上最强大和最主要的种族。有少数几个例外,大多数幻想和剑的世界都是由人类组成的。精灵、矮人和霍比特人是中土世界的少数民族,他们在很长一段时间内都没有在聚光灯下。此外,d&d并不是用来再现或以任何一种集体的方式来模拟托尔金教授的世界或生物。有一些被认为是巴尔罗格斯、矿石等,因为它被认为是托尔金在幻想文学世界中留下了一些印象,这在d&d中是值得的,但并没有把游戏系统建立在它们周围。这是留给不同的法官的,但这样他们就能从真正的D&D系统中脱离出来了。正如我之前所说的,我们支持创造性的想象力,但我们也支持d&d的前提。那些以一项工作为基础的人,例如许多人,都在围绕中土世界进行着一场运动,因为D&D没有为一个世界创造一个基础,因此,它不是stria D&D。玩家还必须记住,在托尔金进入战场之前,矮人和其他类似的生物都在附近,随着案件的发生,他们会被留给独立的作者或法官。托尔金的精灵们也许比他的世界上的人类更优秀,但在D&D中,却完全相反。在硬币的另一边,尽管精灵和矮人被限制在他们能达到的水平上,他们获得了早期的优势(注意到秘密的门,倾斜的通道等),这部分弥补了他们后来的低水平。那些把自己的游戏围绕在一项工作上的人,比如很多人,都是在中土世界的基础上进行的,因为d&d并不是为一个世界创造一个基础,所以它不是严格的d&d。玩家们还必须记住,在托尔金走上战场之前,小矮人和类似的生物都在附近,而随着案件的发展,他们将被交给独立的作家或法官。托尔金的精灵也许比他的世界上的人类的平均水平要好,但在d&d,情况可能恰恰相反。在硬币的另一边,尽管精灵和矮人被限制在他们能达到的水平上,他们获得了早期的优势(注意到秘密的门,倾斜的通道等),这部分弥补了他们后来的低水平。
人们还必须记住,这个体系与R.E.霍华德、Fritz Leiber和L.S.德坎普和弗莱彻普的世界都比托尔金的世界要好得多。如果一个人从D&D体系中走出来,让我们对托尔金的世界说,他会失望地发现,在托尔金设计的史诗世界里,大多数咒语、人物等都不太好。这位教授关心的是讲述一个完整的故事,讲述的是一个宏大而伟大的故事,故事的结尾,人物的结尾,世界的尽头,这一切都是值得的,还有更多的事情要做吗?没有一个持续的故事线可能,因为故事本身是在联邦航空局根据环的破坏和所有这些事件产生的。就像我们在TSR的“冒险之旅”中说的那样
我想说的是,对于一个角色扮演、不断冒险的世界来说,托尔金的角色并不适合d&d游戏风格。因此,当一个人试图将D&D和托尔金的中土结合在一起时,就会发现困难。最后一条信息可能会帮助那些困惑的人,他们对“光”龙城应该被带到什么地方,或者游戏是如何受到启发的;我建议你阅读以下内容。这是由加里·吉盖克斯写的《龙与地下城》的前言。
这些规则都是严格的幻想。那些缺乏想象力的战争玩家,那些不关心布洛斯“火星探险”的人,约翰·卡特(John Carter)在黑暗的深渊中摸索着,他们在阅读Howards的《柯南传奇》(Howards)时感到不兴奋,他们不喜欢《德坎普》(de Camp)的幻想,或者是弗里茨·雷伯(Fritz Leiber)的Fafhrd,还有那些用他们的剑来对抗邪恶巫术的灰鼠,他们不会发现龙与地下城和龙的味道。
愿你永远不会被铁人困在死胡同里!
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #20 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:00:41 »
机翻第三弹

THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax   
Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful" act, what sort of behavior is "chaotic", w hat constituted an "evil" deed, and how certain behavior is "good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeon- masters construe the terms "chaotic'' and "evil" to mean the same thing, just as they define "lawful" and "good" to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (See HI)
Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e.. a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party's actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party's interest to have the weakening come about.
Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.
Now consider the term "Law” as opposed to "Chaos". While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e.. a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

LAW
Reliability
Propriety
Principled
Righteous
Regularity
Regulation
Methodical
Uniform
Predictable
Prescribed Rules
Order

CHAOS
Unruly
Confusion
Turmoil
Unrestrained
Random
Irregular
Unmethodical
Unpredictable
Disordered
Lawless
Anarchy
关于什么是“合法”行为、什么行为是“混乱”、“邪恶”行为以及某些行为是“好”的问题,仍有许多问题继续出现。在大多数的地下城中,有相当多的困惑——大师们解释说“混乱”和“邪恶”是指同一件事,就像他们定义“合法”和“好”一样。考虑到《龙与地下城》的三卷原作的措辞,这一点也不奇怪。当这篇文章被写下来的时候,他们的意思和我想的一样——注意,我并没有说他们是当时我的想法的同义词。“灰鹰”增刊的措辞让人更加困惑,因为当小册子被写出来时,已经确定了一些实质性的差异。事实上,如果我有机会去做D&D,我就可以通过区分这四种类型来让整个业务变得更加清晰,而许多混乱的生物将是好的,而许多合法的生物将是邪恶的。在进入这四个术语的定义之前,它们的相对位置的图形表示将帮助读者理解进一步的论述。(见你好)
首先要注意的是,中立的区域正好位于划分四种行为区别的线的交叉点上,与图的其余部分相比,这是一个非常小的区域。这指的是真正的中立性,而不是在特定时间内对某些相互作用保持中立,即一场将会削弱一个更强的玩家或游戏元素的战争,而不管“中立”的政党的行为是什么,如果它能使党的利益受到削弱,那么它就很难被用来作为中立的手段。
还要注意,在这张图上的运动对于运动参与者来说是很有可能的,而dungeonmaster实际上应该使这成为一个标准的考虑因素。这将在以后讨论。
现在考虑一下"法律"这个词而不是"混乱"虽然他们是截然不同的人,但他们的定义上既不善良也不邪恶。一个严格管制的社会通常是受严格的法律约束的,即独裁统治,而允许更多个人自由的社会则更加混乱。下面列出的两个术语表指出了这一点。我已将描述这些概念的词列在了数量级(或多或少)的数量级(或多或少)中,以与D&D中两个术语的含义进行比较:

法律
可靠性
礼节
有原则的
公义的
规律
监管
有条不紊的
一致的
可预测的
规定的规则
秩序

混乱
不守规矩的
混乱
动荡
无节制的
随机的
不规则的
不规律的
不可预测的
无序
无法无天的
无政府状态


Basically, then, "Law" is strict order and “Chaos" is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms "Good" and “Evil" expressed in the same manner:

GOOD
Harmless
Friendly
Kind

EVIL
Unfit
Mischievous
Unpleasant

GOOD(cont.)
Honest
Sincere
Helpful
Beneficial
Pure

EVIL (cont.)
Dishonest
Bad
Injurious
Wicked
Corrupt

The terms “Law’' and "Evil" are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt Likewise “Chaos" and "Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely:

LAWFUL/GOOD
CHAOTIC/GOOD
LAWFUL/EVIL
CHAOTIC/EVIL
NEUTRAL

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification of various creatures is shown on Illustration II.
基本上,“法律”是严格的秩序,“混乱”是完全的无政府状态,但是他们的等级从左到右依次排列在图表上。现在把“好”和“邪恶”这两个词用同样的方式表达出来:


无害的
友好的


邪恶的
不称职的
淘气的
不愉快的

好(续)。
诚实的
真诚的
有帮助的
有益的


邪恶(续)。
不诚实的

有害的
邪恶的
腐败的

“法律”和“邪恶”这两个词绝不是相互排斥的。没有理由不能规定和严格执行那些令人不快、有害甚至腐败的规则,同样的“混乱”和“好”也不会形成二分类。混乱可以是无害的、友好的、诚实的、真诚的、有益的或纯粹的。这都表明实际上有五种,而不是三种排列,即:

合法/好
混乱/好
合法/邪恶
混乱/邪恶
中立的

合法的/好的分类是由圣骑士来代表的,混乱/好的对齐是由精灵来代表的,合法/邪恶是吸血鬼的典型,而恶魔是混乱/邪恶的缩影。元素是中性的。各种生物的一般重分类见图二。


Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeon master is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e.. lawful/ good, lawful/evil. etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that self- seeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration If, reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.
Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH's f rom perhaps falls into this category.
What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration.Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and ehaolic/evil and between chaotic- good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends, [f we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first,but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.
This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are t)0t subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeon master,with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.
As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.
如果地下城的主人要保持一个玩家角色对齐的记录,那么在一个类似于插图I的图表上的字符放置就可以了。一开始,每个角色都应该放在他对齐的中心位置,即合法/好,合法/邪恶。在确定每个游戏角色的当前位置时,将考虑每个游戏周的动作。调整通常是主观的,但作为一种指导,裁判可以考虑球员的行为,根据这些特征来表现他的阵营,而反对的行为则可以考虑到强度。例如,可靠性并不像正义那样反映出强烈的合法性。不守规矩的人并不像无法无天的人那样,表明混乱的状态。同样,无害、友好、有益的一切都反映了良好的程度;虽然不愉快、有害、邪恶的人会不断地传达出更大的邪恶。对齐并不能排除代表不同对齐的动作,但是这样的动作必然会影响到执行它们的角色的位置,并且由于这些动作,所涉及的角色的类或排列会发生变化,除非采取相应的行动来平衡事物。不断遵循任何对齐(保持中立)到其定义的绝对字母的玩家角色,必须最终离开图表(插图I),并进入另一个存在的平面。注意,自我寻求既不合法也不混乱,善与恶,除了与其他智慧生物的关系。同样,法律和混乱也不以秩序和无序的终极意义来解释,但是善与恶不是绝对的,而是必须从一种参考框架中来判断,某种气质。在插图的图表上放置生物的位置,在某种程度上反映了作者的气质。
考虑到神话和神话的神,在这个系统中,大多数良性的都趋向于混乱/善良,而混乱/邪恶将代表那些对人类不利的神。有些人是完全混乱的,没有对好或坏的倾向- - - REH的f - rom可能属于这一类。
那么不同阵营之间的互动呢?这个问题很棘手,必须仔细考虑。在这种风气中,合法的/善的与恶的/邪恶的,混乱的-善良的和合法的/邪恶之间存在着截然相反的对立。善与恶都可以为合法的目的服务,相反地,它们可能都为混乱的目的服务,我们假设,在法律与混乱之间的普遍竞争,我们必须假定,在任何最后的斗争中,每一个部门的仆从都将由善与恶的人来代表。这乍一看似乎有些奇怪,但如果主要前提被接受的话,这是相当理性的。然而,除了这样的摊牌,更有可能的是,那些倾向于良好行动的生物会倾向于与任何邪恶的威胁结盟,而邪恶的生物也会做出(不稳定的)联盟,以获得一些互惠的结果——无论是以牺牲敌人的实际代价,还是为了防止敌人的灭绝。邪恶的生物可以被主人预先安排好的行为所束缚,但是一个合法的/好的角色会在不严重影响他的合法地位(不一定是好的)的情况下使用一些混乱/邪恶的生物。
这就把我们带到了这些角色的主题上,而这些角色的作用与其他角色一样,具有很大的自由度。中立的对齐是不言自明的,在插图中显示了真正的中立。注意,圣骑士、族长和邪恶的高祭司都有积极的边界。圣骑士在没有失去其地位的情况下可以移动的区域,如图3所示。如果他使他的角色从这一地区移走,他必须立即寻求神的旨意,以便再次获得他的地位,或被授与神的干预;在那些不符合现状的情况下,这种情况将永远消失。无论是善还是恶的神职人员都必须保持完全的善或恶,尽管地下城主可以允许横向移动,或不受神的惩罚。那些不能保持善良或邪恶的顶级神职人员必须立即做出一些补偿。如果他们失败了,他们就会回到第七层。赎罪,以及它的立竿见影的程度,都要由裁判来解释。德鲁伊只服务于他们自己和自然,他们偶尔也会做出人类的牺牲,但另一方面,他们也帮助农业和畜牧业的人们。因此,德鲁伊是中立的,尽管有点倾向于邪恶的行为。
作为最后的说明,大多数的人类都属于合法的范畴,而大多数的合法的人性都在善与恶之间。在适当的领导下,大多数人都倾向于合法/善。很少人是混乱的,很少人是混乱和邪恶的。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #21 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:01:48 »
机翻第四弹

D&D IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DM
by Gary Gygax
Successful play of D&D is a blend of desire, skill and luck. Desire is often initiated by actually participating in a game. It is absolutely a reflection of the referee's ability to maintain an interesting and challenging game. Skill is a blend of knowledge of the rules and game background as applied to the particular game circumstances favored by the referee. Memory or recall is often a skill function. Luck is the least important of the three, but it is a factor in successful play nonetheless. Using the above criteria it would seem that players who have attained a score or more of levels in their respective campaigns are successful indeed. This is generally quite untrue. Usually such meteoric rise simply reflects an incompetent Dungeonmaster.
While adventurers in a D&D campaign must grade their play to their referee, it is also incumbent upon the Dungeonmaster to suit his campaign to the participants. This interaction is absolutely necessary if the campaign is to continue to be of interest to all parties. It is often a temptation to the referee to turn his dungeons into a veritable gift shoppe of magical goodies, ripe for plucking by his players. Similarly, by a bit of fudging, outdoor expeditions become trips to the welfare department for heaps of loot. Monsters exist for the slaying of the adventurers — whether of the sort who "guard" treasure, or of the wandering variety. Experience points art heaped upon the undeserving heads of players, levels accumulate like dead leaves in autumn, and if players with standings in the 20‘s. 30’s and 40's of levels do not become bored, they typically become filled with an entirely false sense of accomplishment, they are puffed up with hubris. As they have not really earned their standings, and their actual ability has no reflection on their campaign level, they are easily deflated (killed) in a game which demands competence in proportionate measure to players' levels.
It is. therefore, lime that referees reconsider their judging. First, is magic actually quite scarce in your dungeons? It should be! Likewise, treasures should be proportionate both to the levels of the dungeon and the monsters guarding them. Second, absolute disinterest must be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed, let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never temper chance with a bit of "Divine Intervention." but helping players should be a rare act on the referee's part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every circumstance should the referee intervene. Third, create personas for the inhabitants of your dungeon — if they are intelligent they would act cleverly to preserve themselves and slay intruding expeditions out to do them in and steal their treasures. The same is true for wandering monsters. Fourth, there should be some high-level, very tricky and clever chaps in the nearest inhabitation to the dungeon, folks who skin adventures out of their wealth just as prospectors were generally fleeced for their gold in the Old West. When the campaign turkies flock to town trying to buy magical weapons, potions, scrolls, various other items of magical nature, get a chum turned back to flesh, have a corpse resurrected, or whatever, make them pay through their proverbial noses. For example, what would a player charge for like items or services? Find out. add a good bit. and that is the cost you as referee will make your personas charge. This will certainly be entertaining to you. and laying little traps in addition will keep the players on their collective toes. After all. Dungeonmasters are entitled to a little fun tool Another point to remember is that you should keep • strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be stipulated (we will treat this in an upcoming issue of SR or in a D&D supplement as it should be dealt with at length) so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or duplicate potions.
成功的D&D游戏是欲望、技巧和运气的混合。欲望通常是由参与游戏的人发起的。这绝对是裁判维持一场有趣且具有挑战性的比赛的能力的反映。技能是对规则和游戏背景知识的混合,适用于裁判所青睐的特定游戏环境。记忆或回忆往往是一种技能功能。运气是三者中最不重要的,但这也是成功的因素之一。根据以上的标准,那些在各自的运动中取得了分数或更高水平的球员,确实是成功的。这通常是不真实的。通常这样的迅速崛起仅仅反映了无能Dungeonmaster。
在D&D运动中,冒险者必须给他们的裁判打分,而Dungeonmaster也有责任向参与者发起运动。如果要继续让各方都感兴趣,这种互动是绝对必要的。这通常是一种诱惑,让裁判把他的地牢变成一种名副其实的礼物商店,这是他的球员们采摘的时机。同样的,通过一点小小的努力,户外探险就会成为一堆战利品。怪物是为了杀死冒险者而存在的——不管是那些“守护”宝藏的人,还是游荡的物种。经验指出,艺术堆积在不值得拥有的球员头上,在秋天的水平像枯叶一样积淀,如果球员在20年代有排名。30岁和40岁的人不会感到无聊,他们通常会充满一种完全错误的成就感,他们被傲慢自大所膨胀。由于他们并没有真正赢得他们的排名,而且他们的实际能力没有反映在他们的竞选水平上,他们在一场比赛中很容易被放低(被杀),而这一游戏要求他们的能力与球员的水平成正比。
它是。因此,裁判会重新考虑他们的判断。首先,在你的地牢里,魔法真的很稀缺吗?应该是!同样地,宝藏应该与地牢的水平和守卫它们的怪物成比例。第二,绝对的不感兴趣必须由Dungeonmaster来执行,如果一个最喜欢的玩家愚蠢地将自己置于将要被杀死的情况下,让骰子来讲述这个故事并杀死他。这并不是说你不应该用“神圣的干预”来控制机会。“但是,帮助球员应该是裁判的一项罕见的行为,只有当命运似乎不公正地谴责了一名优秀的球员时,才应该采取行动,而裁判的干预也不应在任何情况下发生。”第三,为你的地牢里的居民创造人物——如果他们聪明的话,他们会聪明地保护自己,并杀死入侵的探险队,让他们去偷他们的宝藏。流浪的怪物也是如此。第四,在离地牢最近的地方,应该会有一些高级的、非常狡猾的和聪明的家伙,那些从他们的财富中冒险的人,就像探矿者一般在老西部为他们的黄金而敲诈。当竞选活动的土库曼人涌向城市,试图购买魔法武器、魔药、卷轴和其他各种神奇的物品时,让一个朋友回到他的身体,让他的尸体复活,或者其他什么,让他们通过他们的鼻子来支付报酬。例如,玩家对物品或服务的收费是多少?找出来。添加一个好一些。这就是你作为裁判所要付出的代价。这一定会给你带来乐趣。此外,还会设下陷阱,让球员们保持集体的警觉。毕竟。Dungeonmasters有一个有趣的工具,另一点要记住的是,你应该严格地记录时间。在六个月的时间里,花六个月时间写卷轴和魔法物品的巫师在六个月的时间里不能玩,如果时间系统在任何地方都能反映出合适的规模,这意味着在三个月内的实际时间。这将很好地消除所有的愚蠢。卷轴书写和药水制作的配料也应该规定(我们将在即将发行的SR或D&D补充剂中进行处理),这样就不容易准备卷轴或重复药剂了。
When players no longer have reams of goodies at their fingertips they must use their abilities instead, and as you will have made your dungeons and wildernesses far more difficult and demanding, it will require considerable skill, imagination, and intellectual exercise to actually gain from the course of an adventure. Furthermore, when magic is rare it is valuable, and only if it is scarce will there be real interest in seeking it. When it is difficult to survive, a long process to gain levels, when there are many desired items of magical nature to seek for. then a campaign is interesting and challenging. Think about how much fun it is to have something handed to you on a silver platter — nice once in a while but unappreciated when it becomes common occurrence. This analogy applies to experience and treasure in the D&D campaign.
It requires no careful study to determine that D&D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords. 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D&D. While D&D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far. and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name "Dungeons & Beavers." tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in SO to 7S games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of Five years, and GREYHA WK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHA WK has risen above 14th level.
By requiring players to work for experience, to earn their treasure, means that the opportunity to retain interest will remain. It will also mean that the rules will fit the existing situation, a dragon, balrog, or whatever will be a fearsome challenge rather than a pushover. It is still up to the Dungeonmaster to make the campaign really interesting to his players by adding imaginative touches, through exertion to develop background and detailed data regarding the campaign, and to make certain that there is always something new and exciting to learn about or acquire. It will, however, be an easier task. So if a 33rd level wizard reflects a poorly managed campaign, a continuing mortality rate of SO% per expedition generally reflects over-reaction and likewise a poorly managed campaign. It is unreasonable to place three blue dragons on the first dungeon level, just as unreasonable as it is to allow a 10th level fighter to rampage through the upper levels of a dungeon rousting kobolds and giant rats to gain easy loot and experience. When you tighten up your refereeing be careful not to go too far the other way.
当玩家不再拥有大量的东西时,他们就必须使用他们的能力,而你将会使你的地下城和荒原变得更加困难和苛刻,这需要相当的技能、想象力和智力练习才能从冒险中获得真正的收获。此外,当魔法是稀有的时候,它是有价值的,只有当它稀缺的时候,才会有真正的兴趣去寻找它。当它难以生存时,需要一个漫长的过程来获得层次,当有许多想要的魔法性质的东西时。然后,一场运动很有趣,也很有挑战性。想想看,在一个银盘上把东西递给你是多么有趣——偶尔会有一段美好的感觉,但当它变成平常的事情时,却不被欣赏。这个类比适用于D&D运动中的经验和财富。
它不需要仔细研究来确定D&D的目标是与上面提到的方法相适应的。没有怪物可以挑战30级领主的能力。40级的族长,等等。现在我知道了在加州理工学院的游戏规则已经被扩展和改变以反映出令人难以置信的高水平,漫画书中的人物和咒语,等等。好吧。不同的人有不同的笔触,但那不是D&D。虽然D&D相当灵活,但这类东西延伸得太远了。而男孩们则在玩一些完全不同的东西——也许是他们自己的名字“地下城和海狸”。“告诉它最好。如果一个公平的球员在一年的时间里参加了7场比赛,那么他应该获得足够的经验,让他在9-11的水平上获得足够的经验,假设他能在所有的比赛中幸存下来。获得连续更高的等级将会与增强的力量和获得经验所必需的经验点数成比例,因此,另一年的游戏将不会意味着增加一倍的等级,而是增加2到3个等级。使用这一标准,需要4到5年的时间才能看到20级。黑荒野是唯一一个拥有5年生命的运动,而格雷哈·维克的四次生命是第二长时间的竞选活动,最有能力的探险者除了在两个命名的战役中,还没有达到20级。据我所知,在黑荒原或灰哈WK中,没有任何一个球员已经超过了14级。
通过要求玩家为经验而工作,赚取他们的财富,这意味着保留兴趣的机会将会继续存在。这也意味着规则将符合现有的情况,龙,巴尔罗格,或其他任何将会是可怕的挑战而不是一个简单的挑战。通过增加富有想象力的触摸,通过努力开发背景和详细的数据,来让他的球员们真正感兴趣,并确保总有一些新的和令人兴奋的东西可以学习或获得,这仍然取决于Dungeonmaster的做法。然而,这将是一项更容易的任务。因此,如果一个33级的巫师反映了一个管理不善的运动,那么每次探险的持续死亡率就会反映出过度反应和管理不善的运动。把三只蓝色的龙放在第一个地牢里是不合理的,同样不合理的是让第10级的战士在地牢的上一级狂暴地冲过小老鼠和大老鼠,以获得简单的战利品和经验。当你收紧你的裁判时,要注意不要走的太远。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #22 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:02:18 »
机翻第五弹

GARY GYGAX ON DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
Origins of the Game
The most frequently asked question at seminars which I have given on DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is: “How did the game originate?". Because of the frequency of this question, and the involved nature of the reply required, I thought it a good idea to once again put it in writing. The Forward in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS contains most of what follows, but 1 will go into greater detail here.
When the International Federation of Wargaming was at its peak, it contained many special interest groups. I founded one of these, the “Castle & Crusade Society”. All members of this sub-group were interested in things medieval and 1 began publishing a magazine for them entitled Domesday Book. In an early issue, I drew up a map of the “Great Kingdon”. Members of the society could then establish their holdings on the map, and we planned to sponsor campaign-type gaming at some point.Dave Arneson was a member of the C&C Society, and he established a barony, Blackmoor, to the northeast of the map, just above the Great Kingdom. He began a local medieval campaign for the Twin Cities gamers and used this area.
The medieval rules, CHAINMAIL (Gygax and Perren) were published in Domesday Book prior to publication by Guidon Games. Of course, they were in a less developed state, and were only for a 1:20 figure scale. Between the time they appeared in Domesday Book and their publication by Guidon Games, I revised and expanded the rules for 1:20 and added 1:1 scale games, jousting, and fantasy. Rob Kuntz and I had acquired a large number of 40mm figures, and many of them were so heroic looking that it seemed a good idea to play some games which would reflect the action of the great swords and sorcery yarns. So I devised such rules, and the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association proceeded to play-test them. When the whole appeared as CHAINMAIL, Dave began using the fantasy rules for his campaign, and he reported a number of these actions to the C&C Society by way of articles.
1   thought that this usage was quite interesting, and a few months later when Dave came down to visit me we played a game of his amended CHAINMAIL fantasy campaign. Dave had taken the man-to-man and fantasy rules and modified them for his campaign. Players began as Heroes or Wizards. With sufficient success they could become Superheroes. In a similar fashion. Wizards could become more powerful. Additionally, he had added equipment for players to purchase and expanded the characters descriptions considerably — even adding several
new monsters to the rather short CHAINMAIL line-up.
The idea of measured progression (experience points) and the addition of games taking place in a dungeon maze struck me as being very desireable. However, that did not really fit in the framework of CHAINMAIL. I asked Dave to please send me his rules additions, for I thought a whole new system should be developed. A few weeks after his visit I received 18 or so handwritten pages of rules and notes pertaining to his campaign, and I immediately began work on a brand new manuscript. “Greyhawk” campaign started — the first D&D campaign!
About three weeks later, I had some 100 typewritten pages, and we began serious play-testing in Lake Geneva, while copies were sent to the Twin Cities and to several other groups for comment. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS had been born. Its final form came over a year later and consisted of nearly 300 manuscript pages which I wrote during the wee hours of many a morning and on weekends.
The first D&D (as opposed to variant CHAINMAIL) dungeon adventurers were: Ernie Gygax, Don Kaye, Rob Kuntz and Terry Kuntz. They were soon joined by Don Arndt, Brian Blume, Tom Champeny, Bill Corey, Bob Dale, Mary Dale, Chip Mornard, Mike Mornard, and Tim Wilson. All of these gamers — as well as the other play-testers — contributed to the final form of the game.
There were then three character classes, with players beginning at first level (rather than as 4th level Hero-types or relatively powerful Wizards), and each level was given a heroic or otherwise descriptive name. The actions that they could follow were outlined. Spells were expanded. The list of monsters was broadened again, and a complete listing of magical items and treasures was given. The reaction to the manuscript was instant enthusiasm. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS differed considerably from Dave’s “Blackmoor" campaign, just as the latter differed from CHAINMAIL: but, based on the reception given to the game by the others testing it, he had to agree that it was acceptable. Although D&D was not Dave’s game system by any form or measure, he was given co-billing as author for his valuable idea kernels. He complained bitterly that the game wasn’t right, but the other readers/play- ers loved it. In fact, the fellows playing the manuscript version were so enthusiastic that they demanded publication of the rules as soon as possible. Thus, D&D was released long before I was satisfied that it was actually ready. 1 am not sorry that we decided to publish then instead of later, even though I’ve often been taken to task about it since, and I hope all of you feel the same way too. You can, however, rest assured that work on a complete revision of the game is in progress, and I promise a far better product.
我在龙与地下城的研讨会上最常被问到的问题是:“游戏是如何起源的?”由于这个问题的频率,以及所需要的答复的相关性质,我认为再一次把它写下来是个好主意。《龙与地下城》的前锋线包含了大部分的内容,但这里将会有更详细的内容。
当国际战争联盟(International Federation of Wargaming)处于鼎盛时期时,它包含了许多特殊利益集团。我创建了其中一个,“城堡和十字军社会”。这个小组的所有成员都对中世纪的事物感兴趣,1开始为他们出版一本名为《末日审判书》的杂志。在一个早期的问题上,我画了一张“伟大的国王”的地图。社会成员可以在地图上建立他们的财产,我们计划在某个时候赞助竞选类型的游戏。Dave Arneson是C&C社会的一员,他在地图上的东北地区建立了一个barony,黑荒原,就在这个伟大的王国之上。他开始给双子城的玩家们做中世纪的活动并使用了这个区域。
中世纪的规则,CHAINMAIL(Gygax和Perren)在《末日审判书》的出版前,由Guidon Games出版。当然,他们在一个欠发达的州,只有1:20的比例。在他们在末日审判书和Guidon Games出版的时间之间,我修改了1:20的规则,并增加了1:1的游戏、比赛和幻想。Rob Kuntz和我已经获得了大量的40mm的数字,他们中的许多人都是如此的英勇,以至于他们看起来是一个好主意来玩一些游戏,这些游戏反映了伟大的剑和魔法的作用。所以我设计了这样的规则,而日内瓦湖战术研究协会开始对他们进行测试。当整个人都以链邮件的形式出现时,Dave开始为他的竞选活动使用幻想规则,他通过文章向C&C协会报告了许多这样的行为。
我认为这种用法非常有趣,几个月后,当戴夫来拜访我的时候,我们玩了一场他修改过的CHAINMAIL fantasy campaign游戏。戴夫已经接受了男人对男人和幻想的规则,并对他的竞选进行了修改。玩家开始是英雄或巫师。有了足够的成功,他们就可以成为超级英雄。以类似的方式。巫师会变得更强大。此外,他还为玩家增加了购买和扩展角色描述的设备——甚至增加了几个
新的怪物到相当短的链邮件系列。
被测量的进展(经验点)和在地下城迷宫中加入游戏的想法让我觉得很有希望。然而,这并不真正符合CHAINMAIL的框架。我请戴夫把他的新规则发给我,因为我认为应该开发一个全新的系统。在他访问几周后,我收到了大约18页手写的关于他的竞选的规则和注释,我立即开始写一份全新的手稿。“灰鹰”运动开始-第一次D&D运动!
大约三周后,我有了大约100个打字的页面,我们开始在日内瓦湖进行严肃的游戏测试,而副本则被发送到双子城和其他几个小组来进行评论。龙与地下城诞生了。一年后,它的最终形式出现了,包括我在凌晨和周末期间写的近300页手稿。
第一个D&D(相对于改型链甲)地牢探险者是:Ernie Gygax,Don Kaye,Rob Kuntz和Terry Kuntz。不久,唐·阿恩特、布莱恩·布鲁姆、汤姆·查佩尼、比尔·科里、鲍勃·戴尔、玛丽·戴尔、奇普·莫纳德、迈克·莫纳德和蒂姆·威尔逊也加入了他们的行列。所有这些玩家——以及其他的游戏测试员——都参与了游戏的最终形式。
然后有三个角色类,玩家从第一级开始(而不是第4级英雄或相对强大的巫师),每个级别都被赋予英雄或其他描述性的名称。他们所采取的行动已被概述。法术被扩大。怪物的名单又被扩大了,并且列出了魔法物品和宝物的完整清单。对手稿的反应是立即的热情。龙与地下城与戴夫的“黑荒野”运动有很大的不同,正如后者与CHAINMAIL不同:但是,根据其他人对它的测试,他不得不承认这是可以接受的。尽管d&d不是大卫的游戏系统,无论以何种形式或方式衡量,他都是为他的有价值的想法内核而共同付费的。他痛苦地抱怨说这个游戏不正确,但是其他的读者和游戏者都很喜欢它。事实上,那些参与手稿版本的人是如此的热情,以至于他们要求尽快公布这些规则。因此,D&D早在我确信它已经准备好之前就已经发布了。我很抱歉,我们决定在那之后发表,而不是后来,尽管我经常被人用它来做这件事,我希望你们也都有同样的感觉。不过,您可以放心,对游戏进行全面修订的工作正在进行中,我保证会有更好的产品。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #23 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:03:04 »
机翻第六弹

The Dungeons & Dragons Magic System
by Gary Gygax
Because there are many legendary and authored systems of magic, many questions about the system of magic used in D&D are continually raised. Magic in CHAINMAIL was fairly brief, and because it was limited to the concept of table top miniatures battles, there was no problem in devising and handling this new and very potent factor in the game. The same cannot be said of D & D. While miniatures battles on the table top were conceived as a part of the overall game system, the major factor was always envisioned as the underworld adventure, while the wilderness trek assumed a secondary role, various other aspects took a third place, and only then were miniatures battles considered. So a somewhat different concept of magic had to be devised to employ with the D&D campaign in order to make it all work.
The four cardinal types of magic are those systems which require long conjuration with much paraphernalia as an adjunct (as used by Shakespeare in MACBETH or as typically written about by Robert E. Howard in his "Conan” yarns), the relatively short spoken spell (as in Finnish mythology or as found in the superb fantasy of Jack Vance), ultra-powerful (if not always correct) magic (typical of deCamp A Pratt in their classic "Harold Shea" stories), and the generally weak and relatively ineffectual magic (as found in J.R.R. Tolkien’s work). Now the use of magic in the game was one of the most appealing aspects, and given the game system it was fairly obvious that its employment could not be on the complicated and time consuming plane, any more than it could be made as a rather weak and ineffectual adjunct to swordplay if magic-users were to become a class of player- character.
The basic assumption, then, was that D&D magic worked on a "Vancian" system and if used correctly would be a highly powerful and effective force. There are also four basic parts to magic: The verbal or uttered spell, the somatic or physical movement required for the conjuration, the psychic or mental attitude necessary to cast the spell, and the material adjuncts by which the spell, can be completed (to cite an obvious example, water to raise a water elemental). It was assumed that the D&D spell would be primarily verbal, although in some instances the spell would require some somatic component also (a fire ball being an outstanding example). The psychic perse would play little part in the basic magic system, but a corollary, mnemonics, would. The least part of magic would be the material aids required, and most of those considered stored or aided magic, so as to enable its more immediate employment, rather than serving to prolong spell casting time or encumber the player using these aids. Before exploring the whys and wherefores of these decisions, a further word regarding magical results must be said.
Spells do various things, and just what they do is an important consideration, for some order of effect in regard to the game would have to be determined. Magic purports to have these sorts of effects: 1) the alteration of existing substance (including its transposition or dissolution); 2) the creation of new substance; 3) the changing of normal functions of mind and/or body; 4) the addition of new functions to mind and/or body; 5) summon and/or command existing entities; and 6) create new entities. In considering these functions, comparatively weak and strong spells could be devised from any one of the six. Knowing the parameters within which the work was to be done then enabled the creation of the system.
因为有许多传说和创作的魔法系统,许多关于在D&D中使用的魔法系统的问题不断被提出。CHAINMAIL的魔力相当简单,因为它仅限于桌面小模型战斗的概念,所以在游戏中设计和处理这个新的、非常强大的因素是没有问题的。D和D的说法是一样的,虽然在桌面的战役中被认为是整个游戏系统的一部分,但是主要的因素总是被想像为黑社会的冒险,而野外徒步则扮演次要角色,其他方面则占据了第三个位置,只有在那之后才会考虑缩小规模。因此,为了让这一切都奏效,我们必须设计出一种不同的魔法概念来运用d&d运动。
四种主要的魔法类型是那些需要长时间召唤的系统,这些系统需要大量的随身物品作为辅助工具(如莎士比亚在《麦克白》中使用的,或者由罗伯特·e·霍华德(Robert e . Howard)在他的《柯南》中所写),相对较短的口头咒语(在芬兰神话中或在杰克·万斯(Jack Vance)的精彩幻想中发现),超强力(如果不总是正确的话)魔法(在经典的“哈罗德·希亚”(Harold Shea)故事中,典型的“deCamp A”),以及普遍较弱和相对无效的魔法(就像J.R.R.托尔金(J.R.R. Tolkien)的作品中所发现的那样)。在游戏中,魔术的使用是最吸引人的方面之一,而且在游戏系统中,很明显,它的工作不可能在复杂的、耗时的飞机上使用,任何超过它的都可以作为一个相当弱的、无效的附加,如果magic用户成为一种玩家角色的话。
当时的基本假设是,D&D魔法是在一个“Vancian”系统上工作的,如果正确使用,它将是一个非常强大和有效的力量。魔法还有四个基本的部分:口头或说出的咒语、召唤魔法所需的躯体或身体动作、施法所需要的精神或心理状态,以及可以完成魔法的材料辅助(举一个明显的例子,水可以提高水元素)。我们认为D&D的咒语主要是口头上的,不过在某些情况下,咒语也需要一些躯体的成分(火球是一个杰出的例子)通灵的perse在基本的魔法系统中扮演的角色很少,但是一个推论,助记符,会。魔法的最小部分将是所需的材料,大部分被认为是储存或辅助魔法,以使其更直接的工作,而不是用来延长施法时间或妨碍玩家使用这些辅助工具。在探究这些决定的原因之前,我们必须先说一个关于魔法结果的词。
法术可以做各种各样的事情,而且他们所做的事情是一个重要的考虑因素,因为对游戏的某些影响顺序是必须要确定的。魔法声称有这样的效果:1)对现有物质的改变(包括它的换位或溶解);2)新物质的产生;3)心智和/或身体正常功能的变化;4)将新功能添加到大脑和/或身体;5)召唤和/或命令现有的实体;6)创建新的实体。在考虑这些功能时,可以从六种方法中的任何一种来设计相对较弱和较强的法术。了解要在其中完成工作的参数,才能创建系统。
Because the magic-using D&D player would have to be able to operate competitively with fellow players who relied on other forms of attack during the course of adventures, the already mentioned "Vancian" system was used as a basis, and spelts of various sorts were carefully selected. Note, however, that they were selected within the framework of D&D competition primarily, and some relatively powerful spells were apportioned lo lower levels of magic use. Charm Person and Sleep at 1st level are outstanding examples. The effect of some spells was set to reflect the level of the magic-user employing them. Many of the spells were developed for specific use in dungeon expeditions or during wilderness adventures. A few — mostly drawn from CHAINMAIL — were included with the table top battle in mind. All such spells were assumed to be of such a nature so that no less than three of the four basic components of magic were required in their use. All spells were assumed to have a verbal component. Each and every spell (not found on a scroll or otherwise contained in. or on. some magical device) would be absolutely mnemonic, magic-users would have to memorize the spells they wished to have available, and when a particular spell was recalled and its other parts enacted, then the memory would be gone and the spell no longer available until it was re-memorized (thus the magic-users' spell books!). Most spells were also envisioned as containing a slight somatic and/or material component. whether in the preparation of a small packet of magical or ordinary compounds lo be used when the spell was spoken or as various gestures to be made when the enchantment was uttered.
Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others.
This was the conception, but in practice it did not work out as planned. Primarily at fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items for employment by magic- users tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes (although the GREYHAWK supplement took steps to correct this somewhat). The problem is further compounded by the original misconceptions of how magic worked in D L D — misconceptions held by many players. The principal error here is that the one 1st level spell allowable to a 1st level magic-user could be used endlessly (or perhaps at frequent intervals) without the magic-user having to spend time and effort re-memorizing and preparing again after the single usage. Many players also originally thought scrolls containing spells could be reused as often as desired. Finally, many dungeonmasters geared their campaigns to the level of TV giveaway shows, with gold pouring into players' purses like water and magical rewards strapped to the backs of lowly rats. This latter allowed their players to progress far too rapidly and go far beyond the bounds of D&D's competition scope — magic- users. fighters, clerics and all.
To further compound the difficulties, many dungeon-masters and players, upon learning of the more restrictive intent of the rules, balked. They enjoyed the comic book characters, incredible spells, and stratospheric levels of their way of playing. Well and good. D&D is. if nothing else, a free-form game system, and it was designed with great variation between campaigns to be allowed for — nay. encouraged! Of course, there are some variations which are so far removed from the original framework as to be totally irreconcilable with D&D: these have become games of other sorts and not a concern of this article. On the other hand there are many campaigns which were scrapped and begun afresh after their dungeon- masters consulted us or after they read other articles pertaining to the play otD&D as conceived by its authors — just as there will probably be some dungeonmasters ready to try again after reading this far. It is for all of these referees and their players, as well as those who have played the game pretty much as was desired but were never quite positive that you were actually doing so. that the foregoing was written.
因为使用魔法的d&d玩家必须能够与在冒险过程中依赖其他形式的攻击的同伴进行竞争,已经提到的“v西娅”系统被用作基础,各种各样的spelts被仔细地选择。然而,请注意,它们是在d&d竞争的框架中被选中的,并且一些相对强大的法术被分配到较低的魔法使用等级。魅力人物和第一层次的睡眠是很好的例子。一些法术的效果被设定来反映使用它们的魔法使用者的等级。许多法术都是在地下城探险或野外探险中被开发出来的。其中一些主要是从链邮件中挑选出来的,其中包括了桌面大战。所有这些法术都被假定为这样一种性质,所以在他们的使用中,魔法的四个基本组成部分不少于三个。所有的咒语都被假定有语言成分。每一个咒语(不是在卷轴上找到的,也不是被包含在里面的。或在。一些神奇的设备是绝对的助记符,魔法用户必须记住他们想要的咒语,当一个特定的咒语被召回,其他的部分被执行,那么记忆就会消失,而这个法术将不再被使用,直到被重新记住(因此,魔法用户的咒语书!)大多数法术也被设想为包含一个轻微的躯体和/或物质成分。无论是在准备一小包魔法或普通的化合物时,当咒语被说出时,或者当发出的魔法发出时,都要用不同的手势。
因此,magic - use的功能强大到足以让它的追随者与任何其他类型的玩家角色竞争,然而,使用魔法并不能使使用它的人超过其他任何类型的玩家。
这是一个概念,但实际上并没有按照计划进行。最主要的错误是游戏本身,它没有仔细地解释魔法系统背后的原因。此外,魔法的各种魔法物品——使用者倾向于使它们在与其他类的关系上过于强大(尽管GREYHAWK补充剂采取了一些措施来纠正这一点)。这一问题进一步加剧了最初的错误观念,即许多玩家持有的D - D -错误观念。这里的主要错误是,在第一级的魔法允许下,第一级的魔法用户可以被无休止地使用(或者频繁地使用),而没有魔法用户需要花费时间和精力在单一使用后重新记忆和准备。许多玩家最初认为包含法术的卷轴可以重复使用。最后,许多dungeonmasters将他们的运动与电视节目的水平进行了调整,黄金像水一样涌入玩家的钱包里,在小老鼠的背上绑上了神奇的奖励。后一种情况允许他们的玩家进步得太快,远远超出了d&d的竞争范围——魔法用户的范围。战士,牧师。
为了进一步解决这些困难,许多地学大师和玩家在学习了规则的限制性意图后,就止步不前了。他们喜欢漫画书里的人物,难以置信的咒语,以及他们的游戏方式。很好。D&D。如果没有别的,那就是一种自由的游戏系统,它的设计与允许的运动之间有很大的差异。鼓励!当然,有些变体与最初的框架相差甚远,与D&D完全不可调和:它们已经变成了其他种类的游戏,而不是本文关注的内容。另一方面,也有许多活动被废弃,在他们的地牢之后重新开始——大师们与我们商量之后,或者在他们阅读了他们的作者所设想的戏剧otD&D的其他文章之后——就像在阅读了这篇文章之后,可能会有一些dungeonmasters准备再次尝试。这是对所有的裁判,他们的球员,以及那些在比赛中表现得很好的球员,但从来都不是很积极的,你真的这么做了。这是前面写的。
The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have (heir strength, weapons, and armor lo aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they hare virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign. D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals, for that will maintain freshness in the campaign (providing that advancement is slow and there is always some new goal to strive for).
This brings up the subject of new spells. The basic system allows for the players to create new spells for themselves at the option of the referee. It is certain that new spells will be added to the game system as the need arises, particularly with regard to new classes or sub-classes of characters or simply to Fill in some needed gap. The creation of an endless number of more powerful spells is not desirable in the existing game system, and there is no intention of publishing 10th or higher level spells. As was said in a previous article, if character level progression is geared to the game system, it should take years for any magic-user to attain a level where the use of 9th level spells is possible!
As a last word regarding this subject, this D&D magic system explanation also serves another purpose. There should now be no doubt in dungeonmasters’ minds with regard to the effect of a silence spell on a magic-user, or what will happen to the poor wizard caught in a mess of webs. They will know that a magic mouth is basically useless as a spell caster — with the exception of those spells which are based only on the verbal component of the spell. When an enterprising player tries a wizard lock on somebody's or something's mouth he will not be prone to stretch the guidelines and allow it. Magic is great. Magic is powerful. But it should be kept great and powerful in relation to its game environment. That means all the magic-users who have been coasting along with special dispensations from the dungeonmaster may soon have to get out there and root with the rest of the players or lie down and die.
这一切背后的逻辑都是来自于游戏的平衡,就像其他任何东西一样。战士们有(他们的力量、武器和护甲在他们的竞争中帮助他们)。魔法使用者必须依靠他们的法术,因为他们几乎没有武器或盔甲来保护他们。神职人员结合了其他两类的一些优势。新一类,小偷,拥有偷换行为的基本优势,为了让他们成功地在飞机上与其他类型的人一起操作。如果魔法在竞选中不受约束的话。D&D迅速退化成一场奇怪的巫师表演,玩家们很快就会厌烦,或者是裁判被迫将游戏变成一个新的框架,这个框架能够容纳他所创造的游戏角色。这是作者的观点,最令人满意的游戏是一种不同的性格类型能够相互竞争的相对平等,因为这将保持运动的新鲜度(提供进步是缓慢的,并且总是有一些新的目标去争取)。
这就引出了新的法术。基本的系统允许玩家在裁判的选择下为自己创造新的法术。可以肯定的是,随着需求的增加,新的法术会被添加到游戏系统中,特别是在新的类或子类的角色上,或者仅仅是填补一些需要的空白。在现有的游戏系统中,不希望出现无穷多个更强大的法术,也无意发布10级或更高级别的法术。正如前一篇文章所提到的,如果角色级别的升级是针对游戏系统的,那么任何一个magic用户都需要数年时间才能达到使用第9级法术的水平!
关于这个主题的最后一个词,这个D&D魔法系统的解释也有另一个目的。毫无疑问,在dungeonmasters的脑海中,关于沉默魔法对魔法用户的影响,或者这个可怜的巫师在混乱的网络中会发生什么。他们会知道魔法的嘴基本上是无用的咒语施法者——除了那些只基于咒语的语言成分的咒语。当一个有进取心的玩家试图把巫师锁在某人或某物的嘴里时,他将不会倾向于去拉伸这些指导方针并允许它。魔法是伟大的。魔法是强大的。但在游戏环境方面,它应该保持强大和强大。这意味着,所有那些在dungeonmaster的特殊豁免中一直在滑行的magic用户,可能很快就会离开这里,与其他玩家一起离开,或者躺下死去。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #24 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:06:32 »
机翻第七弹

What the game is; where it’s going
FEB.
1979
#22
“Winning no more applies to a D&D game than it does to real life. The successful DMs and players gain renown via their campaigns or their superior characters. To enthusiasts of the game, this is far more satisfying than triumphing in a single game or whole series of games .“
“在D&D游戏中获胜并不比在现实生活中更重要。”成功的DMs和玩家通过他们的战役或他们的优秀的人物获得了名声。对游戏爱好者来说,这比在一个游戏或整个系列游戏中获胜要令人满意得多。
From issue #22 February 1979

The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game pioneered role-playing in the gaming hobby. It brought fantasy before hobbyists, and it set before them a game-form most had never heard of. Perhaps 150,000 persons now play the game, but it was by no means an instant success. The first 1,000 boxed sets, assembled and labeled by hand, took eleven months to sell (and Tactical Studies Rules was thrilled). Finally, a third printing of 2,000 sold in five months. So from January 1974 to December 1975, only 4,000 sets of the original version of the game were in circulation. (Of course, I have no way of knowing how many pirated copies were in existence; some estimates place the figure at about 20% of the total sales, some as high as 50%. In any case, 5,000 or 6,000 sets was certainly nothing to set the gaming world on fire, or was it?) Today the Basic Set sells 4,000 copies per month, and the sales graph is upwards.
A month has not gone by in the last two years when I haven't been interviewed by one or more newspaper writers or independent journalists who want to know all about the D&D® game and the concepts behind it. I have likewise been interviewed by radio and TV news media, generally for the same reason. At the risk of claiming too much for the game, I have lately taken to likening the whole to Aristotle’s Poetics, carrying the analogy to even more ridiculous heights by stating that each Dungeon Master uses the rules to become a playwrite (hopefully one of Shakespearean stature), scripting only plot outlines however, and the players become the thespians.
Before incredulity slackens so as to allow the interviewer to become hostile, I hasten to add that the analogy applies only to the basic parts of the whole pastime, not to the actual merits of the game, its DMs, or its players. If you consider the game, the analogy is actually quite apt. The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is like none other in that it requires the game master to create part or all of a fantasy world. Players must then become personae in this place and interact with the other populace. This is, of course, a tall order for all concerned — rules, DM, and players alike.
Relating a basic adventure, an episodic game session in the campaign, to a trip in an underground labyrinth does help the uninitiated interviewers to understand the simplest D&D fundamentals — discover an unknown area, move around in it by means of descriptive narration from the Dungeon Master, overcome whatever obstacles are there (traps, problems, monsters), and return with whatever has been gained during the course of the whole. The DM takes the part of everything in this fantasy world which is not operated by a player. While this should not mean it is then a game of DM versus the players, it does mean that it is a co-operative game where players must interact successfully amongst themselves first, and non-hostile portions of the campaign milieu thereafter, in order to be successful. The Dungeon Masters incidentally against the players when he or she is operating that part of the “world" which is hostile, or potentially so, but in general the referee must be disinterested.
At about this point I am always asked: “Well, then, how do you win? Who wins?!" The answer is: Everybody — providing that the game is well run. The DM gets the satisfaction of testing his abilities against those of the players, the fun of taking the non-player parts, and the accolades of participants when a particularly well-done adventure or series has been completed. Players enjoy the challenges of each situation and have the prospect of continuing adventures and puzzles to confront them, each with his or her game persona. Thus, all who take part in the campaign get something besides a momentary diversion. Winning no more applies to a D&D game than it does to real life. The successful DMs and players gain renown via their campaigns or their superior characters. To enthusiasts of the game, this is far more satisfying than triumphing in a single game or whole series of games.
Simply stated, the D&D game is a multi-player game of fantasy role-playing, where the rules give systems of resolution for common game occurrences, lists and explanations of things which are not actual (monsters, spells, magic items, etc.), systems for interaction, and suggestions as to how to put this into the campaign, i.e. create the milieu. Once begun, the campaign continues until the DM and/or all of the players decide it should end. As with any exercise in fantasy, it requires suspension of disbelief. Those who find the game interesting will soon enough thereafter create their own sort of involvement and belief. But why is such a game (and similar fantasy role-playing games, for that matter) so popular? What is its appeal?
龙与地下城的游戏在游戏爱好中开创了角色扮演。它在爱好者面前带来了幻想,并在他们面前形成了一种从未听说过的游戏形式。现在大概有15万人玩这个游戏,但这绝不是一种即时的成功。首批1000套盒装,手工组装和贴标签,花了11个月的时间销售(战术研究规则非常激动)。最后,在5个月内第三次印刷2000张。因此,从1974年1月到1975年12月,只有4000套原始版本的游戏在流通。(当然,我没有办法知道有多少盗版。据估计,这一数字约占总销售额的20%,有些甚至高达50%。在任何情况下,5000或6000组都不可能让游戏世界着火,是吗?今天,基本版的销售量是每月4000份,销售图表是向上的。
在过去的两年里,一个月没有被一个或更多的报社记者或独立记者采访过,他们想知道所有关于d&d的游戏及其背后的概念。我也接受了广播和电视新闻媒体的采访,一般都是出于同样的原因。冒着对游戏要求太大的风险,我最近开始把这一切比作亚里士多德的诗歌,把这个类比的类比更夸张地说,每个地下城主都将规则变成了一个剧本(希望是莎士比亚的一种风格),只有剧本的大纲,而这些人就是这些演员。
在让面试官变得充满敌意之前,我赶紧补充说,这个比喻只适用于整个消遣的基本部分,而不是游戏的实际价值,它的DMs,或者它的玩家。如果你考虑这个游戏,这个类比其实很贴切。龙与地下城的游戏就像没有其他的一样,它要求游戏大师创造出一部分或者全部的幻想世界。玩家必须成为这个地方的人物,并与其他民众互动。当然,这对于所有相关的规则、DM和玩家来说都是一个艰巨的任务。
关于一个基本的冒险,一场在战役中的情景游戏,到一个地下迷宫的旅行,帮助那些没有经验的采访者了解最简单的D&D基本原理——发现一个未知的区域,通过地牢主人的描述性的叙述来移动它,克服所有的障碍(陷阱,问题,怪物),并在整个过程中获得的任何东西返回。在这个梦幻世界中,DM占据了所有的部分,而不是由玩家操控。虽然这并不意味着这是一场DM对玩家的游戏,但它确实意味着这是一种合作游戏,玩家必须在游戏中首先成功地与自己进行互动,并在之后的战役环境中进行非敌意的部分,以获得成功。当他或她在“世界”的那部分“世界”活动时,地牢的主人偶然地对他们进行攻击,或者有可能是这样,但一般来说,裁判必须公正无私。
在这一点上,我总是被问到:“那么,你是怎么赢的?”谁赢了? !答案是:每个人——只要这个游戏运行良好。DM获得了测试他的能力的满足感,这是对球员的能力的测试,对非球员部分的乐趣,以及当一个特别出色的冒险或系列已经完成时,参与者的荣誉。玩家可以享受每一种情况下的挑战,并有可能继续冒险和玩拼图游戏,每个人都有自己的游戏角色。因此,参加竞选活动的人除了一时的消遣之外,还能得到一些东西。在D&D游戏中获胜并不比在现实生活中更有效。成功的DMs和玩家通过他们的战役或他们的优秀的人物获得了名声。对游戏爱好者来说,这比在一个游戏或整个系列游戏中获胜要令人满意得多。
简单的说,幻想的D&D游戏是一个多人游戏角色扮演,决议共同游戏的规则给系统出现,列出并解释不实际的事情(怪物,魔法,魔法物品等),系统交互,和建议如何把这个运动,即创建环境。一旦开始,这场运动就会持续下去,直到DM和/或所有的玩家决定它应该结束。就像在幻想中的任何练习一样,它需要被怀疑。那些发现游戏有趣的人很快就会创造出他们自己的参与和信仰。但是为什么这样的游戏(以及类似的幻想角色扮演游戏)如此受欢迎呢?它的吸引力是什么?
Our modern world has few, if any, frontiers. We can no longer escape to the frontier of the West, explore darkest Africa, sail to the South Seas. Even Alaska and the Amazon jungles will soon be lost as wild frontier areas. Furthermore, adventures are not generally possible anymore. The frontiers are receding into memories, modern communications make all of the world available to casual travellers, and the most backward places are becoming more and more civilized. Certainly it is still possible to go scuba diving, mountain climbing, auto racing, skydiving, and so on. These are expensive and risky endeavors, for no real purpose in most cases. One can also have adventures as a criminal, or possibly as an agent of the government (if one is sufficiently qualified), but the former is distasteful to say the least, and the latter is most unlikely. Americans, with more leisure time today than ever, crave entertainment. Some desire adventure and excitement. Obviously, various entertainment media are doing big business — TV, motion pictures, spectator sports, recreational vehicles, sporting goods, book publishers, and game manufacturers are all growing. “Escape fiction" sells better today than ever, and witness the success of the recent science-fiction and fantasy films.
Looking toward outer space and the future for new frontiers and adventure is logical. The universe has fascinated mankind since recorded history, and today it seems quite probable that within a few decades numbers of us will live off of the earth, and in a century or so we will travel to the stars. Perhaps there will be frontiers and adventure enough then for all who care to test their mettle. But it is no less surprising for us to look into the realms of fantasy for imagined adventure. Most literate people grow up on a diet of fairy tales, Walt Disney, and comic-book superheroes. We somehow relate to stories of young princes going out into the world to seek their fortune, of knights rescuing maidens in distress and slaying dragons, of dealings with wicked magicians and evil witches. The myth of all peoples contain great stocks of such fantasy lore. If nothing else, the desire to believe in such seems to be innate in humanity. Whether or not there are parallel worlds or places where fantastic creatures actually live and magic works is not germane, for most of us are familiar with the concepts as if they were actual, and we have a desire to become involved, if only vicariously, amongst such heroic epics of magic and monsters. It is therefore scarcely surprising that a game which directly involves participants in a make- believe world of just such a nature should prove popular; and had I reasoned out the enthusiasm it roused amongst the first few who played it, it would have been evident that the D&D game was destined to become very popular indeed. (Naturally, hindsight is usually a 20/20 proposition, and the fact is, the game was originally written for a small audience of devoted miniatures players....)
If millions take to the fantasy world of J.R.R. Tolkien, and nearly as many follow the heroic feats of Conan, the market potential of a game system which provides participants with a pastime which creates play resembling these adventuresome worlds and their inhabitants is bounded only by its accessibility. Access has two prominent aspects: Availability is the first; that is, are potential players informed of the fact that the game exists, and are they able to physically obtain it? Difficulty is the second, for if once obtained the game is so abstruse as to be playable only by persons with intelligence far above the norm, or if the game demands a volume of preliminary work which is prohibitive forthe normal individual, this will be recognized and the offering will be shunned even if it is available. The D&D system failed on both counts, and still its following grew. Today we are putting the D&D game onto the track where it is envisioned it will have both maximum availability and minimum difficulty. This is best illustrated in the D&D Basic Set.
Well over two years ago we recognized that there was a need for an introductory form of the game. In 1977 the colorfully boxed Basic Set was published. It contained simplified, more clearly written rules, dungeon geomorphs, selections of monsters and treasures to place in these dungeons, and a set of polyhedra dice — in short, all that a group of beginning players need to start play with relative ease. Later editions have cleaned up most of the flaws in the first, and the newest will do away with the geomorphs and the list of monsters and treasures in favor of a complete basic module, so that difficulty will be reduced even further.
我们的现代世界几乎没有国界。我们再也不能逃到西方的边界去,探索最黑暗的非洲,驶向南海。即使是阿拉斯加和亚马逊丛林也将很快消失在荒野边缘地区。此外,奇遇也不再普遍存在。这些边疆逐渐消失在记忆中,现代通讯使世界上的所有人都能接触到休闲旅行者,而最落后的地方正变得越来越文明。当然,还可以去潜水、爬山、赛车、跳伞等等。在大多数情况下,这些都是昂贵而又冒险的尝试。一个人也可以作为罪犯冒险,或者作为政府的代理人(如果一个人够资格的话),但是前者是令人反感的,后者是最不可能的。如今,美国人的休闲时间比以往任何时候都多,他们渴望娱乐。有些人渴望冒险和刺激。显然,各种娱乐媒体都在做大生意——电视、电影、观众运动、休闲车、体育用品、图书出版商和游戏制造商都在成长。《逃离小说》如今的销量比以往任何时候都要好,见证了最近科幻和奇幻电影的成功。
展望外层空间和未来的新边疆和冒险是合乎逻辑的。自从有记载的历史以来,宇宙就一直吸引着人类,今天看来很有可能在未来几十年里,我们将生活在地球上,而在一个世纪左右的时间里,我们将前往星星。也许,对于那些想考验他们勇气的人来说,也许会有足够的边疆和冒险。但对于我们来说,在想象的冒险中寻找幻想的王国也同样令人惊讶。大多数有文化的人都是在童话故事、沃尔特·迪斯尼和漫画书超级英雄的饮食中长大的。我们在某种程度上讲述了年轻的王子们走向世界寻找财富的故事,骑士们在困境中拯救少女,杀死恶龙,与邪恶的魔法师和邪恶的女巫打交道。所有人的神话都包含着这样的幻想传说。如果没有别的东西,相信这种信仰的欲望似乎是人类与生俱来的。无论是否存在平行世界或神奇生物实际生活的地方,魔法作品都不是德国的,因为我们大多数人都熟悉这些概念,就像它们是真实的一样,而我们也渴望参与其中,哪怕只是间接的参与,在这些英雄和怪物的英雄史诗中。因此,一场直接牵涉到参与者的游戏——相信这种性质的世界——应该被证明是受欢迎的,这也就不足为奇了。如果我能推断出,在最初的几个玩游戏的人当中,他们所激起的热情,就会很明显地看出,d&d游戏注定会变得非常受欢迎。(当然,事后诸葛亮通常是一个20/20的命题,事实是,这个游戏最初是为一小群忠实的小游戏玩家而写的。)
如果有数百万人去看J.R.R.托尔金的奇幻世界,几乎同样多的人追随柯南的英雄壮举,那么游戏系统的市场潜力就会为参与者提供一种娱乐方式,创造出一种类似于这些冒险的世界的游戏,而他们的居民只能被它的可及性所限制。访问有两个突出的方面:可用性是第一个方面;也就是说,潜在的玩家知道游戏存在的事实,并且他们能够从物理上得到它吗?困难是第二种,因为一旦获得了游戏,只有智力远远高于正常水平的人才能玩得很深奥,或者如果游戏需要大量的前期工作,而这对正常的个人来说是令人望而却步的,那么这将会被认可,即使有可能,也会被拒之门外。d&d系统在这两方面都失败了,但它的后续发展仍在继续。今天我们把D&D游戏放到了它预期的轨道上,它将有最大的可用性和最小的难度。这是D&D基本设置的最佳说明。
在两年前,我们意识到我们需要一种入门的游戏。1977年出版了彩色盒装基本集。它包含了简化的、更清晰的文字规则、地牢地形、怪物和宝物的选择,以及一组多面体骰子——总之,一组开始的玩家需要相对轻松地开始游戏。后来的版本已经清理了大部分的缺陷,最新的版本将会去掉地形和怪物和宝物的列表,以支持一个完整的基本模块,这样难度就会进一步降低。
This should broaden the game’s appeal to a base in the millions, and then the major factor becomes availability. Popular demand always increases availability, and the D&D game has been blessed by its enthusiasts most generously in this regard. Coupled with the work being done by TSR to publicize and promote the game, the availability factor will also be maximized over the next few years. Finally, to maintain interest, a series of new and interesting modular dungeon and outdoor scenarios, as well as more playing aids, will be made available periodically. The number of D&D players should certainly continue to mushroom for several years.

Fanatical game hobbyists often express the opinion that the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS system will be an ever-expanding, always improving one. TSR and I see it a bit differently. Currently, the D&D concept is moving in two directions. There is the “Original” game system and the new ADVANCED D&D® system. New participants can move from the “Basic Set" into either form without undue difficulty — especially as playing aid offerings become more numerous, and that is in process now. Americans have somehow come to equate change with improvement. Somehow the school of continuing evolution has conceived that the D&D system can go on in a state of flux, each new version "new and improved!" From a standpoint of sales, I beam broadly at the very thought of an unending string of new, improved, super, energized, versions of the game being hyped to the loyal followers of the gaming hobby in general and role-playing fantasy games in particular. As a game designer I do not agree, particularly as a gamer who began with chess. The original could benefit from a careful reorganization and expansion to clarify things, and this might be done at some future time. As all of the AD&D™ system is not written yet, it is a bit early for prognostication, but I envision only minor expansions and some rules amending on a gradual, edition to edition, basis. When you have a fine product, it is time to let well enough alone. I do not believe that hobbyists and casual players should be continually barraged with new rules, new systems, and new drains on their purses. Certainly there will be changes, for the game is not perfect; but I do not believe the game is so imperfect as to require constant improvement.
Does this mean that the game will be at a dead end when the last of the AD&D books is published? Hardly! Modules and similar material will continue to be released so as to make the DM’s task easier and his or her campaign better. Quite frankly, the appeal of the D&D game rests principally upon the broad shoulders of the hard-working Dungeon Masters. The rules never need improvement if the DM is doing a proper job, but of course he or she can do so only if the rules are sufficient to allow this. With refined rules and modular additions, all aspects of a long-lived and exciting campaign will unquestionably be there for the DM to employ. Will the D&D system dead-end when its novelty dies? That is impossible to answer. It is my personal opinion that the game form is a classic which is of the same stamp as chess and Monopoly, time will be the judge. No doubt there is a limit to the appeal of the game in any of its current forms. If tens of millions play a relatively simple, social sort of a game such as Monopoly, it is a sure thing a far more difficult activity such as the D&D game will have a much more limited audience. Since the game cannot be simplified beyond a certain point, we look to another means of popularizing it.
A D&D game can be played on a computer. Computers are most certainly a big aspect of the near future, particularly the home computer. Non-programmable computer games are already making big inroads in the toy and hobby market. They will grow still more, and soon programmable games will join this trend. D&D program cassettes plugged into a home computer would obviate the need for a DM or other players. The labor of setting up a campaign or the necessity of having a fairly large group to play in it would be removed; graphic display would be exciting; and the computer would slave away doing the record work and mechanics necessary to the game, giving nearly instantaneous results to the player or players. Computerization has other benefits. Such games would not destroy the human-run campaign but would supplement game participation.
这将使游戏的吸引力扩大到数百万的基础上,然后主要因素变成了可用性。受欢迎的需求总是增加可用性,而D&D游戏在这方面最慷慨。再加上TSR为宣传和推广这个游戏所做的工作,在接下来的几年里,可用性因素也将最大化。最后,为了保持兴趣,一系列新的有趣的模块化地下城和室外场景,以及更多的辅助游戏,将会定期出现。D&D玩家的数量肯定会持续数年。
狂热的游戏爱好者们经常表达这样的观点:龙与地下城的系统将会不断扩张,不断完善。我和TSR的看法有些不同。目前,D&D概念正朝着两个方向发展。有“原始”的游戏系统和新的先进的D&D®系统。新的参与者可以从“基本集合”转移到任何形式,而不是不适当的困难——尤其是当提供援助的数量变得越来越多的时候,而这正在进行中。美国人已经开始将变革与进步等同起来。不知何故,持续进化学派认为D&D系统可以在不断变化的状态下继续发展,每一个新版本都是“新的和完善的!”从销售的角度来看,我广泛地想到了一种全新的、改良的、超级的、充满活力的游戏版本,这款游戏在一般的游戏爱好者和角色扮演的奇幻游戏中都被大肆宣传。作为一个游戏设计师,我不同意,特别是作为一个开始下国际象棋的玩家。通过仔细的重组和扩展来澄清一些事情,这可能会在将来的某个时候完成。由于所有的ad&d系统还没有被编写,现在还需要提前进行预测,但是我只设想了一些微小的扩展和一些规则的修改,这些规则是逐步的、版本的、基于版本的。当你有一个好产品时,是时候让自己足够好了。我不相信,业余爱好者和随意的玩家应该不断的对新规则,新系统,和新下水道进行激烈的争论。当然会有变化,因为游戏并不完美;但是我不相信这个游戏是如此不完美,需要不断改进。
这是否意味着,当最后一本AD&D书籍出版时,游戏就会陷入死胡同?才不呢!模块和类似的材料将继续发布,以使DM的任务更容易,他或她的活动更好。坦白说,D&D游戏的吸引力主要在辛勤工作的地下城主的宽阔肩膀上。如果DM做的是一份合适的工作,那么这些规则永远都不需要改进,但是,只要规则足够允许,他或她当然可以这样做。有了完善的规则和模块化的补充,一个长期生活和令人兴奋的运动的所有方面将毫无疑问地存在于DM的使用中。当它的新颖性死亡时,D&D系统将会灭亡吗?那是不可能回答的。我个人认为,游戏形式是一种经典,与国际象棋和垄断一样,时间将是裁判。毫无疑问,游戏的吸引力是有限度的。如果数以千万计的玩家玩一种相对简单的、社会性的游戏,比如大富翁游戏,那么像D&D游戏这样的游戏将会受到更多的限制。由于游戏不能在一定程度上被简化,我们将寻找另一种推广它的方法。
一个D&D游戏可以在电脑上玩。计算机无疑是不久的将来的一个重要方面,尤其是家用电脑。非可编程的电脑游戏已经在玩具和兴趣市场上取得了巨大的进展。他们将继续增长,很快可编程的游戏将会加入这一趋势。将D&D程序的磁带插入一台家用电脑中,就可以消除对DM或其他播放器的需求。发起一场运动的劳动或者有一个相当大的群体参与其中的必要性将被消除;图形显示将令人兴奋;电脑将会从游戏中进行记录工作和操作,给玩家或玩家带来即时的结果。电脑化还有其他好处。这种游戏不会破坏人的活动但会增加游戏的参与度。
All that being so, the reader may justifiably inquire as to the purpose of this column. Well, since I make no claim to perfection, no such claim can be made for the AD&D or D&D games. This column will cover controversial rules or systems, problem and so-called problem areas, and consider new material as well. If the games are not to be continually changing and “evolving,” neither is it envisioned that they have reached such a state of perfection so as to become immutable. What appears herein is discussion that will sometimes lead to alteration, amendment, or expansion of one or the other system. Initially, what you read here will be direct from me, but all DMs — and players also — are invited to submit articles of high calibre. A glance at the introductory sections of all of the works comprising the D&D and AD&D systems shows many individuals contributed to the designs. The list in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide is longer still. All individuals and the audience at large are cordially invited to submit their thoughts and opinions on pertinent matters. If I am not to be “the great god Gygax," a claim I never made nor supported, there must be input which presents argumentation and systems which are meaningful alternatives to replace or augment existing rules and systems. This is not to say that anyone’s favorite variant, even if well designed, is likely to become a D&D or AD&D product, but at worst reasons for why it is unacceptable will be given, and the possible results could be a major change in the game. So, here is your forum.
既然如此,读者可以合理地询问这一栏的目的。好吧,既然我没有要求尽善尽美,那么对AD&D或D&D游戏就没有这样的要求了。这一栏将涵盖有争议的规则,系统,问题,以及所谓的问题区域,并考虑新的内容。如果游戏不是不断地变化和“进化”,也不是想象他们已经达到了这样一个完美的状态,从而变得不可变。在这里出现的讨论有时会导致一个或另一个系统的变更、修改或扩展。最初,你在这里读到的内容将直接来自我,但所有的DMs和参与者也被邀请提交高水平的文章。浏览一下所有由d&d和ad&d系统组成的作品的介绍部分,可以看到许多人对设计做出了贡献。AD&D地下城主指南中的列表更长。所有的个人和广大的观众都诚挚地邀请他们就相关事宜发表他们的想法和意见。如果我不是“伟大的上帝Gygax”,这是我从来没有做过的,也不支持的,那么就必须有一些有意义的论点和系统,这些是替代或补充现有的规则和系统的有意义的替代方案。这并不是说任何人最喜欢的变体,即使是精心设计的,也很可能成为D&D或AD&D的产品,但最坏的原因是无法接受的,而且可能的结果可能是游戏的重大改变。所以,这是你们的论坛。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #25 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:07:31 »
机翻第八弹

Much about melee
APR.
1979
#24

“Melee in the D&D system is certainly a crucial factor, and it must not be warped at the risk of spoiling the whole game . Likewise , it is not unrealistic — if there is such a thing as ”realism“ in a game . . . filled with the unreal assumptions of dragons, magic spells, and so on. ”
“Furthermore , the D&D game is a role-playing campaign where much of the real enjoyment for participants comes from the gradual development of the game personae and their continuing exploits, whether successes or failures.”
“在d&d系统中,肉搏战无疑是一个关键因素,它不能被扭曲,从而破坏整个游戏。”同样地,这也不是不现实的——如果在游戏中存在“现实主义”。充满了对龙、魔法咒语等等的不真实的假设。“
“此外,d&d游戏是一款角色扮演游戏,参与者的真正乐趣来自于游戏人物的逐渐发展和他们持续的成功,无论是成功还是失败。”
From issue #24 April 1979

There is some controversy regarding the system of resolving individual battles used in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game and the somewhat similar melee system which is part of the ADVANCED D&D® rules. The meat of the D&D® system is the concept of pure adventure, the challenge of the unknown, facing the unexpected and overcoming all obstacles. At times this requires combat with spells, missiles, and hand-to-hand fighting. How crucial to the game as a whole is the melee? What part should it play? Is “realism” an important consideration?
To put the whole matter into perspective, it is necessary to point out that there is probably only a small percentage of the whole concerned with possible shortcomings in the melee system, but even 1% to perhaps 5% of an audience of well over 100,000 enthusiasts is too large a number to be ignored. To the majority who do not have problems with the rationale of fantasy melee as presented in the D&D rules, what follows will serve to strengthen your understanding of the processes and their relationship to the whole game. For those who doubt the validity of D&D combat systems, the expostulation will at least demonstrate the logic of the systems, and perhaps justify them to the extent that you will be able to use them with complete assurance that they are faithful representations of the combat potential of the figures concerned.
There can be no question as to the central theme of the game. It is the creation and development of the game persona, the fantastic player character who is to interact with his or her environment — hopefully to develop into a commanding figure in the milieu. In order to do so, the player character must undergo a continuing series of activities which are dictated by the campaign at large and the Dungeon Master in particular. Interaction can be the mundane affairs of food, equipment and shelter, or it can be dealing with non-player characters in only slightly less routine things such as hiring men-at-arms, treating with local officials, and so on. But from even these everyday affairs can develop adventures, and adventurers are, of course, the meat of the D&D system; for it is by means of adventuring that player characters gain acumen and the wealth and wherewithal to increase in ability level. The experience, actual as well as that awarded by the DM, is gained in the course of successive adventures, and in the context of those adventures it is most common to engage in combat.
Hacking and slewing should not, of course, be the first refuge of the beleaguered D&D player, let alone his or her initial resort when confronted with a problem situation. Naturally enough, a well run campaign will offer a sufficient number of alternatives as well as situations which encourage thinking, negotiation, and alternatives to physical force, by means of careful prompting or object lessons in the negative form. Aside from this, however, combat and melee will certainly occupy a considerable amount of time during any given adventure, at least on the average. Spell and missile combat do not consume any appreciable amount of time, but as they are also often a part of an overall melee, these factors must be considered along with hand-to-hand fighting.
What must be simulated in melee combat are the thrusts and blows (smashing and cutting) of weapons wielded as well as the natural body weaponry of monsters — teeth, claws, and so forth. Individual combat of this sort can be made exceptionally detailed by inclusion of such factors as armor, weapon(s), reflex speed, agility, position of weapon (left or right hand or both), training, strength, height, weight, tactics chosen (attack, defend, or a combination), location of successive blows, and results of injury to specific areas. If, in fact, the D&D game was a simulation of hand-to-hand combat utilizing miniature figurines, such detail would be highly desirable. The game is one of adventure, though, and combats of a protracted nature (several hours minimum of six or more player characters are considered involved against one or more opponents each) are undesirable, as the majority of participants are most definitely not miniature battle game enthusiasts. Time could be reduced considerably by the inclusion of such factors as death blows — a kill at a single stroke, exceptionally high amounts of damage — or perhaps a modified form of killing at a single stroke, featuring specific hit location coupled with specific body hit points, and special results from hits — unconsciousness, loss of member, incapacitation of member, etc.
有一些争论关于系统解决个人战斗中使用龙与地下城®游戏和类似近战系统是先进的D&D®规则的一部分。d&d系统的核心是纯粹的冒险,未知的挑战,面对意想不到的挑战,克服所有的障碍。有时,这需要战斗的符咒,导弹,和肉搏战。作为一个整体,这场比赛的关键是肉搏?它应该扮演什么角色?“现实主义”是一个重要的考虑因素吗?
要把整个事情都考虑进去,有必要指出的是,可能只有一小部分人关注近战系统可能存在的缺陷,但即使是1%到5%的超过10万名狂热爱好者,也有可能被忽略。对于绝大多数人来说,在d&d规则中没有出现幻想战的基本原理,接下来的内容将会加强你对整个游戏过程的理解,以及他们与整个游戏的关系。对于那些质疑D&D战斗系统的有效性的人来说,他们的表现至少能证明系统的逻辑,也许能让他们对他们的行为作出合理的解释,从而使他们能够充分地使用这些系统来保证他们对相关人员的战斗潜力的忠诚表现。
游戏的中心主题是毫无疑问的。它是游戏角色的创造和发展,是与他或她的环境互动的出色的玩家角色——希望在环境中成长为一个有威严的人物。为了达到这个目的,玩家角色必须经历一系列连续的活动,这些活动是由大型战役和地下城主所决定的。互动可以是食物、设备和住所的日常事务,也可以是处理非玩家角色的事务,比如雇佣武器、和当地官员打交道等等。但即使是这些日常事务也能发展冒险,当然,冒险家是d&d系统的核心;因为它是通过一种冒险的方式,玩家的角色获得了智慧和财富,并且增加了能力水平。在历次历险中获得的经验、实际的以及由DM所授予的经验,在这些冒险的环境中,最常见的是参与战斗。
当然,黑客和雪橇不应该是被围攻的D&D玩家的第一个避难所,更不用说在遇到问题时他或她的最初的求助了。很自然地,一个良好的竞选活动将提供足够数量的替代方案,以及鼓励思考、谈判和替代物理力量的情况,通过谨慎的提示或消极形式的实物课程。除此之外,在任何给定的冒险中,战斗和近战肯定会占用相当多的时间,至少在一般情况下是如此。法术和导弹战斗不会消耗任何可观的时间,但是由于它们通常是整个近战的一部分,这些因素必须被考虑到一起进行肉搏战。
在近战战斗中必须模拟的是武器的推进和打击(粉碎和切割)以及怪物的自然身体武器——牙齿、利爪等等。这种类型的个人战斗可以通过包括装甲、武器(s)、反射速度、敏捷性、武器位置(左或右)、训练、力量、高度、体重、选择的战术(攻击、防守或组合)、连续打击的位置以及对特定区域的伤害等因素进行异常详细的描述。事实上,如果D&D游戏是一个利用微型小雕像进行的肉搏战的模拟,那么这些细节将是非常可取的。不过,这款游戏是一种冒险游戏,它与一种长时间的游戏(至少有6个或更多的玩家角色被认为是针对一个或多个对手)的游戏是不受欢迎的,因为大多数玩家绝对不是小型的战斗游戏爱好者。时间可以通过包含诸如死亡打击这样的因素而大大减少——一击致死,异常高的伤害——或者可能是一种单一中风的一种修正形式,具有特定的攻击位置,加上特定的身体攻击点,以及受打击的特殊结果——失去意识、失去成员、丧失成员资格等。
Close simulation of actual hand-to-hand combat and inclusion of immediate-result strokes have overall disadvantages from the standpoint of the game as a whole. Obviously, much of the excitement and action is not found in melee, and even shortening the process by adding in death strokes and the like causes undue emphasis on such combat. Furthermore, the D&D game is a role-playing campaign where much of the real enjoyment for participants comes from the gradual development of the game personae and their continuing exploits, whether successes or failures. In a system already fraught with numberless possibilities of instant death — spells, poison, breath and gaze weapons, and traps — it is too much to force players to face yet another. Melee combat is nearly certain to be a part of each and every adventure. It has sufficient element of danger to make the possibility of character death highly likely, but it also allows the wise to withdraw if things get too tough —most of the time, in any case.
The D&D combat systems are not all that “unrealistic" either, as will be discussed hereafter. The systems are designed to provide relative speed of resolution without either bogging down the referee in a morass of paperwork or giving high probability of death to participants' personae. Certainly, the longer and more involved the melee procedure, the more work and boredom for the Dungeon Master, while fast systems are fun but deadly to player characters (if such systems are challenging and equitable) and tend to discourage participants from long-term commitment to a campaign, for they cannot relate to a world in which they are but the briefest of candles, so to speak.
In order to minutely examine the combat system as used in the AD&D™ game, an example of play is appropriate. Consider a party of adventurers trekking through a dungeon’s 10-footwide corridor when they come upon a chamber housing a troop of gnoll guards. Let us assume that our party of adventurers is both well balanced in character race and class. They have a dwarf, a gnome, and a halfling in the front rank. Behind them are two half-elves. The last rank consists of three humans. Although there are eight characters, all of them are able to take an active part in the coming engagement; spells and missiles can be discharged from the rear or middle rows. The center- rank characters will also be able to engage in hand-to-hand combat if they have equipped themselves with spears or thrusting pole arms which are of a size useful in the surroundings. The front rank can initially use spells or missiles and then engage in melee with center-rank support, assuming that the party was not surprised. Whether or not any exchange of missiles and spells takes place is immaterial to the example, for it is melee which is the activity in question. Let us then move on to where the adventurers are locked in combat with the gnolls.
Each melee round is considered to be a one-minute period, with a further division into ten segments of six seconds each for determination of missile fire, spell casting and the striking of multiple telling blows. Note that during the course of a round there are assumed to be a number of parries, feints, and non-telling attacks made by opponents. The one (or several) dice roll (or rolls) made for each adversary, however, determines if a telling attack is made. If there is a hit indicated, some damage has been done; if a miss is rolled, then the opponent managed to block or avoid the attack.
If the participants picture the melee as somewhat analogous to a boxing match, they will have a correct grasp of the rationale used in designing the melee system. During the course of a melee round there is movement, there are many attacks which do not score, and each "to hit” roll indicates that there is an opening which may or may not allow a telling attack. In a recent letter, Don Turnbull stated that he envisioned that three sorts of attacks were continually taking place during melee:
1)   attacks which had no chance of hitting, including feints, parries, and the like;
2)   attacks which had a chance of doing damage but which missed as indicated by the die roll; and
3)   attacks which were telling as indicated by the die roll and subsequent damage determination.
This is a correct summation of what the D&D melee procedure subsumes. Note that the skill factor of higher-level fighters — as well as natural abilities and/or the speed of some monsters — allows more than one opportunity per melee round of scoring a telling attack, as those character and creature types are more able to take advantage of openings left by adversaries during the course of sparring, Similarly, zero-level men, and monsters under one full hit die, are considered as being less able to defend; thus, opponents of two or more levels or hit dice are able to get in one telling blow for each such level or hit die.
从整个游戏的角度来看,近距离模拟实际的手到手的战斗和包含直接结果的动作都有整体的缺点。很明显,大部分的兴奋和行动都不是在肉搏中发现的,甚至是通过增加死亡的次数来缩短这一过程,就像过度强调了这样的战斗。此外,D&D游戏是一种角色扮演活动,参与者的真正享受来自于游戏角色的逐渐发展和他们的持续开拓,不管是成功还是失败。在一个已经充斥着无数可能的瞬间死亡的系统中——魔咒、毒药、呼吸和注视武器,以及陷阱——它太过强迫玩家面对另一个。近战格斗几乎肯定是每个冒险的一部分。它有足够的危险因素使人物死亡的可能性极有可能发生,但它也允许明智的人在事情变得太困难的时候撤退——在任何情况下都是如此。
D&D的战斗系统也不全是不现实的,就像以后会讨论的那样。这些系统的设计目的是提供相对速度的解决方案,而不需要把裁判员拖到一个文件的泥沼中,或者给参与者的个人带来高概率的死亡。当然,肉搏的过程越长越复杂,对地下城的主人来说,工作和无聊就越多,而快速的系统对玩家来说是有趣的,但是对玩家来说是致命的(如果这样的系统是具有挑战性和公平性的),并且往往会让参与者不愿意长期致力于一场战役,因为他们无法与一个他们只是最简单的蜡烛的世界联系在一起,所以说。
为了详细地检查作战系统中使用AD&D™游戏,游戏的一个例子是合适的。想象一下,一群冒险家在一间地牢的10英尺宽的走廊上艰难跋涉,他们来到一间房屋,里面住着一群豺狼守卫。让我们假设我们的冒险者们在人物种族和阶级上都是很平衡的。他们有一个侏儒,一个侏儒,还有一个半身人。他们身后是两个半精灵。最后一个等级由三个人组成。虽然有八个角色,但他们都能在即将到来的活动中扮演积极的角色;咒语和导弹可以从后方或中排发射。如果他们装备了长矛或者是在周围环境中很有用的刺杆武器装备,那么他们的中心人物也可以进行徒手格斗。前线部队最初可以使用法术或导弹,然后与中心等级的支援进行近战,假设对方并不惊讶。无论是否进行导弹和法术的交换对这个例子来说都是无关紧要的,因为它是近战,这是一个问题。让我们继续到冒险家与gnolls战斗的地方。
每一场混战被认为是一分钟的时间,进一步划分为十段六秒的时间,以确定导弹射击、施法和多次打击的打击。请注意,在一回合的过程中,被假定有许多的parries,feints,和不告诉对手的攻击。然而,为每一个对手制造的一个骰子(或数个)骰子,决定了是否进行了攻击。如果有撞击,就会造成一些损害;如果一个失误被打滚,那么对手就可以阻止或避免攻击。
如果参与者认为近战与拳击比赛有点类似,他们就会正确地掌握设计近战系统的基本原理。在近战回合的过程中,有许多攻击没有得分,每一个“命中”都表明有一个可能或不允许有说服力的攻击。在最近的一封信中,唐·特恩布尔(Don Turnbull)表示,他设想在肉搏中会持续发生三种攻击:
1)没有命中的攻击,包括佯攻、攻击和类似的攻击;
2)攻击有可能造成伤害但未被掷骰子所指示的;和
3)由掷骰子和随后的伤害决定所指示的攻击。
这是对D&D近战程序的正确总结。请注意,高级格斗者的技能因素——以及天赋和/或某些怪物的速度——可以在每回合的攻击中获得超过一次的机会,因为这些角色和生物类型更能利用对手在战斗过程中留下的空缺,同样地,零级的人,以及在一个完全命中的骰子下的怪物,被认为是不能防御的;因此,两个或两个以上级别或命中骰子的对手都能在每一个这样的级别或命中的骰子上获得一个致命的打击。
This melee system also hinges on the number of hit points assigned to characters. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if a rhinoceros can take a maximum amount of damage equal to eight or nine eight-sided dice, a maximum of 64 or 72 hit points of damage to kill, it is positively absurd to assume that an 8th-level fighter with average scores on his or her hit dice and an 18 constitution, thus having 76 hit points, can physically withstand more punishment than a rhino before being killed. Hit points are a combination of actual physical constitution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. Ten points of damage dealt to a rhino indicates a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th-level fighter indicates a near miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust. So even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home....
I am firmly convinced that this system is superior to all others so far conceived and published. It reflects actual combat reasonably, for weaponry, armor (protection and speed and magical factors), and skill level, and allows for a limited amount of choice as to attacking or defending. It does not require participants to keep track of more than a minimal amount of information, it is quite fast, and it does not place undue burden upon the Dungeon Master. It allows those involved in combat to opt to retire if they are taking too much damage, although this does not necessarily guarantee that they will succeed or that the opponents will not strike a teling blow prior to such retreat. Means of dealing fatal damage at a single stroke or in a single melee routine are kept to a minimum commensurate with the excitement level of the system. Poison, weapons which deliver a fatal blow, etc., are rare or obvious. Thus, participants know that a giant snake or scorpion can fell them with a single strike with poison; they are aware that a dragon or a 12-headed hydra or a cloud giant can deliver considerable amounts of damage when they succeed in striking; and they also are aware that it is quite unlikely that an opponent will have a sword of sharpness, a vorpal blade, or some similarly deadly weapon. Melee, then, albeit a common enough occurrence, is a calculated risk which participants can usually determine before engaging in as to their likelihood of success; and even if the hazards are found to be too severe, they can often retract their characters to fight again another day.
Of course, everyone will not be satisfied with the combat system as presented. If DM and players desire a more complex and time-consuming method of determining melee combat, or if they wish a more detailed but shorter system, who can say them nay?
However, care must be taken to make certain that the net effect is the same as if the correct system had been employed, or else the melee will become imbalanced. If combat is distorted to favor the player characters, they will rise in experience levels too rapidly, and participants will become bored with a game which offers no real challenge and whose results are always a foregone conclusion. If melee is changed to favor the adversaries of player characters, such as by inclusion of extra or special damage when a high number is rolled on a “to hit” die, the net result will also be a loss of interest in the campaign. How does a rule for double damage on a die roll of 20 favor monsters and spoil a campaign? If only players are allowed such extra damage, then the former case of imbalance in favor of the players over their adversaries is in effect. If monsters are allowed such a benefit, it means the chances of surviving a melee, or withdrawing from combat if things are not going well, are sharply reduced. That means that character survival will be less likely. If players cannot develop and identify with a long- lived character, they will lose interest in the game. Terry Kuntz developed a system which allowed for telling strokes in an unpublished game he developed to recreate the epic adventures of Robin Hood et al. To mitigate against the possible loss at a single stroke, he also included a saving throw which allowed avoidance of such death blows, and the chance of making a successful saving throw increased as the character successfully engaged in combats, i.e. gained experience. This sort of approach is obviously possible, but it requires a highly competent designer to develop.
这个近战系统也取决于分配给角色的点的数量。正如我反复指出的,如果一头犀牛能够承受最大限度的伤害,相当于8个或9个八面骰子,最多可以达到64或72点的杀伤力,那么假设一个8级的战士在他或她的骰子和18个宪法中平均得分,从而拥有76个生命点,在被杀之前能够承受比犀牛更多的惩罚,这是非常荒谬的。命中点是实际身体构造的结合,避免了物理伤害的技能,运气和/或魔法或神圣因素。对犀牛造成的10点伤害表明了相当大的伤害,而8级的战士所遭受的同样的伤害表明了一个接近的失误,一个轻微的伤口,以及一点点的运气用尽,一点点的疲劳堆积起来对抗他或她的技能,以避免致命的伤口或刺痛。因此,即使在近战中被击中的时候,它通常也比不吃草的打击更频繁,仅仅是一个轻微的伤害,对于一个较小的人来说是致命的(或者几乎是如此)。然而,如果有足够多的这样的伤口累积到这个角色,那么耐力、技能和运气最终将会耗尽,而攻击将会击中要害。
我坚信,这个系统比迄今为止所设想和发布的所有其他系统都要优越。它能合理地反映实际的战斗,对于武器,装甲(保护和速度和魔法因素),和技能等级,并且允许有限的选择攻击或防御。它不要求参与者追踪的信息量是最少的,它是相当快的,而且它不会给地下城主带来不必要的负担。它允许那些参与战斗的人选择撤退,如果他们受到的伤害太大,尽管这并不一定保证他们会成功,或者对手在撤退之前不会对他们发动攻击。在单次或单一的近战中,处理致命伤害的方法与系统的兴奋程度保持在最低程度。毒药,武器,致命的一击,等等,都是很少见或很明显的。因此,参与者知道一条巨蟒或蝎子可以用一种毒液打击它们;他们意识到,龙或12头的九头蛇或云巨人一旦成功,就会造成相当大的伤害;而且他们也意识到,一个对手将会有利剑,一种旋翼,或者类似致命的武器。肉搏,虽然是一种常见的事件,但它是一种经过计算的风险,参与者通常在参与到成功的可能性之前就能确定;即使这些危险被发现太严重了,他们也常常会撤回他们的角色,以再次战斗。
当然,每个人都不会对所呈现的战斗系统感到满意。如果DM和玩家想要一种更加复杂和耗时的方法来确定肉搏,或者他们想要一个更详细但更短的系统,谁能说他们不呢?
然而,必须注意确保净效果与使用正确的系统相同,否则近战就会变得不平衡。如果战斗被扭曲到有利于玩家角色,他们将会在经验水平上迅速上升,而参与者将会对一场没有真正挑战的游戏感到厌烦,结果永远是预料之中的结果。如果肉搏被改变成有利于玩家角色的对手,比如当一个高数值被打到“命中”骰子时,将额外的或特殊的伤害包含在内,那么最终的结果也将是对比赛失去兴趣。“骰子结果在20以上便造成双倍伤害”的规则是如何帮助怪物和破坏一个战役的?如果只有球员被允许这样的额外的伤害,那么以前的不平衡的球员对他们的对手的支持是有效的。如果怪物能得到这样的好处,那就意味着在近战中幸存下来的机会,或者如果事情进展不顺利,从战斗中撤退的几率会大大降低。这意味着角色的生存将不太可能。如果玩家不能开发和识别一个长期存在的角色,他们就会对游戏失去兴趣。特里·昆茨(Terry Kuntz)开发了一种系统,可以在未出版的游戏中讲述笔画,以再现罗宾汉(Robin Hood)等人的史诗冒险故事。为了减轻一次中风可能造成的损失,他还提出了一种拯救方案,可以避免这样的死亡打击,而且成功的挽救生命的机会增加了,因为角色成功地参与了战斗,也就是获得了经验。这种方法显然是可行的,但是需要一个非常称职的设计人员来开发。
Melee in the D&D system is certainly a crucial factor, and it must not be warped at the risk of spoiling the whole game. Likewise, it is not unrealistic — if there is such a thing as "realism” in a game, particularly a game filled with the unreal assumptions of dragons, magic spells, and so on. The D&D melee combat system subsumes all sorts of variable factors in a system which must deal with imaginary monsters, magic- endowed weaponry, and make-believe characters and abilities. It does so in the form as to allow referees to handle the affair as rapidly as possible, while keeping balance between player characters and opponents, and still allowing the players the chance of withdrawing their characters if the going gets too rough. As melee combat is so common an occurrence during the course of each adventure, brevity, equitability, and options must be carefully balanced.
Someone recently asked how I could include a rule regarding weapons proficiency in the AD&D rules after decrying what they viewed as a similar system: bonuses for expertise with weapons. The AD&D system, in fact, penalizes characters for using weapons which they do not have expertise with. Obviously, this is entirely different in its effect upon combat. Penalties do not change the balance between character and adversary, for the player can always opt to use non-penalized weapons for his or her character.
It also makes the game more challenging by further defining differences in character classes and causing certain weapons to be more desirable than others: i.e., will the magic hammer+1 be useful to the cleric? It likewise adds choices. All this, rather than offering still another method whereby characters can more easily defeat opponents and have less challenge. How can one be mistaken as a variation of the other? The answer there is that the results of the two systems were not reflected upon. With a more perfect understanding of the combat system and its purposes, the inquirer will certainly be able to reason the thing through without difficulty and avoid spoiling the game in the name of “realism."
Realism does have a function in the D&D system, of course. It is the tool of the DM who is confronted by a situation which is not covered in the rules. With the number of variables involved in a game such as this, there is no possibility of avoiding situations which are not spelled out in the book. The spirit of the rules can be a guideline, as can the overall aim of rules which apply to general cases, but when a specific situation arises, judgement must often come into play.
Sean Cleary commented on this in a letter about common misunderstandings and difficulties encountered by the DM. While the AD&D system is absolutely clear, for example, that clerics have but one chance to attempt to turn undead, and that those struck by undead have no saving throw (life level is drained!), it was impossible to include all the minutiae in the rules. To illustrate further, consider the example of missile fire into a melee. Generally, the chances of hitting a friend instead of a foe is the ratio of the two in the melee. With small foes, the ratio is adjusted accordingly; i.e., two humans fighting four kobolds give about equal probabilities of hitting either. Huge foes make it almost impossible to strike a friend; i.e., aiming at a 12-foot-tall giant’s upper torso is quite unlikely to endanger the 6' tall human of a javelin of lightning bolts in a melee where a human and a giant are engaged. The missile strikes the giant; where does its stroke of lightning travel? Common sense and reality indicate that the angle of the javelin when it struck the giant will dictate that the stroke will travel in a straight line back along the shaft, and the rest is a matter of typical positions and angles — if the human was generally before the giant, and the javelin was thrown from behind the human, the trajectory of the missile will be a relatively straight line ending in the shaft of the weapon and indicating the course of the bolt of lightning backwards. The giant’s human opponent will not be struck by the stroke, but the lightning will most probably come close. Therefore, if the human is in met al armor, a saving throw should be made to determine if he or she takes half or no damage.
在D&D系统中,肉搏肯定是一个关键因素,它不能因为破坏整个游戏的风险而被扭曲。同样地,它也不是不现实的——如果在游戏中存在“现实主义”,尤其是一场充斥着龙、魔咒等虚幻假设的游戏。在一个系统中,d&d战斗系统包含了各种各样的可变因素,这个系统必须处理想象中的怪物,魔法武器,以及虚构的人物和能力。这样一来,就可以让裁判尽可能迅速地处理这件事,同时保持玩家的角色和对手之间的平衡,同时还能让球员们有机会在比赛太艰难的情况下收回他们的角色。由于肉搏在每次冒险过程中都是常见的,所以必须小心平衡,简洁,平衡。
最近有人问我,在谴责他们认为类似的系统:拥有武器的专业知识后,我如何能在AD&D规则中包含有关武器熟练程度的规则。事实上,AD&D系统对使用他们没有专业技能的武器进行惩罚。显然,这对战斗的影响是完全不同的。惩罚不会改变角色和对手之间的平衡,因为玩家可以选择不受惩罚的武器来攻击他/她的角色。
这也使得游戏更有挑战性通过进一步定义不同的角色类并使某些武器比其他的更可取,即。,魔锤+ 1对牧师有用吗?它也增加了选择。所有这些,而不是提供另一种方法,使角色更容易击败对手,减少挑战。一个人怎么可能被误认为是另一个的变体呢?答案是,这两个系统的结果没有被反映出来。通过对战斗系统及其目的的更完美的理解,问询者一定能够毫无困难地推理,并避免以“现实主义”的名义破坏游戏。
当然,在D&D系统中,现实主义确实有一个功能。它是DM的工具,它面对的是规则中没有涵盖的情况。在这样的游戏中涉及到的变量的数量,就不可能避免在书中没有说明的情况。规则的精神可以是指导原则,也可以是适用于一般情况的规则的总体目标,但是当出现特定的情况时,判断必须经常发挥作用。
Sean Cleary在一封信中对DM所遇到的常见误解和困难进行了评论,而AD&D系统是绝对清楚的,例如,神职人员只有一次机会去尝试不死,而那些被亡灵袭击的人却没有得救的机会(生活水平被耗尽了!),在规则中不可能包含所有细节。为了进一步说明,考虑导弹射击近战的例子。一般来说,击中朋友而不是敌人的几率是两者在近战中的比例。与小的敌人,比率作相应调整;即两个人与四名狗头人作战的概率相等。巨大的敌人几乎不可能击中一个朋友;即,瞄准一个12英尺高的巨人的上半身,不太可能威胁到一个在近战中闪电的人,一个人和一个巨人正在交火。导弹击中了巨人;它的闪电行程在哪里?常识和现实表明,在击中巨人时标枪的角度将决定冲程沿轴沿直线行进,其余则是典型的位置和角度——如果人类通常在巨人面前,标枪从人身后扔出,导弹的轨迹将是一个相对直线的终点,在武器的轴上,指示着闪电的方向向后。巨人的人类对手不会被击中,但是闪电很可能会接近。因此,如果人类是金属盔甲,就应该进行一次豁免检定,以确定他或她是否受到了一半或没有伤害。
In like manner, reality can illustrate probabilities. If three husky players are placed shoulder to shoulder, distances added for armor, and additional spaces added for weapon play, the DM can estimate what activities can take place in a given amount of space. Determination of how many persons can pass through a door 5 feet wide can be made with relative ease — two can proceed carefully, but if two or three rush to pass through at the same time a momentary jam can occur. How long should the jam last? How long would people remain so wedged? With an added factor for inflexible pieces of plate mail, the answer is probably one or two segments of a round. Of course, during this period the jammed characters cannot attack or defend, so no shield protection or dexterity bonus to armor class would apply, and an arbitrary bonus of +4 could be given to any attackers (an arbitrary penalty of -4 on saving throws follows).
The melee systems used in the D&D rules are by no means sacrosanct. Changes can be made if they are done intelligently by a knowledgeable individual who thoroughly understands the whole design. Similarly, “realism" is a part of melee, for the DM must refer to it continually to adjudicate combat situations where no rules exist, and this handling is of utmost importance in maintaining a balanced melee procedure. With this truly important input from the referee, it is my firm belief that the D&D system of combat is not only adequate but actually unsurpassed by any rival so-called “improvement” and "realistic" methods. The latter add complication and unnecessary record-keeping, or otherwise distort the aim of a role-playing game —character survival and identification. What is foisted off on the gullible is typically a hodgepodge of arbitrary rulings which are claimed to give “realism” to a make-believe game. Within the scope of the whole game surrounding such systems, they might or might not work well enough, but seldom will these systems fit into a D&D campaign regardless of the engineering attempts of well-meaning referees.
The logic of the D&D melee systems is simple: They reasonably reflect fantastic combat and they work damn well from all standpoints. My advice is to leave well enough alone and accept the game for what it is. If you must have more detail in melee, switch to another game, for the combat portions of the D&D rules are integral, and unsuccessful attempts to change melee will result in spoiling the whole. Better to start fresh than to find that much time and effort has been wasted on a deadend variant.
以类似的方式,现实可以证明概率。如果三个哈士奇的玩家被放置在肩膀上,在装甲上增加距离,在武器游戏中增加额外的空间,DM可以估计在一定数量的空间中会发生什么活动。确定有多少人可以通过5英尺宽的门,可以相对轻松地完成——两个可以小心地进行,但是如果两到三次同时发生,就会发生暂时性的堵塞。果酱要持续多久?人们还能保持多久?对于不灵活的平板邮件来说,答案可能是一到两段。当然,在这段时间内,被卡住的角色不能攻击或防御,所以没有任何盾牌保护或敏捷性的加成将适用于装甲类,并且任意的+ 4的奖励可以被给予任何攻击者(一个任意的- 4的豁免罚球将跟随)。
在D&D规则中使用的近战系统并不是神圣不可侵犯的。如果一个知识渊博的人对整个设计有透彻的了解,就可以做出改变。类似地,“现实主义”是混战的一部分,因为DM必须不断地引用它来判决没有规则的战斗情况,而这种处理在维持一个平衡的近战过程中是至关重要的。有了这个真正重要的裁判的意见,我坚信D&D的战斗系统不仅是足够的,而且是任何对手所谓的“改进”和“现实”的方法都无法超越的。后者增加了复杂性和不必要的记录,或者其他的扭曲了角色扮演游戏的目标——角色的生存和识别。在容易上当受骗的人身上,通常会有一些武断的裁决,这些裁决声称将“现实主义”赋予虚构的游戏。在围绕这类系统的整个游戏的范围内,他们可能会或者可能不会很好地工作,但是这些系统很少会被用于D&D运动,而不考虑那些善意的裁判的工程企图。
D&D近战系统的逻辑很简单:它们合理地反映了奇妙的战斗,并且从所有的角度都能很好地工作。我的建议是,充分地离开,接受这个游戏。如果你必须在近战中有更多的细节,切换到另一种游戏,因为d&d规则的战斗部分是不可分割的,而不成功的改变近战的尝试将会破坏整个游戏。最好是重新开始,而不是发现有太多的时间和精力被浪费在一个没有结果的变种上。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #26 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:08:28 »
机翻第九弹

Character social class
MAY
1979
#25
“The D&D system is principally medieval in respect to the technology of its arms, armor, and military arts . Even assuming the DM wishes to adhere to a medieval milieu, many sorts of historic government forms and social orders are available.”
D&D系统主要是中世纪的武器,盔甲和军事艺术的技术。即使假设DM希望坚持一个中世纪的环境,也有许多历史性的政府形式和社会秩序。
From issue #25 May 1979

Insertion of randomly determined social class is sometimes touted as an improvement or valuable addition to the existing D&D® game system. This sort of assertion seems valid on the face of it, for doesn’t the game benefit from assigning social classes to player characters? Isn’t a new dimension added when the rank of characters is known and considered? Before answering these questions, consider from whence the idea of social classes came. Professor M.A.R. Barker suggested social classes in the instruction manual for his monumental game, Empire of The Pet al Throne. The En Garde! game by Game Designers’ Workshop contains a lengthy treatment of social class and birth tables. Those who saw these works and decided to insert them into a D&D game failed to recognize one important singularity common to each of the aforementioned games which is not also possessed by either the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® or ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game. Both the world of Tekumel and that of the Three Musketeers et al have a complex and detailed social system already devised for them —one from the creativity of Prof. Barker, the other drawn from the history and legends of the period of Cardinal Richelieu, the early 17th century. The D&D system has no such cultural and social background.
Because the game does not have a predetermined culture and social structure, it is foolish to plug in a system which assigns a class rating to characters, unless the social class determination is very basic and non-specific, such as:
01-75 = character is of common background 76-95 = character is of aristocratic background 96-00 = character is of upper-class background Note that this sort of determination is not particularly useful, but it does not preordain a social order, either. Use of a more specific method causes the Dungeon Master to automatically accept a social order he or she may well have no desire to include in the campaign, for lack of knowledge or because of personal preference, or for any other reason. All of the social- distinction tables assume nobility or offices or professions which are not universal to all cultures. Use of such tables means that the DM has accepted the premise that his or her campaign, in fact, has such classes of nobles, professions, or offices.
The D&D and AD&D,“ rules represent fantastic medieval game systems. This does not just mean medieval in the European sense, although a campaign milieu based loosely upon mythical feudal Europe is not precluded. However, it could as well be set in the Near East or Far East, in a mythical place, in a mythos with an ancient-medieval atmosphere (such as Robert E. Howard's "Hyborean Age”), or just about any other desired milieu. The important factor is medieval technology, not necessarily feudalism with primogeniture, entail, and a Salic Law.
So-called birth tables are likewise of highly questionable value to DMs. These tables dictate to the Dungeon Master the rank of a male player character's birth (first, second, third, etc.). Again, the information is useful only when a culture which is basically feudal European (with primogeniture, entail, and Salic Laws regarding inheritance and titles) is considered. What if some other system is desired by the DM? Out the window with the birth tables, of course. Furthermore, even if a basically feudal society is presupposed in the campaign, of what use are birth tables which indicate that a player character is a first-born son of a ruling monarch or major noble? How can one conceive of such a personage going out adventuring at the risk of life and limb?! Has the individual abdicated his inheritance? Does he have amnesia? Where are his guards and retainers? Does his sire know what he is doing and where?
And all of this when a compatible social order is considered. Now envision use of such systems in a milieu which is neither feudal nor male-oriented — a hierarchy based on matriarchal principles, for example. Inclusion of such tables simply is unthinkable. For these very reasons, the D&D rules do not contain any systems of social classification, for the DM must first decide upon the culture and society of the campaign before any valid system can be designed, and there are far too many variables, so the task is strictly that of the DM. Any detailed system will impose its own order upon the campaign, as well as possibly forcing the DM to accept certain premises regarding player characters which do not fit into the scheme of the milieu.
随机决定的社会阶层的插入有时被吹捧为对现有的d&d游戏系统的改进或有价值的补充。这类断言在表面上看来是有效的,因为在游戏中分配社会等级给玩家角色不是游戏的好处吗?当角色的等级被知道和被考虑时,不是增加了一个新的维度吗?在回答这些问题之前,先考虑一下社会阶级的概念是从哪里来的。M.A.R.巴克教授在他的不朽的游戏“花瓣宝座帝国”中提出了社会阶级的建议。警戒!游戏设计者工作室的游戏包含了对社会阶层和出生表的冗长的处理。那些看过这些作品并决定把它们加入d&d游戏的人,都没能意识到上述游戏中的一个重要的奇异点,这些游戏既不是地下城龙,也不是地下城龙游戏。Tekumel和三个火枪手的世界都有一个复杂而详细的社会体系,这是由巴克教授的创造力所设计的,另一个是17世纪早期红衣主教的历史和传说。D&D系统没有这样的文化和社会背景。
因为游戏没有预先设定的文化和社会结构,所以插入一个给角色分配等级的系统是愚蠢的,除非社会阶层的决定是非常基础的和非具体的,例如:
01-75=性格是普通的背景76-95=性格是贵族背景的96-00=性格是上流社会背景的,这类决定不是特别有用,但它也不预先决定一个社会秩序。使用一种更具体的方法会使地牢主人自动接受他或她可能不愿意在竞选中包括的社会秩序,因为缺乏知识或出于个人喜好,或出于其他原因。所有的社会-区分表都假设了贵族、办公室或职业,这些都不是所有文化都通用的。使用这些表格意味着DM已经接受了这样一个前提,即他或她的竞选活动,实际上有这样的贵族、职业或办公室。
《D&D和AD&D》,“规则代表了奇妙的中世纪游戏系统。这不仅意味着中世纪的欧洲意识,尽管一个基于神话的封建欧洲的运动环境并不排除。然而,它也可以被设置在近东或远东,在一个神话般的地方,在一个古老的中世纪氛围中(如罗伯特·e·霍华德的《Hyborean Age》),或者仅仅是关于任何其他想要的环境。重要的因素是中世纪的技术,而非必要的封建制度,包括长子继承权、继承权和法律。
对于DMs,所谓的出生表同样具有很高的价值。这些表规定的地下城主的男性玩家角色的诞生(第一,第二,第三,等等)。同样,只有当一个基本上是封建欧洲的文化(有长子继承权、继承权和有关继承和头衔的法律)时,这些信息才有用。如果DM需要其他系统呢?当然是带着出生桌子的窗户。此外,即使一个基本的封建社会在竞选活动中被预先假定,也有哪些使用的出生表格表明一个玩家的角色是一个统治君主或主要贵族的长子?一个人怎么能想象出这样一个人冒着生命危险去冒险呢?那个人放弃了他的遗产了吗?他有健忘症吗?他的侍卫和侍卫在哪里?他的父亲知道他在做什么吗?
所有这些都是考虑到兼容的社会秩序。现在设想在一个既不封建也不以男性为导向的环境中使用这样的系统——例如,基于母系原则的等级制度。这些表格的加入是不可想象的。因为这些原因,D&D的规则不包含任何社会分类的系统,因为在任何有效的系统可以被设计之前,DM必须先决定在社会的文化和社会,而且有太多的变量,所以这个任务是严格的,任何详细的系统都将强加给竞选的命令,同时也可能强迫DM接受一些关于玩家角色的特定的前提,而这些因素不符合环境的计划。
For the sake of discussion, a number of government forms are given below. Several of these names were coined on the spot in order to describe types of governments which would be applicable in a D&D campaign milieu. The list is by no means exhaustive, and DMs should feel right in devising any sort of government which is reasonable within the parameters they have set for their particular “worlds.” Some possible forms of government are:
Anarchy — No formal government and no social classes.
Aristocracy — Government by a privileged class, this class so vested with power to rule being determined by virtually any circumstances of social or economic relevance.
Autocracy — Government which rests in self-derived, absolute power (an emperor or dictator is typically an autocrat, but the variations are many).
Bureaucracy — Government by department, rule being through the heads and chief administrators of the various departments of the system.
Confederacy—An alliance of possibly diverse governmental and social entities designed to promote the common weal.
Democracy — Government by the people, i.e. the established body of citizens, whether direct or through elected representatives.
Feodality — Feudal government where each authority derives authority and power from the one above and pledges fealty in like manner.
Geriatocracy — Government by the very old.
Gynarchy — Government by females only.
Hierarchy — Typically religious government with a structure somewhat similar to a feodality.
Magocracy — Government by professional magic- users.
Matriarchy — Government by the eldest females of whatever social units exist.
Militocracy — Government by military leaders and the armed forces in general.
Monarchy— Government by a single sovereign, usually hereditary, whether absolute in power or limited (such as the English monarchs were by the Magna Carta).
Oligarchy — Government by a few, usually absolute, rulers who are co-equal.
Pedocracy— Government by the learned and savants.
Plutocracy — Government by the wealthy.
Republic — A government of representatives of an established electorate.
Theocracy — God-rule, or rule by a god’s direct representative.
Let us assume a campaign in which the DM desires to develop play around two diverse portions of the campaign area, in this instance a portion of a continental land mass. The western nation is an oligarchy, while the east is fragmented into numbers of small feudal states which the oligarchy keeps in constant turmoil and warfare through clever machination. If player characters begin in an eastern land — more likely a place for adventuring — the social order will tend to be feudal or semi-feudal. Let us further assume they start out in a small province of a small kingdom ruled by an absolute monarch. Near equals to the king are the peers of the realm — dukes, princes, the greatest churchmen, marquises, counts (or earls), great churchmen, viscounts, barons, and lesser great churchmen. Considered separately are knights, for those given this status by the king are peers, though those with lesser knighthoods still rank amongst the nobility. Of course, nobles are not necessarily knighted; and knighthood, unlike titles of nobility, cannot be inherited.
Below the nobility and knights is a broader class of society, the gentry. Gentlemen, or the gentle born, are from families with land holdings or great wealth from mercantile activity and the like. The great offices of the kingdom — chancellor, marshal, constable, etc. — are drawn from the nobles; but the lesser officeholders — bailiffs, magistrates, justices, etc. — will be drawn from the gentry. Outstanding members of the class will be knighted. Exceptional knights will be elevated to the peerage. Civic leaders are typically of this class.
为了便于讨论,下面给出了一些政府的表格。这些名字中有好几个是为了描述在D&D运动环境中适用的政府类型而创造的。这份清单绝不是详尽无遗的,而DMs在设计任何一种符合其特定“世界”的参数的政府时,应该感觉是正确的。“一些可能的政府形式是:
无政府——没有正式的政府,也没有社会阶层。
贵族-政府的特权阶级,这类赋予权力的权力,由几乎任何社会或经济关联的环境决定。
独裁统治——政府依赖于自我衍生的、绝对的权力(一个皇帝或独裁者通常是一个独裁者,但变化是很多的)。
科层制——由部门领导的政府,由系统各部门的负责人和行政管理人员组成。
联盟-一个可能由政府和社会团体组成的联盟,旨在促进共同的福利。
民主——人民政府,即公民的既定主体,无论是直接的还是通过选举产生的代表。
封建政府:每一个权威从上面的人那里获得权威和权力,并以类似的方式宣誓效忠。
老年政府——由非常老的政府。
女权主义——政府只由女性管理。
等级制度——典型的宗教政府,其结构有点类似于一种非宗教性质。
Magocracy-由专业的魔法政府-用户。
母权制——由社会单位中最年长的女性所统治。
军事统治——由军事领导人和军队领导的政府。
君主立宪制——由一个君主统治,通常是世袭的,无论是权力还是限制(如英国君主都是大宪章)。
寡头——少数人的政府,通常是绝对的,统治者是相互平等的。
政府是由学者和学者来管理的。
财阀统治,由富人统治。
共和国-一个由既定选民组成的政府。
神权政治——上帝的统治,或由上帝的直接代表统治。
让我们假设一场运动,DM希望在运动区域的两种不同的部分发挥作用,在这个例子中,是大陆块的一部分。西方国家是一个寡头政治集团,而东方则是分裂成几个小的封建国家,寡头政治在不断的混乱和战争中通过巧妙的机器进行战争。如果玩家角色在东部地区开始——更可能是冒险的地方——社会秩序将趋向于封建或半封建。让我们进一步假设他们是在一个由绝对君主统治的小王国的一个小省开始的。接近国王的人是王国的贵族——公爵、王子、最伟大的教士、侯爵、伯爵(或伯爵)、伟大的教士、子爵、男爵和不太伟大的神职人员。单独考虑的是骑士,因为国王的地位是贵族,尽管那些拥有较低骑士身份的人仍然属于贵族。当然,贵族不一定是骑士;与贵族头衔不同,骑士身份不能继承。
在贵族和骑士之下是一个更广泛的阶级社会,绅士。绅士们,或者出身高贵的人,来自拥有土地的家庭,或来自商业活动的巨大财富。王国的伟大办公室——大臣、元帅、治安官等等——都是由贵族们所吸引;但较次要的官员——法警、地方法官、法官等——将从士绅阶层中抽离出来。班上杰出的成员将被授予爵位。杰出的骑士将被提升到贵族。公民领袖通常是这类人。


Next after the gentry are the freemen and artisans. This class is comprised of small landowners, tradesmen, and skilled craftsmen. This class furnishes candidates for very minor offices of the government and will be active in the affairs of small community government, usually serving under the leadership of a gentleman. Rarely will members of this class be knighted.
Below the freemen and artisans come the laborers. These are free folk, but they have neither land nor skills. They are tenant farmers, workers, and peddlers. These folk come under all of the upper classes, and they can aspire to become freemen, although there is little likelihood of this move occurring, since money and opportunity are scarce.
The lowest class is far and away the largest. It is made up of servants, bondsmen, and serfs. Servants and bondsmen can eventually move into the laborer class, but serfs can have no such hope. They are confined by law to work the land for their liege lord, be it nobleman, churchman, gentleman, or even freeman.
Player characters beginning in this social order will be of noble origin only if the DM desires to include this as a factor. Frankly, only the younger sons of any noble family would have any reason to become adventurers in most cases, for the firstborn will inherit the title and lands, and the second and third sons will certainly be provided for by means of clerical offices and government positions. Royal sons are always given titles and lands, regardless. If firstborn sons or royal family members become involved in a campaign as player characters, there must be a reason for this! Where will adventurers come from then? Not from the peasants, for they are probably absolutely forbidden to possess and bear arms, except when impressed into levied bands by their liege lords. Most adventurers will come from the laboring, freeman/artisan, or gentle class. The percentage of adventurers from each class is wholly dependent upon circumstances of the campaign, such as the largest urban area nearby, local and regional government, economic factors, etc. Let us suppose, for the sake of the example, that there is a 5% chance that a character will be from the lowest class, 10% chance of being from the laboring class, 30% from the class of freemen and artisans, and 50% from the gentle class. (More weight is given to the more privileged classes as they are more likely to be able to afford or otherwise have the means to have their sons — or daughters — given the background necessary to become an adventurer.) A 5% chance is also given for a lesser noble class background, for anything greater in percentage or higher in class would cause severe campaign anomalies. What does this all mean?
Well, starting funds and equipment must be adjusted to suit social class, although some weight can be given to the possibility of previous gains and losses to balance things out a bit. The majoreffect such social level determination would have is in the area of profession. All thieves and assassins could come only from the two lowest social classes. Clerics could come only from the levels above the two lowest. Magic-users could come only from the three highest levels. Paladins could come only from the highest class. In general, skills learned before becoming an adventurer are non-existent outside those peculiar to the profession of the character. For example, the son of a cheese maker will be sent away at a young age to receive a clerical education, or serve as an apprentice magic-user, without benefit of training in his father’s business. Each adventurer will have basic skills and knowledge to his or her profession and little else. Fighters are the sole possible exception, for their apprenticeship would typically come later and consist of service with a levied or militia force, then as a mercenary or recruited man-at-arms, and only thereafter as a 1st-level (Veteran) fighter. Therefore, consideration to the possibility of the character possessing one or more skills in addition to fighting ability is not unreasonable. These skills would be commensurate with social class and background based upon the milieu.
接下来的绅士是自由人和工匠。这个班由小地主、商人和熟练工组成。这个班级为政府非常小的办公室提供候选人,并将积极参与小社区政府的事务,通常是在一位绅士的领导下服务。这个班的成员很少被封为爵士。
在自由人和工匠的下面是工人。这些人是自由人,但他们既没有土地,也没有技能。他们是佃农、工人和小贩。这些人都属于上层阶级,他们可以立志成为自由人,尽管这种变化的可能性很小,因为金钱和机会很少。
最底层的人是最大的。它是由仆人、奴隶和农奴组成的。仆人和奴隶最终可以进入劳工阶层,但农奴却没有这样的希望。他们受法律约束,为他们的君主而工作,无论是贵族、牧师、绅士,甚至是自由民。
在这个社会秩序中开始的玩家角色只有当DM想把这个作为一个因素时才会有贵族血统。坦率地说,在大多数情况下,任何贵族家庭的小儿子都有成为冒险家的理由,因为长子将继承爵位和土地,而第二和第三个儿子当然也将由办事机构和政府职位提供。无论如何,王室的儿子总是被授予头衔和土地。如果长子或皇室成员参与到一场作为玩家角色的运动中,一定有原因!那么冒险家从哪里来呢?不是来自农民,因为他们很可能被禁止拥有和携带武器,除非他们被他们的列王的贵族们所吸引。大多数的冒险者来自劳动,自由人/工匠,或温和的阶级。每个班的冒险者的百分比完全取决于运动的环境,如附近最大的城市地区,地方政府和地方政府,经济因素等等。让我们假设,为了这个例子,一个人物有5%的机会来自最低阶层,10%的机会来自劳动阶级,30%来自自由人和工匠,还有50%来自温和阶级。(鉴于他们更有可能负担得起或有办法让自己的儿子或女儿拥有自己的儿子或女儿,他们的体重会增加,因为他们有成为冒险家的必要条件。)5%的机会也是给一个小贵族阶级背景,任何更大的百分比或更高的阶级将引起严重的运动异常。这一切意味着什么?
好吧,启动资金和设备必须调整以适应社会阶层,尽管有些人可能会有一些可能的收益和损失来平衡一些事情。这样的社会水平决定的主要作用是在职业领域。所有的盗贼和刺客只能来自两个最低的社会阶层。神职人员只能从最低的两级来。魔法使用者只能从最高的三个等级来。圣骑士只能来自最高阶层。一般来说,在成为冒险家之前所学到的技能都不存在于这个角色所特有的职业之外。例如,一个奶酪制造者的儿子会在很小的时候就被送去接受牧师教育,或者当学徒,而没有在父亲的生意中受过训练。每个冒险家都有基本的技能和知识,他们的专业和其他很少。战斗人员是唯一可能的例外,因为他们的学徒期通常是晚些时候,包括被征召或民兵部队服役,然后是雇佣兵或招募士兵,然后才成为一名1级(资深)战士。因此,考虑到具有一种或多种技能的人在战斗能力之外的可能性并不是不合理的。这些技能将与社会阶层和背景相适应,以环境为基础。
D&D was purposely sketchy and vague regarding government and social systems, for not only would any attempt at detailing such information be of considerable length, but it would also take away the prerogatives of the DM. The governments and social systems of a campaign should be devised and developed directly by each individual DM with an overview of his or her entire campaign, both the introductory milieu, and the eventual scope of the “world" and the universe (or "multiverse") in which it is set. To force any order upon the DM is to curtail the scope he or she has in devising such settings. This is not to say that it is wrong to have package offerings such as the Judges Guild City-State or TSR's WORLD OF GREYHAWK™ Fantasy World Setting. In such as these, there can be no question in the purchaser's mind as to what is offered, a milieu which is already developed. The D&D rules are distinct, however, in that they instruct the DM as to how the game is played and mention only in passing that an entire “world” must be developed to house the campaign. The design of that world was left as the purview of each individual DM. The D&D popularity explosion, and human nature too, has tended to promote an increasing acceptance of social class distinctions and tables without due consideration for long-term campaign effects. At the very least this has resulted in some very odd settings, and at worst it has promoted the early demise of campaigns — typically with attendant reorganization and restarting, with revised ideas and rules. In order to save DMs from this difficulty, a thorough treatment of society and government forms is needed. Space and time disallow any in-depth treatment, even assuming a qualified authority could be found to do a thesis on the topic for us. DMs must be prepared to research the topic for themselves and develop systems which suit their needs.
The D&D system is principally medieval in respect to the technology of its arms, armor, and military arts. Even assuming the DM wishes to adhere to a medieval milieu, many sorts of historic government forms and social orders are available —the English monarchy, the Swiss Confederation, the Holy Roman electorate, the Byzantine Empire, various Arab states, or even the horse nomads of central Asia can be used as models, and that is but a sampling. Consider some of these other possible forms which may or may not draw upon historical bases. Then create the societies you desire.
It is obvious, then, that only the individual Dungeon Master is capable of properly establishing the social order of his or her individual campaign. Active inclusion of this consideration will necessarily place some 1 u rather restrictions on player character choices as to profession, but this is not necessarily a drawback; and it might well be desirable in certain cases, as it will tend to encourage more fighters and reward them with bonuses in the area of knowledge and skills not possesed by other classes of adventurers. Inclusion of an overall social structure and classes is, of course, a necessity in any large campaign. This is not merely an embellishment; it is an integral part of the development of the milieu. Furthermore, inclusion of important personages from higher levels of society will tend to add greatly to the campaign in various ways. From taking service with a noble to rescuing a prince or princess, such interaction adds to the scope and meaning of the campaign.
What is also obvious is that social class is certainly not something to be added lightly, a factor to be sprinkled whimsically into the campaign or tossed into the whole by random chance. A well run and meaningful campaign will have an equally well devised social system and class determination according to forethought precepts. I suppose it is best summed up by the old adage, “Class will tell."...
D&D在政府和社会系统方面是故意模糊和模糊的,因为它不仅会详细说明这些信息的长度,而且还会剥夺DM的特权。一个运动的政府和社会系统应该由每一个个体的DM来设计和发展,通过对他或她的整个竞选活动的概述,包括背景环境,以及最终的“世界”和宇宙的范围(或“多元宇宙”),来强迫DM的任何秩序都是为了限制他或她在设计这些设置时所拥有的范围。这并不是说,拥有诸如评委公会城邦或TSR的“灰鹰”奇幻世界背景这样的打包产品是错误的。在这样的情况下,购买者的头脑中就不会有任何问题,就像已经开发出来的环境一样。然而,D&D规则是截然不同的,因为他们指导DM如何玩游戏,并且只在传递一个完整的“世界”必须被开发来容纳整个“世界”。这个世界的设计被认为是每个DM的权限,d&d的流行爆炸,以及人性,都倾向于促进人们对社会阶级的区别和表格的接受程度,而不考虑长期的运动影响。至少这导致了一些非常奇怪的设置,在最坏的情况下,它促进了运动的早期消亡——通常伴随着随之而来的重组和重新启动,以及修改的想法和规则。为了避免这种困难,需要对社会和政府形式进行彻底的处理。空间和时间不允许任何深度的处理,甚至假设有一个合格的权威可以被发现为我们做一个主题的论文。DMs必须准备好自己研究课题,并开发适合自己需求的系统。
D&D系统主要是中世纪的武器,盔甲和军事艺术的技术。即使假设DM希望遵循中世纪的环境,也有许多历史形式的政府形式和社会秩序——英国君主制、瑞士联邦、神圣罗马选民、拜占庭帝国、各种阿拉伯国家,甚至中亚的游牧民族都可以作为模型,这只是一个抽样。考虑一些其他可能的形式,它们可能或不能利用历史的基础。然后创造你想要的社会。
很明显,只有单独的地下城主能够正确地建立他或她的个人战役的社会秩序。积极地包含这一考虑,必然会对玩家的角色选择有一定的限制,但这并不一定是一个缺点;在某些情况下,这很可能是可取的,因为它会鼓励更多的战士,并奖励他们在知识和技能方面的奖金,而不是其他的冒险者。当然,将整个社会结构和阶级纳入其中是任何大型活动的必要条件。这不仅仅是一种点缀;它是环境发展的不可分割的一部分。此外,从社会的高层中加入重要人物往往会以各种方式大大增加竞选活动。从服务贵族到拯救王子或公主,这样的互动增加了活动的范围和意义。
同样明显的是,社会阶层当然不是什么可以随便添加的东西,一个可以随意散布的因素,或者是随机地扔进整个社会的。一个良好的运行和有意义的运动将会有一个同样完善的社会制度和阶级决心,根据预先思想的戒律。我想最好的总结是一句老话:“阶级会告诉你”……
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #27 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:08:56 »
机翻第十弹


JUNE
1979
#26
“The ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® rules comprise a DIFFERENT game. Readers, please take note ! It is neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game : IT IS A NEW GAME . “
“ CHAINMAIL had proved to be highly successful primarily due to the pioneering steps in fantasy and individual gaming concepts ... Dave Arneson expanded upon these areas, and when he and I got together, the ideas necessary to create the D&D system were engendered. “
“先进的龙与地下城®包含一个不同的游戏规则。读者请注意!它既不是一个扩展,也不是旧游戏的修正:它是一个新的游戏。”
“CHAINMAIL被证明是非常成功的,主要是由于在幻想和个人游戏概念上的开拓性的步骤……”Dave Arneson扩展了这些领域,当他和我在一起的时候,创建D&D系统所需要的想法被产生了。”
From issue #26 June 1979


Adventures of the cerebral type have been with us for as long as mankind has told tales around campfires. Role-playing is at least as old as this, too, if one considers early religious or quasi-religious rites. Both advanced in form during the Golden Age of Greece, assuming forms which are close to those of today. How modern-era adventure games came into being is connected to all of this, for they owe their existence to the D&D® game, a fact which cannot be disputed.
Fantasy wargaming began before adventure gaming. In fact, it began before Chainmail. Tony Bath of England was conducting table-top battles roughly based on the "Hyborean Age" of Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories years before the Fantasy Supplement of Cha/nma/7waspublished.Similarly, role-playing has been common in wargaming for years — decades, I suspect, when one considers the length of time that the hobby has been pursued in England. I can recall being part of the nationwide game which was conceived by "The Ad Hoc Committee for the Re-Reinstitution of WWII,” a group which was based at Stanford University. This writer was given the role of the Chinese Communist commander, while my friend, Don Kaye, was the Chinese Nationalist leader, and our associate, Terry Stafford of Chicago, was the British Far East Squadron Commander. Interesting and differing roles, but all involving thousands, or millions, of men to be commanded.
Our own local group, the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association, became involved in one-to-one gaming about 1970. Mike Reese and Leon Tucker, both strong proponents of WWII miniatures gaming, and Jeff Perren and I with our medieval miniatures, provided the group with many hours of enjoyment around the large sand table which reposed in the basement of my home. At various times our number commanded a squad or more of infantry, bands of marauding Vikings, a key bunker, a troop of Mongolian light horse, a platoon of AFVs, and so on. Some of these roles lasted only for a single game or two; some included large scale map movement and the many engagements which constitute a campaign. Late in 1972 these roles were extended to include superheroes and wizards, as the special fantasy section of what was to become Chainmail was playtested. Magic-users defended their strongholds from invading armies, heroes met trolls, and magic items of great power were sought after on the same sand table which had formerly hosted Normans, Napoleonic footsoldiers, and trucks and tanks invading Normandy. These games were certainly adventures, and role-playing was involved, yet what was played could by no means be called either a D&D game or adventure gaming of any sort.
When Dave Arneson, already a member of the International Federation of Wargaming, joined the Castle & Crusade Society, he began playing in our loosely organized campaign game. Most of the action therein was conducted by the LGTSA, using my sand table, with other members of the society coming for visits to my place to join in from time to time. Dave had a large group in the Twin Cities, and they desired to do their own thing. Dave, an expert at running campaign games, began to develop his own "fief” as a setting for a medieval fantasy campaign gaming, reporting these games to the head of the C&C Society.
Using the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement and the "Man-To- Man" rules from the same work, Dave made some interesting innovations: First, he gave his fellows more or less individual roles to play — after all, “Blackmoor” was just a small section bordering on the "Great Kingdom,” and there weren’t all that many heroes and wizards and men-at-arms to parcel out. Then, Dave decided that he would allow progression of expertise for his players, success in games meaning that the hero would gain the ability of five, rather than but four men, eventually gaining the exalted status of superhero; similarly, wizards would gain more spells if they proved successful in their endeavors. Lastly, following the advice in Chainmail to use paper and pencil for underground activity such as mining during campaign-game sieges, and taking a page out of the works of Howard and Burroughs et al, he brought the focus of fantasy miniatures play to the dungeon setting.
Chainmail had proved to be highly successful primarily due to its pioneering steps in fantasy and individual gaming concepts — the tail end of the work which wagged the rest. Dave Arneson expanded upon these areas, and when he and I got together, the ideas necessary to create the D&D system were engendered. After a brief visit, Dave returned home, and within a few days I had received a copy of his campaign notes. A few weeks of play-testing swelled the ranks of the LGTSA to a score or more of avid players, and the form of the D&D rules began to take shape.
只要人类在篝火上讲故事,大脑类型的冒险就一直陪伴着我们。如果考虑早期的宗教或准宗教仪式,角色扮演至少和这个一样古老。这两种形式都是在希腊黄金时期形成的,它们的形式与今天很接近。现代冒险游戏是如何与所有这些联系起来的,因为它们的存在归功于d&d游戏,这是一个不存在争议的事实。
奇幻战争游戏开始于冒险游戏之前。事实上,它是在Chainmail之前开始的。英国的托尼·巴斯(Tony Bath)正以罗伯特·e·霍华德(Robert e . Howard)的《柯南故事》(Conan stories)的“Hyborean Age”为基础,进行桌面大战。类似地,角色扮演在战争游戏中已经司空见惯了——我怀疑,当人们考虑到这种爱好在英国被追求的时间长度时,这种现象已经持续了几十年。我可以回忆起当时是“二战后重建机构特设委员会”构想的全国比赛的一部分,该组织的总部设在斯坦福大学。这位作家被赋予了中国共产党指挥官的角色,而我的朋友唐·凯(Don Kaye)是中国的民族主义领袖,而我们的助手,芝加哥的特里·斯塔福德(Terry Stafford)是英国远东中队的指挥官。有趣而又不同的角色,但都牵涉到成千上万的人。
我们自己的当地团体,日内瓦湖战术研究协会,参与了1970年一对一的游戏。Mike Reese和Leon Tucker都是二战迷你游戏的强烈支持者,而我和Jeff Perren和我用我们的中世纪微型画,为这群人提供了在我家地下室里躺着的大沙盘的快乐时光。在不同的时间,我们的号码指挥着一个小队或更多的步兵,成群结队的海盗,一个重要的掩体,一群蒙古轻骑兵,一排AFVs,等等。有些角色只持续了一两个游戏;其中一些包括大规模地图运动和许多活动,构成一场战役。在1972年的后期,这些角色被扩展到包括超级英雄和巫师,因为要成为链邮件的特殊幻想部分是经过测试的。魔法用户们为他们的要塞进行了防御,从入侵的军队中,英雄们遇到了巨魔,并且在同样的沙表上找到了魔法物品,这些物品曾经是诺曼人,拿破仑步兵,卡车和坦克入侵诺曼底。这些游戏都是冒险的,角色扮演也参与其中,但无论如何都不能被称为D&D游戏或任何类型的冒险游戏。
当Dave Arneson已经是国际战争联盟的成员,加入了城堡和十字军协会,他开始在我们的松散组织的竞选活动中玩。其中大部分的行动都是由LGTSA,使用我的沙盘,和其他社会成员来我的地方,时不时地来我的地方。戴夫在双子城有一大群人,他们想做自己的事。戴夫是一名跑步运动游戏的专家,他开始开发自己的“封地”作为中世纪奇幻运动游戏的背景,并将这些游戏报告给了C&C协会的负责人。
使用Chainmail的奇幻增刊和《Man - to - Man》的规则,大卫做了一些有趣的创新:首先,他给了他的同伴更多或更少的个人角色——毕竟,“黑荒原”只是一个与“伟大王国”接壤的小区域,并没有那么多的英雄、巫师和武器来包裹。然后,戴夫决定让他的球员们在游戏中取得进步,在游戏中取得成功意味着英雄将获得五个人的能力,而不是四个人,最终获得超级英雄的地位;同样的,如果法师在他们的努力中被证明是成功的,他们将获得更多的法术。最后,在Chainmail的建议下,用纸张和铅笔进行地下活动,比如在竞选游戏的赛格斯,在霍华德和巴罗斯的作品中,他把幻想的小模型放在了地牢环境中。
事实证明,Chainmail是非常成功的,主要原因是它在幻想和个人游戏概念上的开拓性的步骤——它的尾端是使其余的人摇摆的工作。Dave Arneson扩展了这些领域,当他和我在一起的时候,创建D&D系统所需要的想法被产生了。在短暂的拜访之后,戴夫回家了。几天之内,我收到了他的竞选笔记的副本。几周的游戏测试使得LGTSA的分数上升到一个分数或者更多的狂热的玩家,并且D&D规则的形式开始成形。
If you ever meet someone who claims to have played the game since 1973, you can believe that such is possible, for by the spring of that year the manuscript for the "Original" version of the D&D game was complete. Copies were handed out to interested players in order to stop the late-night and early- morning phone calls asking weird questions about clerics or monsters or whatever.
By the time the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game was published (January 1974) there were already hundreds of players, and the major parts of what was to become Greyhawk were written and in use too. Adventures, role playing, games, and fantasy all reach back into the dawn of history. Adventure gaming dates only to 1973-74 and the D&D concept. In 1974 only slightly more than 1,000 copies of the game had been sold. Today far more than that are sold each month. The game has many competitors, and every manufacturer of miniature figures offers a wide range of fantasy figures. Ads in gaming and hobby trade publications stress fantasy games and figures more often than any other subject. Adventure gaming has come a long way, and the D&D game began it all.
It is the leading adventure game, the most influential, and the most imitated. Since its inception it has been added to through special supplemental works (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes), augmented by miniatures rules (Swords & Spells), and complemented by a host of specially approved and licensed products from firms such as Judges Guild and Miniature Figurines. The original D&D rules have been edited (by the eminent J. Eric Holmes) to provide an introductory package, and the contents of that offering have recently been expanded to include a beginning module. Despite all of this activity, the game has remained pretty much as it was when it was first introduced in 1974, although there is now far more to it.
The ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® rules comprise a different game. Readers, please take note! It is neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game: It is a new game. A number of letters have come to me, the writers expressing their surprise at or voicing their disapproval of this fact. John Mansfield, in his newsletter Signal, cautions his readers to be aware that an ongoing D&D campaign cannot be switched to AD&DT“ rules without major work or actual scrapping of the old game and beginning a fresh effort. To prevent any further misunderstandings, it is necessary for all fans of gaming to be absolutely aware that there is no more similarity (perhaps even less) between the D&D and AD&D games than there is between the D&D system and its various imitators produced by competing publishers.
Just as the D&D system was the instrument which made adventure gaming what it is today, it is envisioned that the AD&D system will shape the future of fantasy adventure gaming. Where the D&D rules are a very loose, open framework around which highly imaginative Dungeon Masters can construct what amounts to a set of rules and a game of their own choosing, the AD&D rules set forth a much tighter and more structured game system.
The target audience to which we thought the D&D rules would appeal was principally the same as that of historical wargames in general and military miniatures in particular. The original version of the D&D rules was hurriedly compiled, assuming that readers would be familiar with medieval and ancient history, wargaming, military miniatures, etc. It was aimed at males. Within a few months it became apparent to us that our basic assumptions might be a bit off target. In another year it became abundantly clear to us that we were so far off as to be laughable. At least we had the right subject material and the right general approach, so two out of three and all that...
Because the D&D system allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules were incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, the D&D game has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it.
The AD&D system rectifies the shortcomings of the D&D system, without destroying the imagination and individual creativity which go into a campaign. There are few grey areas in the AD&D rules, and there will be no question in the mind of participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to the AD&D game, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else. The work addresses itself to a broad audience of hundreds of thousands of people — wargamers, game hobbyists, science-fiction and fantasy fans, those who have never read fantasy fiction or played strategy games, young and old, male and female.
如果你遇到过自1973年起就一直在玩这个游戏的人,你可以相信这是可能的,因为到那年春天,《D&D游戏》的“原版”版本的手稿已经完成了。为了阻止深夜和凌晨的电话询问关于牧师或怪物之类的奇怪的问题,这些副本被分发给感兴趣的玩家。
当龙与地下城的游戏出版(1974年1月)时,已经有数百名玩家,而成为灰鹰的主要部分也被编写和使用。冒险、角色扮演、游戏和幻想都可以追溯到历史的黎明。冒险游戏的日期只有1973 - 74年和D&D概念。在1974年,这个游戏只卖出了1000多本。如今,这个数字远远超过了每个月的销售量。这个游戏有很多竞争者,每个迷你人物的制造商都有各种各样的幻想人物。在游戏和爱好行业出版物上的广告对幻想游戏和数字的压力比其他任何主题都要大。冒险游戏已经走了很长一段路,而D&D游戏开始了这一切。
它是领先的冒险游戏,最有影响力,最被模仿。从一开始,它就被添加到特殊的补充作品(Greyhawk,Blackmoor,Eldritch巫术,和众神,半神和英雄),通过微型画规则(剑和咒语),以及由一些特殊批准和许可的产品,如法官公会和微型雕像的补充。最初的D&D规则(由著名的j . Eric Holmes编辑)提供了一个介绍性的包,并且该产品的内容最近已经扩展到包括一个开始模块。尽管有这么多的活动,这个游戏还是和1974年首次推出时一样,尽管现在已经有了更多的东西。
先进的龙与地下城®包含一个不同的游戏规则。读者们,请注意!它既不是一个扩展,也不是旧游戏的修正:它是一个新的游戏。我遇到了许多来信,他们对这一事实表示惊讶或表示不赞成。约翰·曼斯菲尔德在他的通讯中警告说,他的读者们应该意识到,一个持续的D&D运动不能被转换为AD&DT的规则,而不需要对旧游戏进行重大的工作或实际的报废,并开始新的努力。为了防止进一步的误解,所有游戏迷都必须完全意识到D&D游戏和AD&D游戏之间没有比D&D系统和竞争对手制作的各种模仿者更相似的地方了。
就像D&D系统是一种让冒险游戏成为今天一样的工具,它的设想是AD&D系统将塑造幻想冒险游戏的未来。d&d规则是一个非常松散、开放的框架,在这个框架下,高度富有想象力的地下城主可以构建出一套规则和自己选择的游戏,而ad&d规则则建立了一个更紧凑、更有结构的游戏系统。
我们认为d&d规则会吸引的目标受众基本上与历史战争和军事微型战争的目标是一样的。最初版本的D&D规则被匆忙整理,假设读者们对中世纪和古代历史,战争游戏,军用微缩模型都很熟悉,这是针对男性的。几个月后,我们发现我们的基本假设可能有点偏离目标。又过了一年,我们很清楚地知道,我们离得如此之远,是可笑的。至少我们有正确的主题材料和正确的一般方法,所以三分之二和所有…
因为D&D系统允许这样的自由,因为工作本身是这样的,因为最初的DMs是富有想象力和创造力的,因为规则是不完整的,模糊的,经常模棱两可的,D&D游戏已经变成了一个非游戏的游戏。也就是说,从区域到区域,从州到区域,从区域到区域,甚至从一群人到一个大都会区域,都有很多的变化,对于这个游戏到底是什么,以及如何最好地发挥它,都没有连贯性和一致性。
ad&d系统纠正了d&d系统的缺点,而没有破坏它的想象力和个人的创造性。在AD&D规则中很少有灰色区域,在参与者的头脑中没有任何问题,关于游戏是什么,是关于什么的问题。AD&D游戏有形式和结构,游戏中这些组成部分的任何变化都会明显地使它成为其他的东西。这部作品的受众是成千上万的观众,包括战争游戏玩家、游戏爱好者、科幻迷和科幻迷,那些从未读过奇幻小说或玩过策略游戏的人,年轻的、年老的、男性和女性。
The AD&D rules will eventually consist of the Dungeon Masters Guide, the Players Handbook, the Monster Manual, the DEITIES & DEMIGODS'" Cyclopedia, and undoubtedly one or two additional volumes of creatures with which to fill fantasy worlds. (Editor's note: One such volume of creatures, the FIEND FOLIO'" Tome, was released in August 1981.) These books, together with a broad range of modules and various playing aids, will provide enthusiasts with everything they need to create and maintain an enjoyable, exciting, fresh, and ever- challenging campaign. Readers are encouraged to differentiate their campaigns, calling them AD&D adventures if they are so. While D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic-book spells, 43rd-level balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash from various and sundry sources, an AD&D campaign cannot be so composed. Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging, even if the AD&D system undergoes change at some future date.
While DMs are free to allow many unique features to become a part of their campaigns — special magic items, new monsters, different spells, unusual settings — and while they can have free rein in devising the features and facts pertaining to the various planes which surround the Prime Material, it is understood they must adhere to the form of the AD&D rule structure. Otherwise, what they referee is a variant adventure game. In an AD&D game as well as in a D&D campaign, DMs still create an entire milieu, populate it and give it history and meaning. Players still develop personae and adventure in realms of the strange and fantastic, performing deeds of derring-do, but this all follows a master plan.
The advantages of such a game are obvious. Because the integral features are known and immutable, there can be no debate as to what is correct. A meaningful dialogue can be carried on between DMs, regardless of what region of the country (or the planet) they play in. Players can move from one AD&D campaign to another and know at the very least the basic precepts of the game — that magic-users will not wield swords, that fighters don’t have instant death to give or take with critical hits or double damage, that strange classes of characters do not rule the campaign, that the various deities will not be constantly popping in and out of the game at the beck and call of player characters, etc. The AD&D system will suffer no such abuses, and DMs who allow them must realize this up front. The best feature of a game which offers real form, however, is that it will more readily lend itself to actual improvement — not just change, but true improvement. Once everyone is actually playing a game which is basically the same from campaign to campaign, any flaws or shortcomings of the basic systems and/or rules are lost due to the differences in play and the wide variety of solutions proposed — most of which reflect the propensities of local groups reacting to some variant system which their DM uses in his or her campaign in the first place. In AD&D activity, such aberrations will be excluded, and a broad base can be used to determine what is actually needed and desired.
Obtaining the opinions of the majority of AD&D players will be a difficult task. This is a certainty. If there are now more than a quarter million D&D and/or AD&D players (and this is likely a conservative estimate) less than 10% are actively in touch with the “hard core” of hobby gaming. Most of these players are only vaguely aware that Gary Gygax had anything to do with the D&D game. Only a relative handful read DRAGON'" magazine, and fewer still have any idea that there are other magazines which deal with the game. Frankly speaking, they don’t care, either. They play D&D or AD&D games as leisure recreation. These are games to fill spare time, more or less avidly pursued according to the individual temperament of the individuals involved. To this majority, games are a diversion, not a way of life. A pastime, not something to be taken seriously.
The D&D game initiated a tradition of fun and enjoyment in hobby gaming. It was never meant to be taken seriously. The AD&D game is done in the same mold. It is not serious. It simulates absolutely nothing. It does not pretend to offer any realism. Games are for fun, and the AD&D system is a game. It certainly provides a vehicle which can be captivating, and a pastime in which one can easily become immersed, but is nonetheless only a game.
AD&D规则最终将包括《地下城主指南》、《玩家手册》、《怪物手册》、《神神》和《百科全书》,毫无疑问,还有一到两卷的生物来填充奇幻世界。(编者按:1981年8月出版的《魔鬼的书》(the FIEND FOLIO' s))。这些书,连同各种各样的模块和各种各样的辅助工具,将为爱好者们提供他们所需要的一切,来创造和维持一个令人愉快、激动人心的、新鲜的、充满挑战的运动。读者被鼓励去区分他们的活动,如果他们是这样的话,他们称之为AD&D冒险。虽然d&d的运动可以是那些漫画书的魔法,43d级的balrogs作为玩家角色,并且包含了来自各种各样不同来源的大量垃圾,但是ad&d的战役是不可能如此的。要么是DM运行ad&d运动,要么是其他的东西。这在工作中是明确的,而且它是一项使命,它将是不变的,即使ad&d系统在将来的某个日期发生变化。
虽然DMs可以自由地让许多独特的功能成为他们活动的一部分——特殊的魔法物品,新的怪物,不同的咒语,不同寻常的设置——当他们可以自由地设计与围绕着主要材料的各种各样的飞机的特征和事实时,他们必须坚持AD&D规则结构的形式。否则,他们的裁判是一种不同的冒险游戏。在AD&D游戏以及D&D运动中,DMs仍然创建一个完整的环境,填充它并赋予它历史和意义。玩家们仍然会在奇异和奇异的领域中发展个人和冒险,但这一切都遵循着一个总体规划。
这种游戏的好处显而易见。因为积分特性是已知的和不可变的,所以对于什么是正确的,没有争论。在DMs之间可以进行有意义的对话,而不管他们在哪个地区(或这个星球)的哪个区域。玩家可以从一个AD&D运动到另一个游戏,并且至少知道游戏的基本规则——魔法玩家不会使用剑,战士不会立即死亡来给予或接受致命的打击或双重伤害,这种奇怪的角色不会统治这个战役,不同的神不会在游戏中不断地出现在游戏中,玩家角色的召唤等等。AD&D系统将不会遭受这样的虐待,而允许他们的DMs必须意识到这一点。然而,一个提供真实形式的游戏的最佳特性是,它将更容易地为实际的改进提供帮助——不仅仅是改变,而是真正的改进。一旦每个人都是玩游戏基本上是相同的从活动到活动,任何缺陷或缺陷的基本系统和/或游戏规则丢失由于差异和各种各样的解决方案提出了——其中大部分反映当地组织的倾向对一些变体系统DM使用在他或她的活动放在第一位。在AD&D活动中,这样的畸变将被排除,并且一个广泛的基础可以用来确定什么是实际需要和期望的。
获得大多数AD&D玩家的意见将是一项艰巨的任务。这是一个必然。如果现在有超过25万的D&D和/或AD&D的玩家(这很可能是保守估计)不到10%的人会积极地接触到兴趣游戏的"核心"大多数的球员只是模模糊糊地知道加里·吉盖克斯与D&D游戏有任何关系。只有相对少数的人读过龙的杂志,更少的人知道还有其他的杂志来处理这个游戏。坦白地说,他们也不在乎。他们玩D&D或AD&D游戏作为休闲娱乐。这些游戏是为了打发业余时间,或者是根据个人的性格来追求的。对大多数人来说,游戏是一种消遣,而不是一种生活方式。一种消遣,不是什么值得认真对待的事情。
D&D游戏开创了兴趣游戏的乐趣和享受的传统。这从来都不是认真的。AD&D游戏是在同一个模子里完成的。这不是认真的。它完全模拟不了任何东西。它不假装提供任何现实主义。游戏是为了好玩,而AD&D系统是一个游戏。它当然提供了一种可以让人着迷的交通工具,一种可以轻易让人沉浸其中的消遣方式,但它只是一种游戏。

The bulk of participants echo this attitude. TSR will be hard put to obtain meaningful random survey data from these individuals simply because they are involved in playing the game, not in writing about it or reading about it outside the playing materials proper. There are, of course, a number of ways to surmount the problem, and you can count that steps will be taken to do so.
Conformity to a more rigid set of rules also provides a better platform from which to launch tournaments as well. Brian Blume recently established a regular invitational meet for AD&D "master players" (in which this writer placed a rather abysmal 10th out of 18 entries, but what the hell, it was good while it lasted). The "Invitational” will certainly grow, and TSR is now considering how best to establish an annual or semiannual “Open” tournament for AD&D players to compete for enjoyment, considerable prize awards, recognition, and a chance to play in the “Masters" event. There is no reason not to expect these events, and/or others of similar nature sponsored by TSR, to grow and become truly exceptional opportunities in the years to come. Good things are certainly in store for AD&D players everywhere! Not only will AD&D retain its pre-eminent position in adventure gaming, but it will advance it considerably in the future. More variety, more approaches to play, more forms of the game, and more fun are in store.
The D&D game will always be with us, and that is a good thing. The D&D system allows the highly talented, individualistic, and imaginative hobbyist a vehicle for devising an adventure game form which is tailored to him or her and his or her group. One can take great liberties with the game and not be questioned. Likewise, the complicated and “realistic” imitators of the D&D system will always find a following amongst hobby gamers, for there will be those who seek to make adventure gaming a serious undertaking, a way of life, to which all of their thought and energy is directed with fanatical devotion.
At the same time, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS gaming, with its clearer and easier approach, is bound to gain more support, for most people play games, not live them — and if they can live them while enjoying play, so much the better. This is, of course, what the AD&D game aims to provide. So far it seems we have done it.
大部分参与者都附和这种态度。TSR将很难从这些人身上获得有意义的随机调查数据,仅仅是因为他们参与了游戏,而不是在编写游戏或在游戏材料之外阅读。当然,有很多方法可以克服这个问题,你可以计算出这些步骤。
遵守一套更严格的规则也提供了一个更好的平台来启动比赛。Brian Blume最近为AD&D“大师玩家”建立了一个定期的邀请赛(他在18个参赛作品中排名第10位,但是在这段时间里,他的表现很好)。“邀请赛”肯定会增加,TSR正在考虑如何最好地为ad&d的球员建立每年或半年度的“开放”比赛,以争夺比赛的乐趣,获得可观的奖金,认可,以及在“大师赛”上比赛的机会。我们没有理由不去期待这些事件,或者其他由TSR赞助的类似性质的事件,在未来的岁月里成长,成为真正的特殊机遇。好东西肯定是在商店里到处都是AD&D的玩家!AD&D不仅在冒险游戏中保持其卓越的地位,而且在未来还会有相当大的发展。更多的变化,更多的游戏方式,更多的游戏形式,更多的乐趣在商店。
D&D游戏将永远与我们同在,这是一件好事。D&D系统允许高度有天赋的,个人主义的,富有想象力的业余爱好者设计出一种为他/她和他/她的团队量身定做的冒险游戏。一个人可以在游戏中获得极大的自由,而不会受到质疑。同样地,d&d系统的复杂和“现实”的模仿者总是会在业余爱好者中找到一个追随者,因为有些人会把冒险游戏变成一种严肃的事业,一种生活方式,他们的所有思想和精力都是用狂热的投入来引导的。
与此同时,先进的龙与地下城游戏,以其更清晰、更容易的方式,必然会得到更多的支持,因为大多数人会玩游戏,而不是生活在游戏中——如果他们能在享受游戏的同时享受生活,那就更好了。这当然是AD&D游戏的目的。到目前为止,我们似乎已经做到了。
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #28 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:09:28 »
机翻第十一弹


AUG.
1979
#38
The AD&D™ Dungeon Masters Guide contains a fairly detailed section regarding the various alignment characteristics. On reflection, however, I began to wonder if enough had been said about the different approaches to evil. Now, if one clearly defines the lawful evil and the chaotic evil characteristics, the neutral evil path becomes evident as the middle road between the two opposite approaches to the precept of banefulness. Considering the confusion regarding alignments, it cannot but help to say a few more words on the subject.
Evil is typified by the desire to advance self over others, by whatever means are possible, and always by the foulest of means possible — and more on that later. Whatever causes the most harm is typically the most desirable course to follow. Pain and suffering are meat and drink to the creatures of evil. Slavery and oppression of all weaker creatures are considered as natural, for these exist only to serve and satisfy the demands of the stronger.
Lawful evil believes that the only way to impose the tyranny of their alignment over all creation is to follow an ordered course of action. Their evil society is rigidly structured, each being knowing its place and cruelly dominating all beneath this station, while being just as bullied from those above. Each creature in this hierarchy strives to follow the orders from the stronger most painstakingly — both to avoid punishment and in hopes of bettering its position in the order. To those beneath, each is as harsh and cruel as possible: fearful of failure in its tasks, of being replaced by an underling. The evil ends desired might be better obtained by actions which are actually less vile than other options, but the order of lawful evil will generally perceive the most useful course rather than merely the most baneful in the short term. Hell and its environs hate chaotic good most vehemently, for they see threats there to both the structure of their social system and their proposed course. What worse than both total freedom and happiness brought about only by individual achievement and character? Therefore, lawful evil would certainly not hesitate to ally itself with virtually any other cause if this helped to abridge the scope and influence of those creatures typifying the chaotic good. Similarly, a devil would attempt to influence and possess principally those humans who were powerful and influential leaders of ordered communities, organizations, and states, i.e. lawful individuals not already committed to evil ends.
Chaotic evil certainly has the common denominator of banefulness with those creatures who follow the ordered path of woe. They likewise oppress and enslave, tortureand kill forthe pure pleasure of seeing suffering and death. But while lawful evil sees these activities as part of the structured course towards a world ruled by evil, those of chaotic evil alignment see such activities as an end in themselves. While the weaker chaotic evil creatures fear and often hate the stronger, they are ruled by them only insofar as the reach of the stronger extends — and possibly only as long as the stronger has interest in so doing. The individual evil is more important than the collective one. Let each evil being do its best to spread evil and chaos, and the ultimate result will be a cancerous spread of the alignment. Order is next to good in undesirableness, so lawful good is the antithesis of chaotic evil. Yet creatures of this alignment will not long associate to combat their hated foes, except lesser creatures under the leadership of some mighty demon or in extreme situations where the very structure of chaotic evil is threatened by some great coalition of good. A demon is not interested in ruling nations, but in spreading evil as it alone sees fit. Therefore, possession by a creature of chaotic evil is typically of an unstable individual who will run amok for a short time, or of some singular figure who will be in a position to send out many such individuals.
The differences in tendencies and philosophies are reflected in the personal involvement of devils and demons in the affairs of the Prime Material Plane. The rulers of the Planes of Hell (devils) will seldom involve themselves in worldly affairs directly. Archdevils operate through their organizations to influence the course of events on the Prime Material Plane. Because of the strict order that devilkind adheres to, intervention of even lesser devils is rare, as the rulers make pacts with humans and other agents. These arrangements assure that lawful evil is spread upon the Prime Material Plane, even though the tiers of Hell are smaller than the layers of the Abyss, for example, and there are far fewer devils than there are demons. While there is rivalry betwixt the dukes of Hell, it is a prescribed and ordered contest wherein the rivals recognize limits and the need for mutual cooperation in order to insure that their collective realm remains strong and inviolate.
ad&d地下城主指南包含一个相当详细的关于各种排列特征的章节。然而,经过深思熟虑,我开始怀疑是否有足够多的人说过关于邪恶的不同方法。现在,如果一个人清楚地定义了合法的邪恶和混乱的邪恶的特征,那么中立的邪恶之路就会变得很明显,就像两条相反的道路之间的中间道路。考虑到关于对齐的混淆,它只能帮助在主题上多说几句话。
邪恶的典型特征是想要超越他人,通过一切可能的手段,而且总是以最卑鄙的手段——以及后来的更多。无论什么原因造成的伤害都是最令人满意的。痛苦和苦难是邪恶生物的肉和饮料。对所有弱小生物的奴役和压迫被认为是自然的,因为它们的存在只是为了服务和满足强者的要求。
合法的邪恶认为,唯一的方法来强制他们对所有创造物的联合的暴政,是遵循一个有序的行动过程。他们邪恶的社会结构僵化,每个人都知道自己的地位,残酷地统治着这一站下的所有人,就像那些被欺负的人一样。这种等级制度中的每一种生物都在努力遵循最强者的命令——既避免惩罚,也希望在秩序中改善自己的地位。对下面的人来说,每个人都是残酷和残酷的:害怕在任务中失败,被下属取代。邪恶的目的可能会更好地通过行动获得,而这些行动实际上比其他的选择更少邪恶,但是,合法的邪恶的秩序通常会被认为是最有用的课程,而不仅仅是在短期内最有害的。地狱和它的环境最痛恨混乱的善,因为他们看到了对他们的社会体系结构和他们所提出的路线的威胁。还有什么比个人成就和性格带来的完全自由和幸福更糟糕的呢?因此,合法的邪恶会毫不犹豫地与几乎任何其他原因结盟,如果这有助于减少这些生物的范围和影响,类型化混乱的好。同样的,一个魔鬼会试图影响和占有主要是那些有权势和有影响力的领导者,他们是有序的团体,组织和国家的领导者,也就是那些没有被邪恶势力所控制的合法的人。
混乱的邪恶与那些遵循有序道路的生物有着共同的特点。他们同样地压迫和奴役,折磨和杀戮,因为看到痛苦和死亡的纯粹快乐。虽然合法的邪恶将这些活动看作是通往一个被邪恶统治的世界的结构化的过程的一部分,但那些邪恶的邪恶阵营将这些活动视为自己的目的。虽然弱小的混沌邪恶生物害怕并且常常憎恨强者,但它们只被它们所统治,而更强大的势力范围更强大,而且可能只有强者才有兴趣这样做。个人的邪恶比集体的邪恶更重要。让每一个邪恶的人尽其所能地传播邪恶和混乱,最终的结果将是结盟的癌细胞扩散。秩序是仅次于善的,所以合法的善是混乱邪恶的对立面。然而,这种结盟的生物将不会长久地与他们仇恨的敌人作战,除非在一些强大的恶魔的领导下,或者在极端的情况下,在混乱邪恶的结构受到一些良好的联盟的威胁的情况下。一个恶魔对统治国家不感兴趣,但在传播邪恶的时候却认为它是合适的。因此,由混沌邪恶的生物占有,通常是一个不稳定的个体,他会在短时间内横行,或者是某个特定的人物,他将会派出许多这样的人。
这种倾向和哲学的差异,反映在“魔鬼”和“魔鬼”在物质层面的事务上。地狱层的统治者(魔鬼)很少直接参与世俗事务。“大恶魔”通过他们的组织运作,以影响最主要物质层面上的事件进程。由于恶魔依附的严格秩序,即使是小恶魔的干预也很罕见,因为统治者会与人类和其他代理人进行合作。这些安排确保了合法的邪恶在主要物质层面上传播,即使地狱的层次比深渊的层次要小,但恶魔的数量远比恶魔少得多。虽然在地狱的公爵之间有竞争,但这是一场规定的和有序的竞赛,竞争对手承认限制和相互合作的需要,以确保他们的集体王国仍然强大和不受侵犯。
The very nature of demonkind, however, dictates a far more direct involvement in activities on the Prime Material Plane. Lacking extensive organizations, each demon lord must become personally active if he or she desires to meddle in the affairs of humankind, et al. It is not making a virtue of necessity on the part of demons to point out that they prefer such personal involvement. Thus, this or that demon lord will be encountered in material form, directing the activities of whatever group of followers he or she has gathered to spread disorder and woe upon the earth. Each powerful demon (and there are scores and scores of them) competes bitterly with all others in a deadly rivalry for supremacy — both in the Abyss and on the Prime Material Plane. The chaotic nature of demonkind dictates that mutual cooperation is unlikely at best, and any alliance between two demon lords will be one of mistrust and betrayal, doomed to a very short lifespan.
Neutral evil, as typified by daemonkind, follows the middle course between the rigidly ordered society of the Nine Hells and the anarchy of the Abyss. Yet this alignment has neither the organizational capability of lawful evil nor the great multitudes of chaotic evil, so all told it is weaker than either. The flexibility of neutral evil creatures enables them to survive and remain relatively free of rule by either Hell or by one or more demon lords. The daemons and other inhabitants of Hades (and Gehenna and Tarterus as well) will as often as not become personally involved in activity on the Prime Material Plane if they see it as gainful to their power and prestige or particularly enjoyable. In like manner, they will join in diabolical or demonic enterprises to further their ends, both evil and personal.
Lawful evil has more common cause than those of lawful neutral bent than it does with demonkind, just as chaotic evil has more fellowship with chaotic neutrality than it does with Hell. Both chaotic evil and lawful evil types despise those who take the neutral course, seeing this as fence-straddling, so to speak. The demons are too disorganized to enslave these creatures, however, while Hell desires a buffer and uses daemon- kind as tools as well. For their part, daemons play off the Abyss against lawful evil to insure their freedom, power, and continued importance.
In summation, lawful evil, through its orderly arrangement and structure, wields great influence throughout the Prime Material Plane, even though devils seldom take a personal role, and the number of the dwellers in the Nine Hells is not overwhelming. Chaotic evil, on the other hand, while represented by a far greater number of powerful creatures taking a direct part in the affairs of the world, has no greater influence or power — perhaps less, even — because of animosity between demons and the chaotic tendencies which preclude organization and assurance of purposes carried out by lesser beings under direction. Hell works carefully to bring its evil yoke over all the world, while demonkind attempts only individual forays to aggrandize some lord or other, increase the fame and glory of a particular prince or princess of the Abyss, or merely to bring a few decades of foulest pleasure.
The lawful evil character, then, is bound to follow a course which is strictly ordered. The path he or she follows is one of evil, but also one which attempts to bring formal rule to the world under the auspices of Hell. The character must obey and strive for the purposes of lawful evil — furthering his or her own position in the process, of course. Those of you who have read Fred Saberhagen's Changling Earth will recognize that the Emperor John Ominor ruled a lawful evil realm — although he apparently served no diabolic master.
In contrast, the chaotic evil character serves only him or herself, but always toward evil ends. But the chaotic evil character recognizes no master, save out of fear and necessity, and even in the event that such recognition is necessary, he or she will always strive to gain the upper hand and dominate.If lawful evil can be likened to a mountain chain, with the highest peaks being the dukes of Hell and the lowest foothills the menial servants, then chaotic evil is a series of islands and islets in a vast sea — numerous, but connected only tenuously by underwater ridges.
The lawful evil character will certainly cooperate with others in order to extend the sway of his or her alignment — seeking advantage by lies, trickery, and deceit while adhering to the letter of the bargain, naturally. The chaotic evil character will rule but seldom cooperate for long. As soon as he or she sees a possible advantage accruing through abandonment or betrayal — or perhaps simply because he or she has grown tired of the pact — the chaotic evil character will be true to the precept of his or her alignment!
然而,魔鬼的本质决定了对主要物质层面的活动的直接参与。由于缺乏广泛的组织,如果他或她想要干涉人类的事务,那么每一个恶魔领主都必须变得活跃起来,这并不是出于对恶魔的需要,而是要指出他们更喜欢这种个人的参与。因此,这个或那个恶魔领主将会以物质形式出现,指挥他或她所聚集的任何一群追随者的活动,以传播疾病和地球上的悲哀。每一个强大的恶魔(而且都有几十个)与其他所有人在激烈的竞争中激烈竞争,争夺霸权——无论是在深渊还是在主要物质层面上。恶魔的混乱性质决定了双方的合作是不可能的,两个恶魔领主之间的任何联盟都将是一种不信任和背叛,注定会有很短的寿命。
中性的邪恶,作为一种典型的恶魔,在地狱和深渊之间的混乱无序的社会之间,遵循着中间路线。然而,这种结盟既没有合法的邪恶组织的能力,也没有大量的混乱的邪恶,因此所有人都说它比任何一个都弱。中性的邪恶生物的灵活性使他们能够生存,并且在地狱或一个或多个恶魔领主的统治下相对自由。恶魔和其他哈德斯的居民(以及格汉纳和塔尔图斯),如果他们认为这是对他们的权力和威望或特别享受的一种好处,他们通常不会亲自参与到这一主要物质层面的活动中。他们会以类似的方式加入恶魔或恶魔的企业,以达到他们的目的,不管是邪恶的还是个人的。
合法的邪恶比与魔鬼有更多的共同的原因,就像混乱的邪恶与混乱的中立有更多的友谊,而不是地狱。混乱的邪恶和合法的邪恶势力都鄙视那些中立的人,他们认为这是中立的,所以说。然而,恶魔们的组织太混乱了,无法奴役这些生物,而地狱则需要一个缓冲区,并使用精灵作为工具。对于他们来说,守护进程是为了确保他们的自由、权力和持续的重要性而远离了对合法邪恶的深渊。
在总结中,合法的邪恶,通过其有序的安排和结构,在整个主要的物质层面上发挥着巨大的影响,尽管恶魔很少会扮演一个人的角色,而九地狱里的居住者的数量并不是压倒性的。另一方面,混乱的邪恶,在世界事务中扮演着直接角色的强大生物的代表,却没有更大的影响力或力量——甚至更少——因为恶魔与混乱的倾向之间的仇恨,而这种倾向阻碍了组织和保证目标的目标。地狱小心翼翼地将邪恶的枷锁带到世界上,而魔鬼的企图只是为了强化某些领主或其他的人,增加某个王子或公主的名声和荣耀,或者仅仅是为了带来几十年的最坏的快乐。
因此,合法的邪恶品格必然会遵循严格的秩序。他或她所遵循的道路是邪恶的,但也是试图在地狱的庇护下将正式规则引入世界的一种方式。这个角色必须服从并为合法的邪恶的目的而奋斗——当然,在这个过程中,他或她自己的地位也会进一步提升。读过弗雷德·萨伯哈根的《改变世界》的人会意识到,约翰·奥米诺皇帝统治了一个合法的邪恶王国,尽管他显然并没有做什么恶魔之王。
相比之下,混乱的邪恶角色只服务于他或她自己,但总是走向邪恶的结局。但是,混乱的邪恶角色不认识任何大师,除了恐惧和需要之外,即使在必要的时候,他或她也会一直努力去占据上风和主导地位。如果合法的邪恶可以被比作一个山脉,最高的山峰是地狱的公爵,最低的山脚是卑微的仆人,那么混乱的邪恶就是一系列的岛屿和小岛,在浩瀚的大海中,但却只有在水下的山脊间才有联系。
合法的邪恶人物肯定会与他人合作,以扩大他或她的阵营的影响力——通过谎言、欺骗和欺骗来寻求利益,当然,他们也会遵守交易的条款。混乱的邪恶性格会统治,但很少会长期合作。一旦他或她看到了被抛弃或背叛的可能的好处,或者仅仅是因为他或她已经厌倦了这份契约——这个混乱的邪恶的角色将会忠于他或她的同盟的准则!
Players can assume the role of a good or an evil character without undue difficulty, but in my experience the orderly or disorderly tendencies are another matter altogether. Law and chaos seem to be more ingrained in the actual personality of a player, and these bents are thus not as easily acted out. While you, as DM, will order the NPCs of lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil alignment, your players will tend to assume alignments which actually fit their personalities as respects order vs. anarchy, so you must observe such activities quite closely. It is common for players to seek the best of both worlds by claiming the benefits of one alignment while using the processes of the other in order to gain power. Thus, a player might well claim to be lawful evil in order to receive the assistance of an archdevil, and thereafter blithely go about setting up a totally independent and free-wheeling empire of evil which has nothing to do with the aims of Hell. Such liberties cannot be allowed....
玩家可以扮演好或邪恶的角色,而不需要过度的困难,但在我的经验中,有序或无序的倾向是另一个问题。法律和混乱似乎在一个玩家的真实人格中更根深蒂固,而这些东西也不那么容易被执行。当你,作为DM,将会命令npc的合法,中立,或混乱的邪恶阵营,你的玩家将会倾向于假设阵营,实际上符合他们的人格,作为尊重秩序与无政府状态,所以你必须非常密切地观察这些活动。玩家在两个世界中寻找最好的东西是很常见的,他们声称一个队列的好处,同时利用另一个队列的过程来获得力量。因此,一个玩家可能会声称自己是合法的恶魔,以得到一个恶魔的帮助,之后便愉快地去建立一个完全独立和自由的邪恶帝国,而这与地狱的目标毫无关系。这种自由不可能允许....
Play for fun.

离线 Victor

  • 根源探寻者
  • 版主
  • **********
  • 帖子数: 364
  • 苹果币: 1
Re: VV的读书笔记
« 回帖 #29 于: 2018-01-18, 周四 22:10:19 »
机翻第十二弹

Humans and hybrids
SEPT.
1979
#29
Of late I have seen several different treatments of half-ogres, and the suggestion that this type of creature is a viable and worthwhile racial type for player characters has thus gained some small popularity. This subject also touches upon another, closely related, matter: the whole gamut of crossbreeds which could possibly be included in an AD&D'“ game. Dungeon Masters must be apprised of the potential can of worms they will be opening by allowing these mixtures in their campaigns.
The character races in the AD&D system were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of these racial types give short-term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi- humans — or to at least relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or elven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, et al will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select these races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types. This bears upon various hybrid racial types as well.
In designing the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®game, I considered the possible racial mixtures. Should half-dwarves, halfgnomes, and half-halflings (and is a half-half ling a quartling, perchance?) be allowed? How about dwarf-elf, dwarf- gnome, dwarf-halfling, elf-gnome, elf- halfling, and gnome-halfling crossbreeds? Then there are tri-racial mixtures. Those involving humansand ores add still more confounding factors. And now somebody decided that ogres could cross with humans! Could they cross with elves also? How about hill giants interbreeding with humans? With elves? With ogres? With ettins? Why leave out goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears?
Because of the potential for absolute madness in the game, I included only the half-elf, hoping that the rest would not arise to plague the placid waters of racial selection, but it is apparent that it was not meant to be.
Consider the various factors which must be taken into account when designing a race for game purposes. Remember that last part; this is, first and foremost, a game. Races, just as with classes, must be in relative balance with each other, as well as with the game as a whole. Setting this balance is a difficult and delicate operation! So we have 1) character class limits due to race; 2) level limits due to race; 3) ability adjustments due to race; 4) racial minimums and maximums in abilities; 5) racial preferences; and 6) special characteristics of racial types, i.e. magic resistance, saving throws, combat vs. specific monsters, visual and other sense capabilities, and "sixth-sense" or innate skill capabilities (such as detection of grades, and underground conditions, etc.). If these six factors are considered only as single entities, not as multifaceted ones, there is still plenty of work to do in setting up even a single additional character race, for each must be meshed with and balanced against all other such races. Now consider the possible crossbreeds, and multiply your DMing woes by a thousand! As surely as you allow a single player to select a non-standard hybrid, another will come along asking for some special crossbreed which he or she envisions to be "logical,” meaningful, and fun to play (read “advantageous for the player in question"). Pixie- storm giant half-breeds would not be impossible.... (For those who doubt the last claim, consider a lecherous male pixie equipped with several growth potions and a love philter. And, when all is said and done, an AD&D game is fantasy.)
最近,我看到了几种不同的半食人魔的治疗方法,并且认为这种类型的生物是一种可行的、有价值的种族类型,因此在玩家角色中获得了一些小的人气。这个主题也涉及到另一个紧密相关的问题:所有可能包含在AD&D游戏中的杂交品种。地下城的主人必须被告知,他们将通过允许这些混合物在他们的活动中打开。
在AD&D系统中选择的字符是精心挑选的。它们提供了各种各样的方法,但是任何选择非人类(部分或半人)角色的玩家都没有任何真正的优势。诚然,这些种族的某些类型给选择他们的玩家带来了短期的优势,但从长远来看,这些相同的人物与具有相同数量的经验点的人相比,处于同样的劣势。事实上,这是游戏的设计。各种各样的方法使得角色选择更加有趣。玩家在选择角色前必须仔细权衡利弊。在一些运动中,取消对德米人的限制——或者至少让他们放松一点——是很流行的。虽然这可能会使DM流行起来,与那些高水平的矮人战士,或者是精灵巫师的巨大力量,它最终将把整个运动视为一个整体,在其中,唯一的种族将是非人类的。矮人、精灵等人将拥有所有的优势,没有真正的劣势,所以大多数玩家将选择这些种族,人类将从玩家角色类型的领域消失。这也涉及到各种混合种族。
在设计先进的龙与地下城游戏时,我考虑了可能的种族混合。应该允许半矮人、半矮人和半半身人(也就是半人半的小矮人)吗?矮人,侏儒,侏儒,矮人,精灵,精灵,矮人,和矮人的杂交品种呢?还有三种种族混合。那些涉及人类和矿石的因素增加了更多的混杂因素。现在有人决定食人魔可以和人类杂交!他们也能与精灵杂交吗?山巨人如何与人类杂交?精灵吗?食人魔?ettins吗?为什么要去掉妖精、妖怪和妖怪?
由于游戏中绝对疯狂的潜力,我只包括了半精灵,希望其他人不会出现在种族选择的平静水域中,但显然这并不是注定的。
考虑在设计比赛时必须考虑到的各种因素。记住,最后一部分;首先,这是一场游戏。种族,就像上课一样,必须保持相对的平衡,和整个游戏一样。设置这个平衡是一个困难和微妙的操作!所以我们有1)因种族而造成的性格等级限制;2)因种族而造成的等级限制;3)因种族而调整的能力;4)能力上的种族最低和最高;5)种族偏好;6)种族类型的特殊特征,即:魔法抗性、拯救投掷、战斗与特定的怪物、视觉和其他感官能力、“第六感”或天生的技能能力(如检测等级、地下条件等)。如果这六个因素仅仅被认为是单一的实体,而不是多层面的实体,那么在建立一个额外的角色种族的过程中仍有大量的工作要做,因为每个人都必须与所有其他种族相匹配和平衡。现在考虑一下可能的杂交品种,将你的DMing困境乘以1000!就像你允许一个玩家选择一个非标准的混血儿一样,另一个玩家会要求一些特殊的杂交种,他或她认为这是“合乎逻辑的”、有意义的、有趣的游戏(阅读“对有问题的玩家有利”)。Pixie,风暴巨人....共和党不会不可能(对于那些怀疑最后的说法的人来说,想想一个好色的男性小精灵,他装备了几种生长药水和一个爱的春药。而且,当一切都说完了,一个AD&D游戏就是幻想。
The Half-Ogre
Character classes possible: cleric or fighter Class level limits: cleric, 4th; fighter, unlimited Ability score minimums and maximums: Strength 14/18’, Intelligence 3/122, Wisdom 2/123, Dexterity 3/124, Constitution 14/185, Charisma 2/86.
1 Average human strength combined with ogre strength and averaged to find spread. Use d6, with a roll of 5 or 6 equaling 18, with a percentile bonus of 25% to the roll for exceptional strength if the first roll was 6, but an 18/00 maximum in any event.
2   This spread could be lowered to a 10 maximum if the human parent was below norm.
3   This spread could be lowered to a 10 maximum if the human parent was below norm.
4   Again, this is generous, and a case could be made for 3-10 (d8 + 2).
5   Constitution roll in excess of 18 is not possible, and if the d6 roll is 6, then treat it as the 18 maximum.
6   Charisma score would not apply to ogres and half- ogres; double the result generated for the charismatic effect on such creatures.
Racial preferences: Half-ores would rate a “T,” humans an "N," and other half-ogres a “P.” All others would be “H” both ways.
Special characteristics: Half-ogres have infravision to 60'. They speak ogre, ore and troll only if raised with an ogre parent. Complexion will be swarthy and dull, hair lank and dark. Average height will be 7% feet. Half-ogres have two hit dice of the appropriate type at 1st level, then regular progression as usual.
These quite reasonable parameters for half-ogre characters typify the offspring of a human and an ogre, were there such a thing as the latter, define their potential, and make it a race which will not disrupt the campaign. The only advantages accruing to half-ogres are in strength and constitution, and these are more than outweighed by disadvantages elsewhere. In fact, this race, when properly controlled, becomes a rather unappetizing and boring prospect for character play. On the other hand, such creatures would make highly desirable guards or mercenary troops — assuming one could abide their chaotic and evil bent — for they have many benefits and few d rawbacks when compared with full-blooded ogres. For this reason alone, there will have to be strict limits placed upon the numbers of half-ogres available in the campaign.
It is important to reiterate that hybrids not shown in AD&D Players Handbook should be generally rejected in the well run campaign. The device is that of players seeking to gain some advantage for themselves by choosing a racial mixture which they believe will have greater advantages (with fewer drawbacks) than those of the character races given in the official AD&D rules.
If exceptions are to be made, be certain that you, the DM, consider each thoroughly prior to admitting it into the campaign milieu. Each exception must be detailed as was done for the half-ogre, above. Do so privately, and if after listing its parameters you find that the hybrid is unacceptable, disallow its use — or go back and restructure the characteristics, being careful to use the examples in the Players Handbook as a guide. Then, and only then, should a player be allowed to have such a hybrid racial type to choose from. Lastly, if thereafter many of your participants suddenly express a desire to start characters of this particular racial mixture, you can pretty well rely upon the fact that you blew it.
All of this will certainly lead to the question, why is it that the human race is so favored in the AD&D rule system? There is no question that human characters have an edge on all others in the long run — even considering the generally unlimited potential for non-human thieves. The bias was placed in the game on the assumption that the vast majority of campaign milieux would be based on human-dominated worlds. Therefore, humans must have some sort of edge. As human adaptability is undoubted, and human capabilities deemed vast by this writer, it seemed to follow that allowing them the full range of possibilities was the best answer. Thus, humans are found in all alignments, in all professions, and so on. The weakest are very weak, the strongest very strong. The human race plumbs the depths and soars to the heights. In the AD&D world, as in the real world, humankind will certainly attain greatness and domination if it doesn’t destroy itself first through warfare and strife within its own race.
半食人魔
可能的角色等级:牧师或战士等级限制:牧师,第四;战士,无限能力得分最低和最高:强度14 /18 ',智力3 / 122,智慧2 / 123,敏捷3 / 124,宪法14 / 185,魅力2 / 86。
人的平均力量与食人魔的力量相结合,平均发现传播。使用d6,一卷5或6等于18,如果第一个卷是6,就有25%的百分位数加成,但在任何情况下都是18 / 00的最大值。
如果人类父母低于正常水平,这种传播可以降低到10倍。
如果人类父母低于正常水平,这种传播可以降低到10倍。
再一次,这是慷慨的,可以用3 - 10(d8 + 2)。
5宪法卷超过18是不可能的,如果d6卷是6,那么把它当作18最大。
魅力指数不适用于食人魔和半食人魔;双倍的结果产生了对这种生物的魅力效应。
种族偏好:一半的人认为是“T”,而人类是“N”,而其他的则是“P”。其他的都是“H”。
特殊特征:半食人魔有60次违规。他们只会说食人魔、矿石和巨魔,如果和食人魔父母一起长大。肤色将会是黝黑而无光泽,头发是兰色和黑色。平均高度为7%英尺。半食人魔在第一等级有两颗合适的骰子,然后像往常一样正常进行。
这些相当合理的关于半食人族特征的参数,是人类和食人魔的后代的典型特征,它们有这样一种东西,可以定义他们的潜能,并使之成为一种不会扰乱竞选活动的种族。只有在实力和宪法上,才会有半食人魔的优势,而这些优势比其他地方的劣势要大得多。事实上,这场比赛,在适当的控制下,变成了一种令人乏味的、令人乏味的角色扮演的前景。另一方面,这样的生物会成为非常理想的守卫或雇佣兵——假设你可以忍受他们的混乱和邪恶的倾向——因为他们有很多好处,而与纯血统的食人魔相比,他们很少有d。仅因为这个原因,就必须严格限制竞选中出现的半食人魔的数量。
重要的是要重申,在《AD&D》玩家手册中没有显示的混合动力应该被普遍地拒绝在运行良好的运动中。该装置是指那些试图通过选择一种种族混合而获得一些优势的玩家,他们认为这将比在官方的ad&d规则中所赋予的角色种族更有优势(缺点更少)。
如果要有例外,请确定你,DM,在承认它进入竞选环境之前,仔细考虑每一个。每一个例外都必须详细说明,就像上文提到的半食人魔一样。这样做是私下进行的,如果在列出了参数之后,你会发现这种混合是不可接受的,不允许使用它——或者退回并重新构造特征,小心地使用玩家手册中的例子作为指导。然后,只有这样,一个玩家才可以有这样的混血种族的选择。最后,如果你的许多参与者突然表达了一种想要开始这种特殊种族混合的想法,你可以很好地依赖于你搞砸了的事实。
所有这些肯定会引出一个问题,为什么人类在AD&D规则系统中如此受欢迎?毫无疑问,从长远来看,人类角色对所有其他角色都有优势——甚至考虑到对非人类小偷的潜在无限潜力。这种偏见是基于这样一种假设:绝大多数的竞选活动都是基于人类主宰的世界。因此,人类必须有某种优势。由于人类的适应性是毋庸置疑的,人类的能力被这位作家认为是巨大的,因此,似乎允许他们拥有各种各样的可能性是最好的答案。因此,人类在所有的阵营中,在所有职业中,等等都被发现。最弱的是非常弱的,最强的非常强。人类在深海中飞翔,飞向高处。在AD&D世界中,就像在现实世界中一样,如果人类不能在自己的种族中首先通过战争和冲突毁灭自己,那么人类必将获得伟大和支配。
Play for fun.