Quote from: Internet Death;593414I think it is safe to say he was referring to those games which do have classes.

I think its safe to say he's never played an RPG besides D&D.

QuoteOf course, I would argue that class and level-based games are inherently flawed anyway, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

As would I, but I don't want to wage any battle with the OSR crowd who seem to love them so much.

Quote from: StormBringer;593412He doesn't play a large number of RPGs.  Or a small number, or even one, really.  There is a huge bowl of copy pasta, and each time a key word or phrase comes up, another noodly response is thrown at the screen to see if it sticks.

Seems like as good an explanation as any.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593295Actually, there are useless classes in all games, D&D or not. For example, thieves/Rogues have never been good in any incarnation, and Fighters haven't been much better. I'm mainly focusing on 3.5 though, as contrary to popular belief I don't actually care that much about older editions. Sure I think they suck and are in every way inferior, but as long as people aren't coming at me with stuff like "You don't know about [Old edition stuff] so your commentary on [New edition stuff] is invalid." or otherwise is attempting to bring them up when they are not relevant just to attack me I'm content to just leave it alone. Which is why I'm not posting in all of those "Old School:" threads right now.

Interesting.  I'll admit that I'm currently running a game that you would probably lol at then.  The game is Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea and the system is a "simulacrum" of (according to the writer) OD&D and AD&D 1E, with some tweaks and modifications.  From what I've experienced, the system is definitely flawed in some areas, but overall workable.  I don't subvert the rules or try to GM fiat my way out of perplexing situations.  Then again, I am not a "grognard" and don't have any experience with these rules "as written" by Gygax back in the day.

So am I doing it wrong?  Is there a good reason for me to scrap AS&SH and go 3.5?  I'm afraid it wouldn't fit the scope of my campaign, which is a brutal Weird Tales-esque world of low-fantasy sword & sorcery.  

Also, how do you feel about games like Dungeon Crawl Classics, which is OGL and based on the 3rd edition ruleset?  I've heard great things about DCC, especially that the Fighter has been rendered way more useful than in D&D and that the Casters are balanced out by the inherent danger of tapping magic.  The thief I don't know about, but I'm assuming its largely the same and quite useless by your standards.

"All other rpgs suck and are inferior to the one I play, and here's 400+ posts of me showing how my preferred edition is broken and shitty."


Where were you when I was in school in my psychology class?  I would have loved to use you for my thesis.

Quote from: Internet Death;593414I think it is safe to say he was referring to those games which do have classes.

Of course, I would argue that class and level-based games are inherently flawed anyway, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Don't feed the trolls. These are the people that made all manner of claims defending gimp classes and would not and could not step it up and prove it, nor are they willing to step on out and leave us to it.

Quote from: Internet Death;593417Interesting.  I'll admit that I'm currently running a game that you would probably lol at then.  The game is Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea and the system is a "simulacrum" of (according to the writer) OD&D and AD&D 1E, with some tweaks and modifications.  From what I've experienced, the system is definitely flawed in some areas, but overall workable.  I don't subvert the rules or try to GM fiat my way out of perplexing situations.  Then again, I am not a "grognard" and don't have any experience with these rules "as written" by Gygax back in the day.

Just going by what you say... 1st edition wasn't a workable system at all, so a clone of it is going to have the same problems. Ultimately though I've never heard of it, as that sounds like one of the systems that around 5 people play in total.

QuoteSo am I doing it wrong?  Is there a good reason for me to scrap AS&SH and go 3.5?  I'm afraid it wouldn't fit the scope of my campaign, which is a brutal Weird Tales-esque world of low-fantasy sword & sorcery.  

Sounds like an inherently flawed premise. The low fantasy part that is. That, like low magic Just Doesn't Work(tm).

QuoteAlso, how do you feel about games like Dungeon Crawl Classics, which is OGL and based on the 3rd edition ruleset?  I've heard great things about DCC, especially that the Fighter has been rendered way more useful than in D&D and that the Casters are balanced out by the inherent danger of tapping magic.  The thief I don't know about, but I'm assuming its largely the same and quite useless by your standards.

First of all, anything the designers say about their own game is by default meaningless. It is so very rare that designers understand their own game that terrible, wrong advice like "Fireball spam is good in 3.x." is the norm. This is the sort of thing you can learn in 15 minutes of actual play, yet they personally made Fireball suck and don't get it.

So just based on what you said, sounds like another cheap knock off of 3.x, and since I've never even heard of it, sounds like another single digit pop game.

That and they clearly don't understand what drives a game forward if that was how they attempted to fix class balance problems.

All that said, I discuss and optimize 3.5 because it's a game people actually play. This is not true of most tabletop games. So let's focus on what actually matters and what is actually relevant both in general, and to this thread specifically.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593449Sounds like an inherently flawed premise. The low fantasy part that is. That, like low magic Just Doesn't Work(tm).

Really? When I say low-fantasy, I just mean that it's humanocentric, with elves, dwarves and halflings being either nonexistent or non-playable.  Magic is still abundant.

But if you're right, and my premise simply Just Doesn't Work, that seems rather disappointing to me.  That the only viable campaign is Generic Fantasy Land.  That just sucks, don't you think?

Quote from: Mr. GC;593449First of all, anything the designers say about their own game is by default meaningless. It is so very rare that designers understand their own game that terrible, wrong advice like "Fireball spam is good in 3.x." is the norm. This is the sort of thing you can learn in 15 minutes of actual play, yet they personally made Fireball suck and don't get it.

I understand what you're saying, but the positive comments about DCC I've heard were from reviewers and playtesters.  Still doesn't mean they're right though.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593449So just based on what you said, sounds like another cheap knock off of 3.x, and since I've never even heard of it, sounds like another single digit pop game.

I'm not going to suggest you research something that you're clearly not interested in, but if you did I think you'd find that its a very different game to 3.5.  Also, it is produced by Goodman Games, who are a relatively big player and have the capital to actually release print books (nice ones too).  The player base is small, compared to D&D, but I find there's a lot more people playing non-D&D games these days than any other time.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593449All that said, I discuss and optimize 3.5 because it's a game people actually play. This is not true of most tabletop games. So let's focus on what actually matters and what is actually relevant both in general, and to this thread specifically.

Fair enough, I didn't intend to derail the thread.  If That Guy doesn't step up to the plate, and you are willing to let a noob stumble through your scenario, I'll take over the PC's that were established earlier in the thread.

Quote from: Internet Death;593453Really? When I say low-fantasy, I just mean that it's humanocentric, with elves, dwarves and halflings being either nonexistent or non-playable.  Magic is still abundant.

But if you're right, and my premise simply Just Doesn't Work, that seems rather disappointing to me.  That the only viable campaign is Generic Fantasy Land.  That just sucks, don't you think?

Old editions of D&D were also very humanocentric. So yeah.

Anyways, my point is if a fictional setting is not so different from the real world... why not just live life instead?

Generic Fantasy Land... no. Something significantly different from the real world, yes.

QuoteI understand what you're saying, but the positive comments about DCC I've heard were from reviewers and playtesters.  Still doesn't mean they're right though.

Ever heard what the reviewers say about Diablo 3? How about those that actually played it?

See what I'm saying here?

QuoteI'm not going to suggest you research something that you're clearly not interested in, but if you did I think you'd find that its a very different game to 3.5.  Also, it is produced by Goodman Games, who are a relatively big player and have the capital to actually release print books (nice ones too).  The player base is small, compared to D&D, but I find there's a lot more people playing non-D&D games these days than any other time.

I remember these guys. They wrote a lot of totally broken 3.5 shit, right along with Mongoose. Um, yeah. No.

QuoteFair enough, I didn't intend to derail the thread.  If That Guy doesn't step up to the plate, and you are willing to let a noob stumble through your scenario, I'll take over the PC's that were established earlier in the thread.

I would not suggest that. As I mentioned before, they don't even have a single piece of adventuring gear between them, not to mention that they were weak even by the standards of the ruleset. If you really want to, you can, but I would suggest making something better.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593467Old editions of D&D were also very humanocentric. So yeah.

Anyways, my point is if a fictional setting is not so different from the real world... why not just live life instead?

Agreed, but a sword & sorcery setting that takes place in Hyperborea and features demons, crab men with laser pistols, and floating cities is not too close to the real world just because you're playing a human, lol.

My favorite game is Trail of Cthulhu, and I think it has the best overall system.  You play a human with no supernatural abilities, but it's nothing like the real world because there is magic, monsters, and Elder Gods.  It's a totally different genre than DnD, but you would probably like it as it offers the players a fair chance at success.

Anyway, I would create new characters but I don't have even the core books, nevermind any expansion material, so I might have to bow out.  I did read up on 3.5 though and it seems fine as a game, I wouldn't mind getting into it if the books didn't cost a kabujillion dollars.

Quote from: Internet Death;593468Agreed, but a sword & sorcery setting that takes place in Hyperborea and features demons, crab men with laser pistols, and floating cities is not too close to the real world just because you're playing a human, lol.

My favorite game is Trail of Cthulhu, and I think it has the best overall system.  You play a human with no supernatural abilities, but it's nothing like the real world because there is magic, monsters, and Elder Gods.  It's a totally different genre than DnD, but you would probably like it as it offers the players a fair chance at success.

Anyway, I would create new characters but I don't have even the core books, nevermind any expansion material, so I might have to bow out.  I did read up on 3.5 though and it seems fine as a game, I wouldn't mind getting into it if the books didn't cost a kabujillion dollars.

In most D&D games you also play a human or close. So... yeah. Anyways.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593449All that said, I discuss and optimize 3.5 because it's a game people actually play. This is not true of most tabletop games. So let's focus on what actually matters and what is actually relevant both in general, and to this thread specifically.

You have no idea what any of those words even mean, let alone how they apply to this conversation or any other.  You can't possibly speak about "most tabletop games" when you can't name more than three others, and you certainly have not the first clue as to what playing those games entails.

Notably, the number-twat omitted 'playing' from the list up there:  "I discuss and optimize...", "...a game [other] people actually play."  If he could number-twat several games, that would at least be something.  But there's not even the one game he's particularly good at; the Den routinely mocks his feeble understanding of 3.x.

Pathetic all around, but that is the life of a non-gaming number-twat, I guess.

Quote from: StormBringer;593482You have no idea what any of those words even mean, let alone how they apply to this conversation or any other.  You can't possibly speak about "most tabletop games" when you can't name more than three others, and you certainly have not the first clue as to what playing those games entails.

Notably, the number-twat omitted 'playing' from the list up there:  "I discuss and optimize...", "...a game [other] people actually play."  If he could number-twat several games, that would at least be something.  But there's not even the one game he's particularly good at; the Den routinely mocks his feeble understanding of 3.x.

Pathetic all around, but that is the life of a non-gaming number-twat, I guess.

Ok, first, I think you're getting a little too emotional about this.  Simmer down.

Second, "number-twat", whatever that's supposed to mean, is not even an effective insult in the context of this argument.  What's under discussion is the rules of the game, and the rules of the game involve numbers to a large degree.  Calling out someone for using numbers when the discussion is about numbers just doesn't make any sense.

Also, you're being a little disingenuous here.  It is common knowledge in this hobby that tabletop games are very niche, and that the only games with any notable market share are DnD/Pathfinder.  Maybe Call of Cthulhu, but that's pushing it.  Just because dude only plays 3.5 doesn't mean he's not qualified to discuss 3.5.  I mean, if we're being real here, the inclusion of anything but 3.5 in this argument is pretty much completely irrelevant.  So I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

I play games that aren't DnD, but I'm not going to try and act like that matters.  I also am currently playing AD&D 1E (sort of).  I'm relatively new to this hobby, and if someone with more experience has different views than me, I will perk up my ears to listen.  GC seems like a reasonably intelligent guy with a firm grasp on logic and reason, so why not try to learn something from him rather than shitting all over everything he says.

Seriously, just put aside you're emotions and be objective about all of this.  Shit, roll up some characters and play the scenario.  Then continue the discussion based on the outcome.  This is how results are achieved.

Quote from: Internet Death;593488Second, "number-twat", whatever that's supposed to mean, is not even an effective insult in the context of this argument.  What's under discussion is the rules of the game, and the rules of the game involve numbers to a large degree.  Calling out someone for using numbers when the discussion is about numbers just doesn't make any sense.

I believe its a reference to an ongoing debate with MrGC, who has in other threads demonstrated that he doesn't actually roleplay, he uses 3.5 to run tactical miniature tournaments.

QuoteAlso, you're being a little disingenuous here.  It is common knowledge in this hobby that tabletop games are very niche, and that the only games with any notable market share are DnD/Pathfinder. Maybe Call of Cthulhu, but that's pushing it.

If Call of Cthulhu is a maybe, how about White Wolf , which actually outsold D&D for the better part of a decade? Or games that have been consistently in print for 30 years?

But regardless, granted this is a niche hobby, that does not mean that D&D/PF = roleplaying. I havent played D&D in over a decade, yet I roleplay with 3 different groups on a regular basis.

That said, if Mr GC only wants to play D&D, that's just fine. But when he then makes claims about RPGs in general or RPGs besides D&D 3.5, he displays his ignorance on a silver platter for everyone to see. He obviously isnt aware of what any of these games systems are, but he's still, in the wonderful 4chan tradition, perfectly willing to slag them off. It's stupid and bizarre, like those movie reviews by people who have never seen the films they are mouthing off about.


 

QuoteJust because dude only plays 3.5 doesn't mean he's not qualified to discuss 3.5.  I mean, if we're being real here, the inclusion of anything but 3.5 in this argument is pretty much completely irrelevant.  So I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

Again, if MrGC limited his comments and criticisms to 3.5, then there'd be no problem. Its the fact that he keeps going on about other RPGs and blatantly displaying his utter ignorance to everyone that has caused him to get the reputation as this site's latest would-be Troll king.

QuoteSeriously, just put aside you're emotions and be objective about all of this.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

QuoteShit, roll up some characters and play the scenario.  Then continue the discussion based on the outcome.  This is how results are achieved.

the problem is that this thread was started as an offshoot of a larger debate with the premise that this was MrGC's way of "proving" he was correct ( I can't even remember about what now). And then, in the very first post, he adds a number of ridiculous new rules that loaded the game in his favour, and displayed to each of us once again the very limited conception he has of what an RPG is, could be, or even should be.

Quote from: Internet Death;593488Ok, first, I think you're getting a little too emotional about this.  Simmer down.

And I think you haven't been around long enough to make suggestions along those lines, so go ahead and pound sand up your ass.

Also, the "large and in charge" entitlement entrance?  Not going to get you very far in these parts.  Well, not entirely true; it will get you quite a distance down the 'obviously offline associates of Mr GC showing up to bolster his numbers' road, if that is where you intended travelling.

Quote from: Internet Death;593468My favorite game is Trail of Cthulhu, and I think it has the best overall system.  You play a human with no supernatural abilities, but it's nothing like the real world because there is magic, monsters, and Elder Gods.  It's a totally different genre than DnD, but you would probably like it as it offers the players a fair chance at success.

.

I think it is safe to say Mr GC would despise Trail of Cthulu as basketweavers and MTP.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;593508I think it is safe to say Mr GC would despise Trail of Cthulu as basketweavers and MTP.

MTP? Don't know what that means.

Also, ToC is not a basket-weaving game.  There is a clear-cut definition of success in the game, which is solving the mystery presented in the scenario by using your investigative abilities and piecing together the clues you gather.  Failure means not being able to deduce what is really happening, therefore not having the ability to thwart whatever is going to occur.  Bad shit happens if you don't create an investigator who is capable of handling the events of the game.

And don't tell me that characters die too often in ToC.  Most of the time you only die if you fuck up, i.e. attack a Mi-Go with a switchblade or barge into a cult temple alone and without a plan.