Considering Spike has mentioned that he doesn't consider me an impartial arbiter, and BedrockBrendan has called my impartiality in to question, I will respectfully recuse myself.  

For myself, I'm much more interested in the Fighter versus Wizard discussion than Party versus Monster discussion.  While I have no doubt that a well-played monster can TPK a party, even if it is supposed to represent a normal 'challenge', the underlying issue has never been in doubt - a DM can TPK a party at will by putting them against a challenge beyond their ability with no hope of escape...  While the CR guidelines may posit that a Bone Devil is a decent challenge, the guidelines are not perfect - a dragon is more difficult than its CR would suggest, while an animal is usually weaker than the CR would suggest.  Outsiders tend toward the higher end of their CR.  

Who among the 'considered neutral' members of the board would be willing to step in adjudicate?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570761With all due respect I dont think deadDMwalking is a good impartial choice for game master (that isnt an attack on you oersonally deadDM, as i dont think I would be impartial). The GM ought to be someone who hasn't had much of a stake in any of these discussions.

This thread has nothing to do with whatever Wizard vs Fighter bullshit is going on that I stopped paying attention to.

This spawned from a different thread discussing CR that as far as I remember, deadDM never even posted in.

But hey, did you object to jeff being the DM of the Wizard vs Fighter thunderdome because he's not impartial from having a stake in the discussions?

Oh wait, of course you didn't.

EDIT: Though of course, if we could get fectin back, he's much less stupid than deadDM, so I wouldn't mind.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570786For myself, I'm much more interested in the Fighter versus Wizard discussion than Party versus Monster discussion.  While I have no doubt that a well-played monster can TPK a party, even if it is supposed to represent a normal 'challenge', the underlying issue has never been in doubt - a DM can TPK a party at will by putting them against a challenge beyond their ability with no hope of escape...  While the CR guidelines may posit that a Bone Devil is a decent challenge, the guidelines are not perfect - a dragon is more difficult than its CR would suggest, while an animal is usually weaker than the CR would suggest.  Outsiders tend toward the higher end of their CR.

Sounds kind of like a magical tea party to me.  "DM, may I have a monster that isn't too difficult?"

I never objected to DeadDM, I said I wasn't certain he would be impartial, or words to that effect*.  If I HAD objected I would have said so when he stepped up to the plate.

The reason I stopped posting to the thread was mostly that I wasn't actually reading the forum for a week or two. You know, because I have a life or something?**

The long delay in running up did kill my initial enthusiasm, as did the fact that I was pretty sure I'd corrected the skill totals already (which I can freely admit that they were not earlier today when I looked. Not, that, you know: i actually care. I'm shorting myself because I don't see a few extra points in craft:my little pony dolls actually being relevant to the question of if a lone stock bone devil can A: Assassinate the mage every time out the gate and B: without the mage the rest of the party is helpless.)


Anyway: Skills are fixered, I'm not going to sweat a few thousand GP that I shorted myself in potions and whatnot (better to be short than over, so you can't complain I cheated ya with one too many healing pots...).  So, like, whatever.



* not going to double check, but I think I said I had reservations. In another thread. As part of a general mocking screed because I wasn't actually on line to post when you declared victory unilaterally.

** I know, I know: Blasphemy.  Fuck you, I work 80 hours a week, no exaggeration.

Quote from: StormBringer;570834Sounds kind of like a magical tea party to me.  "DM, may I have a monster that isn't too difficult?"

At the risk of derailing this thread, I don't even know what you're trying to say here.  

In the games I run, I usually include encounters that are challenging for the players.  Some are too difficult, and some are too easy, but I don't regularly aim for challenges that are impossible to win or impossible to lose.  When a party of 10th level characters decides to camp in a normal wood and climb half-dome (because, hey, why not), I don't care if they're attacked by a bear or not.  If they are, they can kill it, or scare it away, or charm it, or talk to it, or leave.  If anything, it simply gets a passing mention 'your sleep is interrupted only by a hungry bear drawn to the smell of your marshmallows - you scare it away without difficulty'.  Sure, we could play it out, but why?  

If it's appropriate for a monster beyond the level of the party, they might run into one.  For example, if they have reason to believe that a particular mountain cave is the lair of a great wyrm, they could seek it out at 1st level.  I wouldn't make the creature a wyrmling just to avoid a TPK - but the party probably would know better than to seek out a great wyrm at the start of their adventuring career.

In general, I try to make a world that makes sense.  Usually, the PCs happen to be engaged with the part of the world that it would make sense for them to do so (where they are challenged, but not well beyond their capabilities).  They could choose to do 'low-level challenges' even if they are high level; they could choose to do 'high-level challenges' even if they are low level, but usually the types of challenges tend to hang out in the same geographic area.  A CR 8 Apex Predator probably doesn't leave a lot of CR 1 monsters in its territory.  So if the PCs are tracking down an orc encampment, they're not TERRIBLY likely to run into a Behir (but it has been known to happen).

Quote from: Kaelik;570833This thread has nothing to do with whatever Wizard vs Fighter bullshit is going on that I stopped paying attention to.

This spawned from a different thread discussing CR that as far as I remember, deadDM never even posted in.

But hey, did you object to jeff being the DM of the Wizard vs Fighter thunderdome because he's not impartial from having a stake in the discussions?

Oh wait, of course you didn't.

EDIT: Though of course, if we could get fectin back, he's much less stupid than deadDM, so I wouldn't mind.

Absolutely I didn't, because I am partisan in this. That is why I said I would make a terrible choice for GM in one of these.

Quote from: StormBringer;570834Sounds kind of like a magical tea party to me.  "DM, may I have a monster that isn't too difficult?"

The "magical tea party" thing will always exist in tabletop games in some form or another; there can't be codified rules for everything.  

As for the CR system, it isn't very good in a lot of areas.  The best option for 3rd Edition games usually involves the DM finding the right difficulty levels for his PCs based on various factors is often the best way of doing things (especially where character optimization and rules mastery can drastically change between PCs of the same level).  This is unfortunate in that it heaps a lot more work on the DM, though.

Quote from: Libertad;570905The "magical tea party" thing will always exist in tabletop games in some form or another; there can't be codified rules for everything.  The CR system isn't very good in a lot of areas, but the DM finding the right difficulty levels for his PCs based on various factors is often the best way of doing things (especially in a game like 3rd Edition, where character optimization and rules mastery can drastically change between PCs of the same level).

I hate the very term "magical tea party" using it implies that human (DM) discretion is a bad thing and that's a silly impossible stance for a game that is at least half social and depends on real human interaction to really work as intended unlike some MMORG.

Quote from: Marleycat;570908I hate the very term "magical tea party" using it implies that human (DM) discretion is a bad thing and that's a silly impossible stance for a game that is at least half social and depends on real human interaction to really work as intended unlike some MMORG.

I believe that MTP was originally intended to refer to sections of role-playing books that told the DM to make things up; at worst, the "make it up" section was an excuse to justify poor play-testing and unfinished work.

Unfortunately, MTP all too often is used to criticized an RPG which doesn't have explicit rules for something ("why aren't there explicit rules for crop yields or an in-depth economic system?!").  I really don't care about some aspects of the game world if they don't have an effect on the kinds of adventures meant to be played in the setting.

Quote from: Libertad;570905The "magical tea party" thing will always exist in tabletop games in some form or another; there can't be codified rules for everything.  

As for the CR system, it isn't very good in a lot of areas.  The best option for 3rd Edition games usually involves the DM finding the right difficulty levels for his PCs based on various factors is often the best way of doing things (especially where character optimization and rules mastery can drastically change between PCs of the same level).  This is unfortunate in that it heaps a lot more work on the DM, though.

Absolutely, on both counts.  Denners like to pretend that "magical tea party" only applies to the parts they don't like, or that it is some kind of valid argument by itself.

And the best option you mention for 3.x is the same best option in use for the three decades before it.  

Eh. Bump. Whatevah.

Maybe I should declare victory now. Go me. (emo:smiley)

I don't know why you'd declare victory.  Kaelik wants to fight, but there is no DM.  There's  no DM because you expressed doubts about my 'impartiality' in another thread, and BedrockBrendan renewed them here.  Kaelik has agreed that another DM will be fine, so we're waiting for someone to volunteer.  

Perhaps you, Spike, or BedrockBrendan, would suggest a suitable alternative.  Maybe even formally invite him or her?

I'm sorry, did the utter lack of excitement in my words and the 'emo:smiley' comment not clue you into the sarcasm?

It's my chubby cheeks, isn't it: They just don't convey serious boredom properly.

If I intended to kick you as a referee for this I would have said something, to you, weeks ago. I figure if you are blatantly unfair that will be pretty obvious. Ideally I'd prefer to keep fectin, but that wasn't an option so 'ere we go, I guess.

Bored now, again, but I'll stick around at least a few days longer.

LOL Priceless.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;571439I don't know why you'd declare victory.  Kaelik wants to fight, but there is no DM.  There's  no DM because you expressed doubts about my 'impartiality' in another thread, and BedrockBrendan renewed them here.  Kaelik has agreed that another DM will be fine, so we're waiting for someone to volunteer.  

Perhaps you, Spike, or BedrockBrendan, would suggest a suitable alternative.  Maybe even formally invite him or her?

I stand by calling your impartiality into question, not because you are a bad Gm ( I suspect you are a good one) but because you are agressively on the same side of these debates as McGuy. I am just as aggressively on the opposing side,which is why I would be a bad choice as well. I think these kinds of contests will be meaningless if both sides don't view the Gm as impartial.

The problem is the number of 3E GMs here is a bit lean I think. If I was going strictly by personality and temperment, Estar would probably be my suggestion (but I have a feeling he isn't too into 3E) because he seems like a very impartial GM. I don't recall if he was involved in the threads that spawned this one, but Justin Alexander has a pretty solid grasp of the 3E system. So i would suggest him as well. If you give me a day or so I can probably come up with a better list.