Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262202Drew> Thanks for the assistance. It's unfortunate that Stormbringer is an intellectually dishonest troll.

No worries mate. Fortunately I'm at a place where I no longer feel compelled to argue with people who have demonstrated their disinterest in rational discourse. It's clear his meaningless and contradictory criticisms are nothing more than a smokescreen, hiding colossal ignorance of virtually every topic that's been discussed in this thread.

What's tragic is that all this is nothing more than garden variety compulsivity. There's no way he can stop, no matter how badly he damages his credibility. I've seen him do it on RPGnet - hundreds, if not thousands of wasted posts spent arguing the toss about 4E for no better reason than his terror of being seen to be beaten. That you're doing a creditable job of spanking the life out of him on this thread means that he has to continue. It's the old chestnut of the self-sustaining sacrifices of unjust war, played out on the pettiest scale.

Well, I read through to around page 10ish before I got bored of the whole conversation. I don't much care who won the flaming, but Stormbringer gets bonus points for teaching me a new word for mouth - "cockholster" (as in "shut your cockholster").

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;261887Say wha? There was a big flameout on ENWorld about how powerful monsters like Pit Fiends were SO MUCH BETTER now that they have nice trim little stat blocks that never make you crack open the PHB, and those simulation fans and "there's more to D&D than combat" mantra-speakers were poo-pooed for suggesting there was anything wrong with that. And yet NOW we have some concern about how players might face such creatures in non-combat situations?

I don't get it.

Clearly not. The point about reducing stat blocks for monsters down to functional minimums is that you don't need a lot of superfluous information when using the statblocks in a fight. Since you don't need any information to use monsters in a skill challnge these positions are not incompatible. It was never the view (or if it was then it was the view of a few idiots) that monsters in 4E were for fighting only, merely that a non-combat situation doesn't need a great amount of detailed stats to resolve.

RE wandering monsters, I see how some people found that they added verisimilitude to a dungeon in older editions, but the 4E dungeon design advice clearly suggests that encounters should be based on larger areas where the actions of the players, the noise they make and so on definitely do bring in reinforcements and the like to increase verisimilitude. It's a different take on teh same problem, and on that some of the published adventures still don't seem to get. Ironically, Mearls posted a good example of how it should work in another blog post, with a single encounter comprising different groups of monsters which would trigger at different stages of the fight as the noise travelled, etc, but which could be broken down into smaller, easier encouters by a quite, quiet and careful party.

The flip side of wandering monsters is that they frequently should, if reacting realistically to the invasion of their home, sound the alarm and bring the whole dungeon down on the party's head given half a chance. But they rarely seemed to in the past.

Either way, I don't see how Mearls suggesting a way for interested GMs to reintroduce wandering monster tables in a short blog entry is indicative of a 180 turn on 4E design philosophy.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262603Are you pretending to be shocked by swearing on the internet?

Hah! Stormy, I can't even take you seriously enough any more to really and truly hate your guts. You're just too fantastic a buffoon.

No, child, when you resort to vulgarity, it means you really have nothing more to offer.

I would have thought a pseudo-intellectual like yourself would have known that, but again, I overestimate your abilities.

Quote from: Drew;262663No worries mate. Fortunately I'm at a place where I no longer feel compelled to argue with people who have demonstrated their disinterest in rational discourse. It's clear his meaningless and contradictory criticisms are nothing more than a smokescreen, hiding colossal ignorance of virtually every topic that's been discussed in this thread.

What's tragic is that all this is nothing more than garden variety compulsivity. There's no way he can stop, no matter how badly he damages his credibility. I've seen him do it on RPGnet - hundreds, if not thousands of wasted posts spent arguing the toss about 4E for no better reason than his terror of being seen to be beaten. That you're doing a creditable job of spanking the life out of him on this thread means that he has to continue. It's the old chestnut of the self-sustaining sacrifices of unjust war, played out on the pettiest scale.

And yet, you talk about me rather than the topic.

Quote from: Trevelyan;262675Well, I read through to around page 10ish before I got bored of the whole conversation. I don't much care who won the flaming, but Stormbringer gets bonus points for teaching me a new word for mouth - "cockholster" (as in "shut your cockholster").

Always glad to help.  

QuoteClearly not. The point about reducing stat blocks for monsters down to functional minimums is that you don't need a lot of superfluous information when using the statblocks in a fight. Since you don't need any information to use monsters in a skill challnge these positions are not incompatible. It was never the view (or if it was then it was the view of a few idiots) that monsters in 4E were for fighting only, merely that a non-combat situation doesn't need a great amount of detailed stats to resolve.

But PCs have all kinds of 'detailed stats' to resolve non-combat situations.  Why do the players have this superfluous information outside of their statblocks?

QuoteIronically, Mearls posted a good example of how it should work in another blog post, with a single encounter comprising different groups of monsters which would trigger at different stages of the fight as the noise travelled, etc, but which could be broken down into smaller, easier encouters by a quite, quiet and careful party.

That isn't a 'wandering' monster, then.  That is a triggered encounter.

QuoteThe flip side of wandering monsters is that they frequently should, if reacting realistically to the invasion of their home, sound the alarm and bring the whole dungeon down on the party's head given half a chance. But they rarely seemed to in the past.

Why would the orcs in room 15 give a flip about the goblins in room 17c?  Why would the bugbears in 24 give a crap about either of them?

No, the verisimilitude is in the fact that there are other monsters wandering around 'on patrol' as it were.  They are intended to wear down resources.  Much like level drain, it was an in game method for an essentially meta-game concept.

QuoteEither way, I don't see how Mearls suggesting a way for interested GMs to reintroduce wandering monster tables in a short blog entry is indicative of a 180 turn on 4E design philosophy.

I don't think it is a switch in the philosophy of 4e, I think it is an incisive look at the philosophy of the lead designer.  As Caeser Slaad mentioned, hacking away at the mechanics without knowing why they were there was a bad decision, and this is re-inforcement of that.

Quote from: Trevelyan;262675Clearly not. The point about reducing stat blocks for monsters down to functional minimums is that you don't need a lot of superfluous information when using the statblocks in a fight. Since you don't need any information to use monsters in a skill challnge these positions are not incompatible.

I don't need a lesson; I understand the philosophy. I just consider it inadequate.

QuoteIt was never the view (or if it was then it was the view of a few idiots) that monsters in 4E were for fighting only, merely that a non-combat situation doesn't need a great amount of detailed stats to resolve.

I'm okay with the "idiot" theory.

QuoteRE wandering monsters, I see how some people found that they added verisimilitude to a dungeon in older editions, but the 4E dungeon design advice clearly suggests that encounters should be based on larger areas where the actions of the players, the noise they make and so on definitely do bring in reinforcements and the like to increase verisimilitude. It's a different take on teh same problem, and on that some of the published adventures still don't seem to get. Ironically, Mearls posted a good example of how it should work in another blog post, with a single encounter comprising different groups of monsters which would trigger at different stages of the fight as the noise travelled, etc, but which could be broken down into smaller, easier encouters by a quite, quiet and careful party.

The flip side of wandering monsters is that they frequently should, if reacting realistically to the invasion of their home, sound the alarm and bring the whole dungeon down on the party's head given half a chance. But they rarely seemed to in the past.

Cool.

Mearls also wrote an adventure for Fiery Dragon for 3e that had an "alert system" that tried to create a system whereby a complex would respond to battles in its midst.

Now if those sorts of considerations had made it into the rules instead of short-sighted "D&D is all about the combat encounter" sensibilities, they might have had a game worth my attention.

QuoteEither way, I don't see how Mearls suggesting a way for interested GMs to reintroduce wandering monster tables in a short blog entry is indicative of a 180 turn on 4E design philosophy.

I'm not making any sort of claim about any official change here. I just wonder why, if Mearls is as big as a mover as I imagined him to be, this sort of thing wasn't taken account of in the rules instead of needing house rules.

Notwithstanding that I think using the skill challenge system as a bandaid for everything missing is a poor replacement for granting creatures noncombat abilities. Which, in turn, is necessitated by the decision to make all stat blocks self-contained. Such decisions are not without consequences.

Quote from: StormBringer;262699Why would the orcs in room 15 give a flip about the goblins in room 17c?  Why would the bugbears in 24 give a crap about either of them?

Sounds like a bad neighborhood to me. :cool:

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;262709Sounds like a bad neighborhood to me. :cool:

A bad neighborhood with treasure.  

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;262709Sounds like a bad neighborhood to me. :cool:

Eh, the goblins in room 17c keep playing their drums all night long.  Let 'em die.

Quote from: jcfiala;262783Eh, the goblins in room 17c keep playing their drums all night long.  Let 'em die.

:teehee:

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262450I'm perfectly willing to define the term "culture of play" to anyone, other than you, who asks, and have done so on a couple of occasions previously, and will happily do so in future.

Then define this "culture of play" I keep hearing about. Please.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;262863Then define this "culture of play" I keep hearing about. Please.

Sure. It's fairly simple. The culture of play for a game is all those public elements of the game that aren't part of its rules and fluff and designer notes as presented in game books and official communications from the publisher/designer. Every game has at least one culture of play around it.

Pretty simple, eh?

The idea itself isn't very contentious, which is why it's funny Stormy is taking issue with it. The reason I coined it was because there was a debate about how _important_ the culture of play for a game was vs. the "design culture" of the game. The term "design culture" in that debate was taken to mean the rules and designer's notes and so on that the designer of the game used to tell people how the game ought to be played.

Here are some specific examples to make clear what I'm talking about:

1) All the various editions of Vampire contain many different passages where the writers tell you that it is a game of personal horror, that the focus ought to be on the psychological state of the characters, and how the game is intended to allow you to struggle against the beast within, etc.

On the other hand, when you read APs of Vampire, and you talk with folks about what they do in their games, it's pretty clear that Vampire is usually played as a power fantasy, where PCs are more interested in using cool powers and fancy toys to overcome their opposition than focusing on their personal horror.

The idea that Vampire is a game of personal horror is how the designers of the game see it. The culture of play for Vampire though, is very different.

2) The designers in 3.x never once mention optimising characters that I have ever seen in any of my books for 3.x. They clearly design many feats (and a couple of classes) with cool character ideas in mind that are sub-par mechanically.

On the other hand, optimising characters is something that most 3.x players who talk about the game are familiar with and have a position on (even if it's not necessarily a positive opinion). Many 3.x players are also familiar with how to optimise their characters, even if they're not experts at it.

Character optimisation is something that exists in the culture of play for 3.x. The designers don't say anything about it, but people who play the game do talk about it and consider it an important issue to deal with when playing 3.x (once again, it may not be the dominant issue in any given discussion of 3.x, obviously).

3) Some earlier editions of D&D had rules for weapon speed and armour penetration as part of the rules of the game. Anecdotes repeatedly bring up that these rules were widely ignored. Despite the designer's intent that they be used, very few did because the rules were seen as fiddly and impractical. You could join a game of other D&D players and reasonably expect not to have to use those rules, because the culture of play was against them.

So there are three examples of the kinds of things I'm talking about when I say "culture of play". It's not some complicated jargon term with some mysterious and hidden meaning that requires pages to explain (Most of my above post is a set of examples) - I'm insulting Stormy for arguing about it just because of how obvious a thing I think it is. It's pretty clear that his main objection to it is that I said it, not anything to do with the idea itself.

Quote from: StormBringer;262693No, child, when you resort to vulgarity, it means you really have nothing more to offer.

Your frequent, unprovoked use of the term "douchebag" shows plainly how hypocritical this anti-vulgarity position is on your part.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262998Your frequent, unprovoked use of the term "douchebag" shows plainly how hypocritical this anti-vulgarity position is on your part.

Well, if you consider 'douchebag' on the same level of vulgarity as 'on an obvious fuck up', well, it just shows that you are a douchebag.

I would like to second the motion that Pseudoephedrine is a douchebag, regardless of whether or not he can define the term "culture of play".

All in favor?