Quote from: Fifth Element;402559You'll have to be more specific...Benoist and I share latitude, if not longitude.

Plus the two posts SB quoted are actually not contradictory.

One (yours) states a basic principle (with which I completely agree), and the other states deviations from this principle in practice.

Quote from: Benoist;402567Plus the two posts SB quoted are actually not contradictory.

One (yours) states a basic principle (with which I completely agree), and the other states deviations from this principle in practice.

Good point. And for the record, I do know who he was referring to...

Quote from: Fifth Element;402559It is true that some players are like this, but I do tend to assume that I'm playing with reasonable people in any discussion.

Fair enough.  In those cases, we will fail to have a disagreement.  Of course, in those cases, rules don't really need to be marked as 'guidelines'.

My major irritation, however (and I am not accusing you of this behaviour), is when the rules are touted as being the super fantastic ultimate expression of the game while simultaneously being advised to ignore parts of it as 'guidelines'.  'Parts' has a variable meaning of anywhere from 'these three paragraphs' to 'everything but these three paragraphs'.

I am happy to discuss the rules in whatever manner is comfortable for people.  I don't expect to collate a document describing exactly which part of the rules is which.  But when the argument is consistently presented that some contentious portion of the rules is a 'guideline', one begins to wonder why they are having the discussion at all.  Again, not accusing you of such behaviour, but I am pretty sure you know what I am talking about.

This is also why I am perhaps a bit more fastidious when talking about rules.  One group's 'guidelines' is another group's 'iron-clad law'; I will posit that this is some percentage of the issues certain games suffer from.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402560He has something of a point, which is that D&D has always provided guidelines as to the challenge level of monsters they should generally be facing at a given level. Which in turn implies that 3E/4E including such things is not much different than previous editions.

That was inherent in my pointing out the class/level part, but more directly, the level part.  I mean, that is why they are there, you know?  Shorthand for a moderately broad metric for how powerful the character or party in question has become.  Honestly, it borders on tautology: D&D gauges the level of the challenge based on the level of the characters.  I mean, duh.  

It's still quite a difference from ECL and xp budgets.  In the latter case, it would be a logistical nightmare.  10 kobolds would have to be closely equal to one orc or something, so you would need to make sure (among other things) that the ten kobolds hit roughly as often as one orc, and do roughly the same amount of damage.  But then, they all have to attack one player, because an orc can't spread out ten attacks, and if the kobolds spread out the attacks, they are not nearly as effective as one orc.  And that is just scratching the surface of two monsters.  I don't want to derail the conversation, but we already know WotC sucks at math.  

QuoteBeyond that, is the above an example of the adult conversation you're pining for?

I have been on his ignore list for quite some time, and beyond that, I have totally burned out my patience with engaging in good faith arguments when the other participant clearly has no intention of ever dong so.

To paraphrase my favourite Taoist principle:  The sage never argues.  But sometimes, I don't feel like being a sage.  

As I have often said, EL and treasure parcels, if even guidelines and such, are still handmaidens to in-game illogic and thus dampen versimilitude.If the player EVER can look at an encounter or treasure placement from the perspective of why the GM did it or how the guidelines request the GM to do it, immersion is screwed to some degree.
 
Not edition specific, Seanchai pointed our earlier charts in early editions fairly.  Just the more we move this waym the more we move away from roleplaying.

The new move for 4.5e away from wishlists and towards magic rarity?  A step in the right direction.

Quote from: StormBringer;402592I am happy to discuss the rules in whatever manner is comfortable for people.  I don't expect to collate a document describing exactly which part of the rules is which.  But when the argument is consistently presented that some contentious portion of the rules is a 'guideline', one begins to wonder why they are having the discussion at all.  Again, not accusing you of such behaviour, but I am pretty sure you know what I am talking about.

This is also why I am perhaps a bit more fastidious when talking about rules.  One group's 'guidelines' is another group's 'iron-clad law'; I will posit that this is some percentage of the issues certain games suffer from.

Yeah, fair enough. In this case I see a clear delineation between rules and guidelines. But I understand what you're talking about.

Quote from: LordVreeg;402636The new move for 4.5e away from wishlists and towards magic rarity?  A step in the right direction.

Did you just call Essentials 4.5?

Quote from: Benoist;402640Did you just call Essentials 4.5?

yes.  I spend much time on this on too many places.  CAll it what it is, without fear or rancour.  I consider it a move in the right direction.

Quote from: Benoist;402640Did you just call Essentials 4.5?

Of course. We all know that the change to magic missile marks the change to 4.5. The fact that that change has nothing to do with Essentials is meaningless nitpicking.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402642Of course. We all know that the change to magic missile marks the change to 4.5. The fact that that change has nothing to do with Essentials is meaningless nitpicking.

Ahhh, Iain. You are not disappointing me on this one!

Quote from: Fifth Element;402642Of course. We all know that the change to magic missile marks the change to 4.5. The fact that that change has nothing to do with Essentials is meaningless nitpicking.

Honest inquiry:  Would you be able to summarize the changes this spell has going through since 2008?  

Obviously, I don't keep up on the errata much, but at the beginning of that debate, I read a blog post or something stating that whole character builds developed around it throughout the various incarnations.  My stuck-in-the-olden-days brain could only formulate one response: "...the fuck?"

I think it is pretty cool, really, if that is what they did.  I've always liked the idea of a 'signature spell', but it is harder than hell to implement properly without turning a character into a one-trick pony.

Quote from: StormBringer;402480Players read the books, too.

EDIT:  Sorry, it's been a rough couple of days.  I was more making a statement about the 'rules don't matter' tone.  Which is complete nonsense, really.  It's fairly obvious to those of us with a good deal of experience in gaming, much the same as many of us would have a pretty good feel for adjusting the prices in Monopoly.  It's hardly intuitive for people new to the hobby, however.  So, when you have a section of the rules devoted to an xp budget or treasure parcels, the players are going to expect the GM to stick to that.

Unless the GM tells them that he's not doing that.

I don't get how there can be a controversy. When I run a game, I always make explicit which rules are in use, and which exceptions there are.

It doesn't matter,because 90% of the time my players won't bother reading the rules, and will believe whatever I tell them.

Quote from: Imperator;402699Unless the GM tells them that he's not doing that.

I don't get how there can be a controversy. When I run a game, I always make explicit which rules are in use, and which exceptions there are.

So, it's your contention that every single gaming group is exactly like yours, and the issue of unruly players is totally made up?

QuoteIt doesn't matter,because 90% of the time my players won't bother reading the rules, and will believe whatever I tell them.

Ha!  Casual gamers really are the best.  

Quote from: LordVreeg;402636Not edition specific, Seanchai pointed our earlier charts in early editions fairly.

It's more than just charts, however. Gygax out and out said not to make the game too difficult for the players. He said his game was finely balanced. The idea of balanced encounters, even putting aside charts and tables, was present in the game as early as the first printing of the AD&D DMG.

Did Gygax provide you tools to work with said balance, particularly in regard to encounters? Nope. But that's par for the course with AD&D, just as providing those tool is par for the course with 3e and 4e.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;402491You know it as well as I do, Peregrin: there is what the book says, and what the book rules, and what the players get from it all, which are all different things.

Yes. You can show a group of people a sentence that reads, "Using one creature per player is an appropriate challenge. The GM may, of course, use more or few creatures as he or she wishes" and they'll come away with different interpretations.

Thus it really doesn't matter what a rulebook says. The problem here isn't the game or the rulebooks, it's the participants. Any finger pointing should go squarely in their direction.

Seanchai