Not actually seeing what is so game-breakingly powerful about this Portal-based "mass driver" that would require a GM to ban it. You can't aim it, so it's only good against walls, so while you're off researching spells and concocting vacuums, the druid's off turning your target to mud. And suppose you hit a live target, what are you doing, adding a few more d6's?

Who knows, this is the dumbest.

Quote from: Benoist;492312Nah. I suggest you go look up the word "satire" again. It does not mean "I didn't really mean it LOL u dumb" like you seem to be bent on using it.

A video depiction of your above reasoning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAwT9AkRgE

It's sad when one unintentionally talks outside of someone else's depth and then that person gnashes their teeth in impotent fury at their own lack of understanding.

QuoteActually, you agree with the premise of the argument, you just turn it into a LOL argument because that's rhetorically convenient to camouflage your ineptitude at making a cogent response to my earlier points.

So being neutrual and supporting you in your own personal belief constitutes not making a cogent response? -- I am learning all kinds of new things today.

Thanks for sharing, oh Thoth.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;492266Some day you'll constuct an argument that's not based on a logical fallacy and it will probably wither every tree on earth. Ad Hominem, anyone?

No. An ad hominem is when I say "you're wrong because you're an idiot". What I'm actually doing is the opposite of that: I'm saying your self-proclaimed status as an asshole GM of the worst variety ("you did something I didn't like, so the gods kill you") has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

QuoteI don't believe in any of these things, but I don't go out of my way to confront those who do. What I do believe is that we all have the right to believe whatever we want.

You're certainly free to believe that the world is flat, the moon landings were faked, and JFK was assassinated by Martians. I don't recall asking for your address so that I could dispatch the thought gestapo. But the freedom to be stupid doesn't validate the stupidity.

Quote

QuoteHow is this supposed to be supporting your thesis that something a 5 year old can figure out when given imaginary teleportation technology wouldn't be figured out by learned men and women in a world where teleportation has been a reality for hundreds or thousands of years?

That's not my thesis; I never posted anything like it.

And now, of course, you're just blatantly lying.

Hint: All of us can hit the "back" button and go read your posts. They didn't magically disappear from the face of the internet just because they're inconvenient for your current sophistry. When you claim you didn't post something that you actually did post it just makes you look like a fool. You're like a 5-year-old with cookie crumbs on his face saying, "What cookies?"

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;492316A video depiction of your above reasoning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAwT9AkRgE

It's sad when one unintentionally talks outside of someone else's depth and then that person gnashes their teeth in impotent fury at their own lack of understanding.

I hope you are following the conversation, Daniel, because that is what a condescending cockwipe's post looks like.

Benoist, if you were playing in my D&D game and I told you a boulder suddenly  killed you - say, I give you a save for half damage and it only does 15,221d6 / 2 damage - would you consider that a fair result even if I explained that an enemy wizard had worked out a really ingenious extrapolation of the spell dimension door?

This question is not a trap, I am genuinely curious if you give NPC wizards the same ability to do this to the PCs as PCs do to them?  Does the edition of D&D you're using affect your answer to this question?

I think there's considerable evidence in the design of early D&D dungeons that NPCs were clearly meant to have insane abilities like this that PCs simply didn't have access to, so it might not be unbalancing in the same way that it might be in (say) a more thoroughly-worked-out game like D&D3.

Edit: Can you give an example of a time when you had an NPC caster do something like this to the PCs, and how it went?

Quote from: JDCorley;492323Benoist, if you were playing in my D&D game and I told you a boulder suddenly  killed you - say, I give you a save for half damage and it only does 15,221d6 / 2 damage - would you consider that a fair result even if I explained that an enemy wizard had worked out a really ingenious extrapolation of the spell dimension door?

This question is not a trap, I am genuinely curious if you give NPC wizards the same ability to do this to the PCs as PCs do to them?  Does the edition of D&D you're using affect your answer to this question?

I think that would heavily depend on the specific circumstances and personality of the NPC concerned. I make a point of using save or die instances along with circumstances where the PCs reasoning matters. In other words, it goes along with choices based upon realizing that say, walking through that corridor with semi-desintegrated remains, blood splattered all over and so on might result in such instant death scenarios. So for instance, that corridor might be the quickest way to get to the door their enemy they are pursuing is trying to reach, but also the deadliest one. There would be alternative paths throughout the dungeon, but none quicker than this one. So if they could manage to find out a way to defeat the trap, or to deflect its effects somehow, they might be able to use it, otherwise they will use valuable time travelling through various other areas while the bad guy prepares for their onslaught. Just a what-if scenario to make you get how I use save-or-die and why I actually think this is part of the tools available to the DM to build a challenging exploration environment for the PCs.

In the case we're talking about, if the PCs know they are going against a particularly inventive, versatile wizard, that they do not take much precautions to approach him, ward themselves against scrying attempts, or any of those things, then yes, it might be logical for the inventive wizard to attempt something like this. Maybe that'll even backlash on the wizard somehow, like with the gate not closing immediately, or the crystalline matter of the boulder itself yielding some information to the PCs as to the location of the wizard.

But then again, the players might be cautious. The wizard might actually be a very conservative, conformist necromancer unwilling or just psychologically unable to come up with these sorts of inventive uses of magic so... it'll depend on particular circumstances and characters involved, in the end.

Quote from: JDCorley;492323I think there's considerable evidence in the design of early D&D dungeons that NPCs were clearly meant to have insane abilities like this that PCs simply didn't have access to, so it might not be unbalancing in the same way that it might be in (say) a more thoroughly-worked-out game like D&D3.

That's true. But then again the very logics underlying the systems are very different themselves. The opposition of Daniel's "the spells don't work that way therefore you can't do it" versus my "if the spells don't specifically forbid it, then it's fair game" is something fairly representative of a shift that occurred gradually in the game's design throughout its various iterations.

So do you feel it would be a requirement to have those warning signposts for PCs before you unleash the new spell/implementation/gizmo, or could you just explain after the TPK that the wizard had done his researches in secret and hidden this capability until just now?

Would it be fair and okay for the PCs to be the first people he victimized with it?

How about if the wizard falsely spread rumors and information that he was neither inventive nor versatile, and the PCs heard these rumors and believed them?

Also, if the players didn't perceive any other way to reasonably reach their objective other than to subject the characters to this risk, would you consider that to be bad play on their part, bad GMing on your part, or neither?

Edit: Also, would you give NPCs defenses against the creative spell use of the PCs, saying, "well, they've researched you and know you're very versatile and creative, so..."?

Thanks for answering.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;492320No. An ad hominem is when I say "you're wrong because you're an idiot".

"Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions." - Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If you'd like to get that egg off your face, I'm sure there's a firehose laying around here somewhere...

QuoteWhat I'm actually doing is the opposite of that: I'm saying your self-proclaimed status as an asshole GM of the worst variety

I never proclaimed that; you did. Hence, yet another Ad Hominem. If you get five more, you win a mountain bike.

Quote("you did something I didn't like, so the gods kill you") has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

-very confused look- What are you talking about? -- I cannot decrypt this random stream of references from multiple posts that you are emiting.

Would it be too much to ask for you to attempt to be halfway coherent in your communications? -- Merely conversing with someone should not require use of a Cray XK6 to decypher their words.

QuoteYou're certainly free to believe that the world is flat, the moon landings were faked, and JFK was assassinated by Martians.

Yes, by all means take my words to the most extreme extrapolation you can think of. Why stop there? Surely that fertile mind of yours can reach to greater heights. Tell me that I think I'm the Messiah and I rule an empire of Eskimo Prostitutes who are all masters of Krav Maga. Go wild, son.

QuoteI don't recall asking for your address so that I could dispatch the thought gestapo. But the freedom to be stupid doesn't validate the stupidity.

That was indeed a masterful humdinger.

QuoteAnd now, of course, you're just blatantly lying.

"Wow" is all I can say. You came up with some really odd example of a five-year-old playing a video game as unbeatable evidence that a person living in the 12th century could conceptualize a "mass driver".

That is your argument. Trying to say that it is somehow my argument is completely outside of all reasoning. This is not Non-Euclidian Geometry but that's how your mind seems to work... It's very peculiar and fascinating at the same time.

QuoteHint: All of us can hit the "back" button and go read your posts. They didn't magically disappear from the face of the internet just because they're inconvenient for your current sophistry.

A veritable fountain of knowlege you are. But what's this weird plastic thing with all the buttons with funny characters on them?

QuoteWhen you claim you didn't post something that you actually did post it just makes you look like a fool. You're like a 5-year-old with cookie crumbs on his face saying, "What cookies?"

Again, I stand in awe of your unique ability to not understand not only the writing of others, but that of yourself as well. Here: Read your rebutal in response to my rebutal. Think about it. Take a deep breath. Think about it again. Keep your hands away from your genitals.

Now, see if you can reply in a coherent way without Ad Homineming me into orbit.

Use the force, Luke.

Well I think if you're going to allow the PCs to be "creative" then the same should apply to NPCs.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JDCorley;492329So do you feel it would be a requirement to have those warning signposts for PCs before you unleash the new spell/implementation/gizmo, or could you just explain after the TPK that the wizard had done his researches in secret and hidden this capability until just now?

No. It's not a requirement for using custom stuff. I actually use a lot of custom shit in my dungeons, and wait for the players to do the same. It's part of the pleasure of the game, to me.

It is however, to me, a sort of unspoken requirement in regards to save-or-die, specifically, in that it is best used when the players have the means to find out there effectively is a dangerous SOD situation ahead (though they might not get it, or miss it, or misinterpret it etc despite the warnings).

If I know that the players are fine with instant TPKs, specifically when they actually make sense from my standpoint, the actual situation in which they might occur, then yes, it might happen. That's the kind of stuff I talk about before starting the game, as a matter of principle, to know and feel where everyone stands on this before we play the game.

Quote from: JDCorley;492329Would it be fair and okay for the PCs to be the first people he victimized with it?

If the previous points I just made are all in order, sure.

Quote from: JDCorley;492329How about if the wizard falsely spread rumors and information that he was neither inventive nor versatile, and the PCs heard these rumors and believed them?

You're getting very close to a very specific scenario in which a whole lot of details would matter immensely. How did the wizard get interested in them enough to attempt this sort of kill strike ? What type of information did the PCs gather about this NPC before hand ? Are the rumors actually role played when they come to their ears ? Do the PCs have means to investigate such rumors and find out this emanates from the wizard himself ? Etc.

Hard to tell without having the specific situation right in front of my face, so to speak.

Quote from: JDCorley;492329Also, if the players didn't perceive any other way to reasonably reach their objective other than to subject the characters to this risk, would you consider that to be bad play on their part, bad GMing on your part, or neither?

Would depend on the particular circumstances again. If they fail to even perceive there are alternates to confronting an SOD situation, it might be that I failed as a GM by making these elements too hard to discern, or that they failed as players by not being curious or cautious enough in the first place, or a mix of the two even.

In the corridor scenario, you might have this corridor with blood splattered and semi-desintegrated bodies right. And two other corridors stretching from the same room where the PCs are. If the PCs don't test the corridor before venturing through, don't even consider exploring the other ones and getting an understanding of the lay out of the place before confronting such an obvious trap, then tactically, from an exploration POV, they failed, for instance.

Quote from: JDCorley;492329Thanks for answering.

Not at all. I don't mind discussing with you when you don't behave like an insane douchebag ranting with irony-filled posts of crap. I actually think you're a pretty smart bloke when you really want to be.

Quote from: JDCorley;492329Edit: Also, would you give NPCs defenses against the creative spell use of the PCs, saying, "well, they've researched you and know you're very versatile and creative, so..."?

If PCs are developing some type of magic (let's say, Chaositech) over the course of the campaign, that they come to the attention of a bad guy who has the time to gather evidence about them and basically come to understand them, their tactics, inclinations, etc. and from there, figure out a way to break their momentum, then yes, that is entirely possible.

Well, most of these examples don't talk about "over the course of the campaign".  These seem to be along the lines of "fuck it, let's try it for the first time right now!"

Quote from: David R;492331Well I think if you're going to allow the PCs to be "creative" then the same should apply to NPCs.

I quite agree; it's about balancing the game.

See, some of these ideas are pretty far out (in an interesting way) but creative spell use in my campaigns have been pretty mundane. I remember years ago, one player created these rings which were really some sort of comm devices (telepathy magic I think) so the characters could keep in touch when they were separated. It's small stuff like this (which has probably been thought up before) which adds a little something to the game. I admit I'm pretty easy going when it comes to stuff like this.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;492341I quite agree; it's about balancing the game.

Therefore, it's really about you finding that the use of teleport spells proposed is unbalanced, a munchkin use of spells, instead of anything else having to do with game world consistency and the like. Thank you for admitting it.