Quote from: Planet Algol;573675I play & run oldschool D&D. It's not perfect. I used to try and houserule it into perfection, but I realized I was chasing a pipe dream. Now I just try to run a good game, intellectual exercises be damned.

That's my take as well. When I quit playing 3rd ed I went back to old editions of the game and started with OD&D, house ruling as I went, and I soon realized that there's a point at which you just lose the "spirit of the game" Gygax was talking about in the DMG. Since then, I just concentrate on running a good game and creating adventure materials and shit that works with it, not against it. Works wonders.

QuoteAnd for what it's worth, I don't agree with all of the arguments advanced by the locals, either.

This right here is worth the entirety of this post to read. THis is what makes you seem more reasonable.

However you claiming I ignored you and your presentation of 1e is false. I haven't and at this point will never play 1e. Ever. It may be interesting as a history lesson to see how the game evolved over time but regardless of "why" the decisions were made I can see the results myself. And it's odd for you to peg me for openly admitting I know nnothing about those editions instead of pretending that I do. How do you want me to respond to you asserting "Things used to be better"? I could follow along and turn this into an edition war and make the flimsy claim "no 3e is the bestest ever" but I didn't. I don't know shit about 1e but there were people in that thread who did and who disagreed with your assertion. Why you would want me to participate in a discussion about the disparity between classes in a game I never played was and is baffling. Whatever merits 1e and prior don't have shit to do with what I was talking about.

When repeatedly prodded about how fighters don't have shit in 2e I was given something about NWPs and how fighters are strong and can push rocks. That's the defense I was given for my assertion.That fighters may or may not get skills and if they do get skills they may or may not cover the skills other classes get. Now when we got there I said but that's either pales in comparison to what a caster can logically do at high level or is something anybody can get. To that people continued to tell me that a fighter swings his sword the bestest and that's all he needs. When other 2e players brought up charmed monsters, raised dead, battle built clerics there was some yelling until the people who brought them up were silenced by the mob.

I brought up a simple scenario "Flying Fortress of Doom" a simple sample adventure that would be about mid level in scope for 3e (don't know how high that would be in 2e). I then showed how little the fighter could actually do in such an adventure (fight). I posited that the fighter should have something by virtue of his class that allows him to participate in more than that. People started talking about magic weapon allotment and how fighters can get magic stuff to allow them to fly. I said well if he is going to depend on magic anyway why not just make the magic a part of his class? That idea was shat on. So I said well why not just have him "get" magic stuff since he needs more than other class? That idea was equally unheard. By the rules of the posters here a fighter can only depend on equipment allotment or asking other characters in order to get things done. This is WHILE other classes (Cleric/Druid/Wizard) do not have to do the same.

Now 1e may or may not be different but this much is true in 2e and 3e. So maybe I missed the part where you said "that is a problem in those editions and it should be fixed but in1 e wizards can't do shit so it all evens out". Maybe you missed the post where I said I just think it's better for the game that fighters have something as awesome as other classes if he's going to be fighting alongside them at every level. Maybe you are truly more moderate than your posting has let on but I have not seen that.

Quote from: Spike;573709I'm telling you, man. MGuy would fail the Turning Test. He doesn't have a conversation, he looks to see if something obviously agrees with him or if it appears to disagree, then vomits forth responses to keywords.

Eliza has broader depth than he does. He just has more volume per response.

And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

No. It's an example of how some of us feel about you, specifically.

You know, if someone goes through the expense and trouble of making a FLYING FORTRESS OF DOOM, it's because it would be extremely hard to breach, not to provide a fair/fun challenge for the whole party...

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

"I acted like an idiot and they treated me like an idiot, so they think everyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot."


:rolleyes:

Sorry dude, nice victim complex, but there are plenty of folks here who have posted dissenting opinions and not been treated like an idiot.  But you made your bed, and established yourself pretty firmly into the camp of someone who is very intellectually dishonest.  That's why people have been on your case, not because you like a different game then others.

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

Indeed it is. It really causes them problems to be disagreed with. Simple insult is really their only response.

There's a couple of exceptions however.

Quote from: gleichman;573729Indeed it is. It really causes them problems to be disagreed with. Simple insult is really their only response.

There's a couple of exceptions however.

Oh the irony.   Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to show me where I am on record for saying that I change the rules mid game that make me a bad DM.

Are you ever going to back up your claims, or continue doing the same behavior that you're chastising?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573725"I acted like an idiot and they treated me like an idiot, so they think everyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot."


:rolleyes:

Sorry dude, nice victim complex, but there are plenty of folks here who have posted dissenting opinions and not been treated like an idiot.  But you made your bed, and established yourself pretty firmly into the camp of someone who is very intellectually dishonest.  That's why people have been on your case, not because you like a different game then others.

You know what peole peg me for being intellectually dishonest for? Shit I didn't say.
Since coming to this board all of my talking points have been reduced to attacking other people's play styles. Whenever I mention that I'm not doing that "I'm lying, back pedaling, being dishonest". Whenever I point out that people are being assshats they say I'm being an asshat. When a group of people decide that you are an enemy (for whatever reason) they have a penchant for seeing you in the worst light possible. You Sacro are particularly quick to dismiss whatever counters I have to your assertions as nonsense. Even when I go out of my way to point out how you used Entitlement when I said Empowerment, and I explained exactly the difference between what you were assuming I was talking about and what I was ACTUALLY talking about you STILL dismissed it. Even with the proof right there for you on the screen. So why should I assume that anything you say to me actually has relevance to what I'm saying or what else can I say to you when you're so intent on building strawmen to fight while the others on your side nod dumbly and cheer you on.

Quote from: MGuy;573737So why should I assume that anything you say to me actually has relevance to what I'm saying or what else can I say to you when you're so intent on building strawmen to fight while the others on your side nod dumbly and cheer you on.

Sacrosanct has long been on my ignore list for that type of behavior. I suggest putting him on yours. Add Marleycat and Declan MacManus and you'll cut the noise in half.

Sadly you can't add Benoist.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573725"I acted like an idiot and they treated me like an idiot, so they think everyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot."


:rolleyes:

Sorry dude, nice victim complex, but there are plenty of folks here who have posted dissenting opinions and not been treated like an idiot.  But you made your bed, and established yourself pretty firmly into the camp of someone who is very intellectually dishonest.  That's why people have been on your case, not because you like a different game then others.

I'd like to point out that my debut here came with a disagreement with Sanc, which was resolved and not pursued endlessly.  Why?  Because we both recognized when there wasn't any point to arguing over if doing more math slowed down gameplay.  And there wasn't any huge gangup on the new guy who was arguing with a regular, it played out and it was done.

So what do you think the difference was between my situation and yours?

I'm also realizing that a lot of "problems" to these guys are things I would just accept as elements of a game world.

Flying Fortress of Doom
- Can only by accessed by magic for thievish subterfuge.
Well I certainly hope that they built it trying to make it secure!

Yep, it would be a tough nut for the party to crack. However, I would never make it necessary for a party to assault a Flying Fortress of Doom. If the party wants to rob it, or steal it, or slay it's Jerkwad captain, but I'd never say to the players "Your mission, if you chose to not repudiate all the hard work your suffering DM has put into the statblocks, is to defeat the Flying Fortress of Doom and it's Flying Archers."

There are probably multiple flying fortresses in the worlds of my D&D game, heck now that I think of it the Githyanki of the Himalayas probably have some funky ones, but I would never lay some rails pointing directly at one.

Behir in a Mountain Pass
- So there's this Behir guarding a mountain pass and it's undefeatable (AD&D Behir's are a tough!)
Well I certainly hope that a lightning spitting Kaiju would be something that people wouldn't count on being able to kill!

I'm thinking that things being inaccessible due to "undefeatable" monsters is a pretty damn common trope in fantasy & legend. On paper "normal" dudes can't take them and that's party of what makes them Badass Fucking Monsters.

"Nobody can slay the Behir of the Mountain Pass!"
"The Pass of Lightning Spitting Death! Don't go there, you will die!"

And that makes it all the more awesome when some Perseus/Jack the Giant Killer style dude manages to somehow slay it.

I have no problem having "undeafeatable" monsters in the world; if you want to swim down to R'yleh and try to rob Cthulhu guess what will likely occur... I won't say to the players "YOU MUST GET PAST THE BEHIR OF THE MOUNTAIN PASS OR YOU ARE LOSERS FOR MISSING A TIME LIMIT"; they choose their adventures, not I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get that there's this idea that elements of the campaign world should be "Disney Lands" fungineered to serve as fair challenges for appropriately levelled parties, but I don't see the gameworld as a gameboard in the least.

I think a lot is lost when you see a campaign milieu as a series of engineered challenges as opposed to a cold, hard sandbox.

Quote from: gleichman;573746Sacrosanct has long been on my ignore list for that type of behavior. I suggest putting him on yours. Add Marleycat and Declan MacManus and you'll cut the noise in half.

Sadly you can't add Benoist.

Why would you ignore anyone instead of having a reasonable discussion with them?

Sure, we all get angry at times, but Ignore seems a bit over the top to me.

For the record gleichman, we may disagree a lot, but I do value the fact you challenge my opinions and make me think.

McGuy reminds me of a less sophisticated bersion of SeanChai.

Upon further reflection on my previous post, I'm wondering if the "generation gap"/"challenge gap" may be that for old-guard D&D the D&D world was based on myth and fantasy fiction whereas to the new-guard the D&D world was based on post-D&D games.

From a world where things "just are" to a world where things are "designed for play."