Quote from: Kaelik;573813So just to be clear, you believe that you are responsible for the actions of Stormbringer and it is perfectly fair for me to say "rpgsiters do X" where X is anything Storm does ever, and you have to accept that all rpgsiters do that because every person on a forum is responsible for the arguments made by one person?

You had almost had me interested until you said I might follow whatever Stormie said.  Try again because this is entertaining, I am done being mice/nice.  I guess my phone stole my hat. What a bitch.

They couldn't invade my cunt why would you think that they could invade something important?  Like Marleycat's actual Dnd game? Understand my version of Dnd may suck but it's mine.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573816Are you suggesting in the WvF thread you never made any claims about the problem in earlier editions?

Yes. I am saying that in the WvF thread I didn't make claims about the problems in earlier editions.

You certainly can't point to any instance in which I was making an argument about 3e, and then someone said "not in my 1e" and I responded that X was also true in 1e.

I did say that according to other people's posts, 2e + Whatever the Divine Book Was Called could result in Clerics outfighting fighters, but I also specified that I wouldn't know, because I never used that book playing 2e.

Quote from: Kaelik;573831You certainly can't point to any instance in which I was making an argument about 3e, and then someone said "not in my 1e" and I responded that X was also true in 1e.

Ok, then, that charge changed to reflect some not all.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573809Another big problem with some of the "Denner Invaders" inability to let stand their own arguments about 3e.  It's not enough that this is the case in 3e.  Oh no.  "All the earlier versions had the problem too.  I don't know anything about those earlier editions, but they had the same problem...Frank (or whoever) told me."
BMX? Same problem in 1e.
Build? Same culture in 1e.
Any argument made against mine I feel I need to validate by pretending it was always that way? Same problem in 1e.

If the response to
"0e,1e,2e didn't have that problem." Was...
"Oh really?  Thanks Grandpa. Maybe you want to start a thread about that then, because this one is about 3e, where the problem fucking occurs."
They would have fit right in.

I've always called this the "Schrödinger's edition".

It seems that 3e and 4e are both "The same as older editions and how dare you suggest that they changed the game in major ways!" and "totally better in every way and not broken".

Both lines are often argued by the same people at the same time.

Quote from: Piestrio;573844I've always called this the "Schrödinger's edition".

It seems that 3e and 4e are both "The same as older editions and how dare you suggest that they changed the game in major ways!" and "totally better in every way and not broken".

Both lines are often argued by the same people at the same time.

I don't think that this is an accurate description for the Den.  The regulars there hate 4th Edition with a passion.

Quote from: MGuy;573737You 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.

No wonder why you get so much shit.  Because when facts stare at you right in the face, you refuse to acknowledge them.

Let's just recap the above shall we?

I said "empowerment" several hours before you said empowerment literally using the exact same words I used when I said "entitlement" later.  I had then also said I mixed up those words, but since I had already said empowerment earlier and before your post, that your post was still wrong.  Even above, you still refuse to acknowledge that I addressed empowerment before you proceeded to repeat incorrect information.

And then the beauty of it all is that literally minutes after I said all you do is strawmen, red herrings, and make claims that you have no idea of the factuality of, you proceeded to make a post saying how AD&D DMs sucked and were out to get players.

When you had never played the game.

Within minutes you did the exact thing I just accused you of.  At least you made it easy in that I didn't need to search for a quote of you being a disingenuous dick because you provided one within moments.

But I suspect that when faced with these objective facts, you're going to yet again ignore it and act like you're the victim.  This is why I have no respect for you.  You have zero integrity and rather than admit any one of your continuous mistakes, you always try to shift that it's someone being mean to you.

Grow a pair dude.

Thought provoked by the Denner invasion?

I give a lot more benefit of the doubt to 4e fans, even 4vengers.  Christ, if these kind of people are what 4e fans have had to deal with since 4e came out, no wonder they're a bunch of angry people with a loathing for 3e.  I would too if subject to Denners for several years.

Quote from: MGuy;573715This right here is worth the entirety of this post to read. THis is what makes you seem more reasonable.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: MGuy;573715However you claiming I ignored you and your presentation of 1e is false.

I linked your exact reply to me. I'll leave it to others to decided how that came off.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I haven't and at this point will never play 1e. Ever.

I'm not asking you to. Ever.

Quote from: MGuy;573715It 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.

Looking at 3e and saying that you "see the results" means you see nothing.

As somone with a stated interest in game design, perhaps I just expect you to be more curious about how D&D changed over time. And then I think, Mike Mearls, and I realize that curiosity and understanding have nothing to do with design.

Quote from: MGuy;573715And 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 didn't say things used to be better - I said that problems with 3e (and really going back to later 2e) developed as a reaction to things some gamers didn't like about 1e. You can see that whole process in microcosm in the blog posts I linked from B/X Blackrazor: magic-users are too fragile as adventurers, they don't contribute enough to combat, they don't have any abilities outside of casting spells (!).

If you and the Den-symps argue that the 3e fighter is lackluster and I say, the 1e fighter didn't have that problem and here's why, I'm not arguing that 1e is "better." I'm trying to explain what I see as the design choices which created or exacerbated the problems that you, me, and the Den-symps all agree are present in 3e.

Truly, the only time I give a shit about what you play and why is when you and I are sitting at the same table. If you want to make a better game out of, or in place of, 3e, awesome, I wish you luck, here's a couple of things you may want to consider, and godspeed.

But please, stop the bullshit about me telling you what's better or what you should play.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I don't know shit about 1e but there were people in that thread who did and who disagreed with your assertion.

There are people in those threads who disagree about the color of the sky on a clear day at high noon.

Disagreeing is one thing; making a credible refutation is another. Give me two links to posts from people who you think refuted my argument about 1e magic-users and 3e wizards.

Quote from: MGuy;573715Why you would want me to participate in a discussion about the disparity between classes in a game I never played was and is baffling.

I was trying to help you understand. I believe you sincerely want to solve a problem you've identified, and I was - and still am - trying to help you find the tools to fix it.

Quote from: MGuy;573715Whatever merits 1e and prior don't have shit to do with what I was talking about.

Yeah, they really do.

Quote from: MGuy;573715When 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.

I can't say anything about 2e 'cause I never played it.

I did point out that later 1e fighters actually have more proficiencies than magic-users - this was replaced in 3e by reducing skill points but providing more feats, feats which often duplicated class abilities from earlier editions, so that the fighter once again lost ground vis-a-vis the wizard.

More importantly, 1e fighters have better saves, more hit points, more attacks (and their attacks tend to go first more often), and abilities which aren't resource-limited like magic-users.

Can you honestly say that knowing this has no bearing whatsoever on trying to fix the 3e fighter?

Quote from: MGuy;573715Now 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.

A charmed frost giant who can't enter a dungeon. An undead 'army' of fourteen skeletons. 3e clerics, which are just as borked as 3e wizards, arguably even more so - as I said in an earlier post, if there's a 1e class that's overpowered, it's the cleric, and in 3e the wizard started getting some of the same advantages as the cleric, like bonus spells for a high attribute score.

Again, arguments aren't automatically credible. You have to read them with a critical eye.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I brought up a simple scenario "Flying Fortress of Doom" . . .

I tuned out most of the contrived examples being thrown back and forth, so I can't comment on that.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I 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.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your solution to the problem you've identified.

That said, it's not a solution I would ever implement in any D&D game I'd run, not because it's bad or wrong, but because I don't care for the setting it implies. It's not a game I'd be interested in playing or running for that reason, and that reason alone.

Quote from: MGuy;573715Maybe 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.

Do you understand that your idea of "better" and "awesome" are not universal?

Huh, I missed an invasion?  Weird, is there a cliff's notes or something?  I already read this entire thread and I don't want to read more unless it's really, really funny.

But geeze, Denners?  Were all the good names taken or something?

Also, someone asked why Brian Gleichman posts here and while I wouldn't dare put words in his mouth I will speculate.

He posts here because he'd be banned anywhere else if he spoke his mind as directly as he does.  Sure he can say we have a group think problem here, but I can't think of another place where you can just sit around all day attacking people without getting moderated these days.

Personally I'd rather hear what people actually think that what they figure they're allowed to say, so, more power to him.

Quote from: David Johansen;573862He posts here because he'd be banned anywhere else if he spoke his mind as directly as he does.

I wouldn't need to speak my mind as directly elsewhere. They've already banned the type of people that sparks that response in me.

Quote from: David Johansen;573862But geeze, Denners?  Were all the good names taken or something?

Well since it is not our name for ourselves, and is just a mocking name invented here, it makes sense that it would suck.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;573856I'm not asking you to. Ever.

M'k.

QuoteLooking at 3e and saying that you "see the results" means you see nothing.

I was more saying "This is how things are". People's capacity to change the rules so that X isn't X and therefore doesn't make Y but instead makes not Y, defeats the purpose of the entire point I was trying to make. If I'm speaking on a specific subject and you chime in by saying this other thing is different it doesn't change how things are now. I don't know what 1E was like, you showing me and telling me this is all an overreaction, etc doesn't actually change any of the points I made, make, or will make in the future about it.

QuoteAs somone with a stated interest in game design, perhaps I just expect you to be more curious about how D&D changed over time. And then I think, Mike Mearls, and I realize that curiosity and understanding have nothing to do with design.

It is interesting but consider the fact that I had been spending my time arguing not about why 3e is the way it is but of the power disparity between the fighter class (and by extension other non maical classes) and wizard class (and by extension other similar classes). Could you not see that I was spendin my time proving that the issue existed at all? What relevance does how things used to be have when I'm having trouble getting through to these people that a problem exists at all and why it actually is an issue in 3e and from what I can tell the top levels (apparently) of 2e.

QuoteI didn't say things used to be better - I said that problems with 3e (and really going back to later 2e) developed as a reaction to things some gamers didn't like about 1e. You can see that whole process in microcosm in the blog posts I linked from B/X Blackrazor: magic-users are too fragile as adventurers, they don't contribute enough to combat, they don't have any abilities outside of casting spells (!).

I noted your post on that and had nothing to say becasue again, I never played the system, what am I goin to weigh in on?

QuoteIf you and the Den-symps argue that the 3e fighter is lackluster and I say, the 1e fighter didn't have that problem and here's why, I'm not arguing that 1e is "better." I'm trying to explain what I see as the design choices which created or exacerbated the problems that you, me, and the Den-symps all agree are present in 3e.

This I addressed earlier but I must say again that while that's interesting it doesn't help me "show" that the problem exists. Also again, you post what happens in 1E and tell me it's different. The problem also doesn't occur in 4e either BECAUSE of the over reaction to 3e but that doesn't have anything to do with the points I was making.

QuoteBut please, stop the bullshit about me telling you what's better or what you should play.

Black V I don't really have anything against you or what you said. I find it larely irrelevant to the points I was making and I can at best say that I confused your intent for posting earlier edition stuff again after I already told you I know nothing of it.

QuoteDisagreeing is one thing; making a credible refutation is another. Give me two links to posts from people who you think refuted my argument about 1e magic-users and 3e wizards.

I can't support people's arguments about how 1e works. Even if I were to dig them up (I'm not) where would I go from there? Watch you dismantle their statements?

QuoteI was trying to help you understand. I believe you sincerely want to solve a problem you've identified, and I was - and still am - trying to help you find the tools to fix it.

Ok. I have nothing against that but have you seen the thread I made that actually lays out some of my ideas?

QuoteCan you honestly say that knowing this has no bearing whatsoever on trying to fix the 3e fighter?

Yes. It has some common sense solutions like giving the "fighter" more stuff to do and draws back casters quite a bit so they aren't just making a mess of things. This is how I have already determined that I will approach the problem.

QuoteA charmed frost giant who can't enter a dungeon. An undead 'army' of fourteen skeletons. 3e clerics, which are just as borked as 3e wizards, arguably even more so - as I said in an earlier post, if there's a 1e class that's overpowered, it's the cleric, and in 3e the wizard started getting some of the same advantages as the cleric, like bonus spells for a high attribute score.

Clerics in 3e are about as if not just as powerful as wizards in 3e.

QuoteThere's absolutely nothing wrong with your solution to the problem you've identified.

That said, it's not a solution I would ever implement in any D&D game I'd run, not because it's bad or wrong, but because I don't care for the setting it implies. It's not a game I'd be interested in playing or running for that reason, and that reason alone.

That's fair. That's the same note I ended on with Brendan.

QuoteDo you understand that your idea of "better" and "awesome" are not universal?

Then let me clarify (as I had in another thread) Fighter can kill 4 dudes with a well placed grenade weapon or in short order with his sword vs a fireball from a wizard = fair. A wizard can breathe underwater vs A fighter can hold his breath unde water and swim surprisingly fast = fair.

A wizard ca create a magic house in another dimension practically unreachable by any mundane danger and most magical ones v a fighter who can build a fortress and be scry + raped while inside of it = not fair. A wizard can rewrite a person's personal memory in seconds and devour any dreams he might have to remind him of his past life v a fighter who's best diplomacy attempt can maybe get the king to let him bed his daughter after a quest or some great deed = not fair.

The former is ok because while the wizard's feats are fantastic they don't totally leave what the fihter can do in the dust. The problem arises when you realize that higher level games act more like the latter and that's without getting into plane hopping shennanigans. The degree of power between the fihter and the wizard in the second one is too big to be good for the game.

Quote from: Kaelik;573864Well since it is not our name for ourselves, and is just a mocking name invented here, it makes sense that it would suck.

meh, it doesn't even cut it as mockery.

Quote from: gleichman;573863I wouldn't need to speak my mind as directly elsewhere. They've already banned the type of people that sparks that response in me.

Ah sorry, I mistook you for the Brian Gleichman who got in nasty flame wars and swore off the internet forever and took his game rules off line.  Really it's a bit surprising that he didn't coin the phrase "Ban me motherfuckers! first."  But if I've mistook you for someone else, then I'm truly sorry.

That said, it does return us to the question of why you aren't posting elsewhere.

Quote from: David Johansen;573870Ah sorry, I mistook you for the Brian Gleichman who got in nasty flame wars and swore off the internet forever

Correction, I sworn off RPGNet (not the Internet) when it started moderation, moderation geared towards protection the Forge and choking off anyone speaking against GNS.

Also the traffic volume was getting too high for me, I ran out of the time needed to keep track of it- and that remains the case.

Quote from: David Johansen;573870and took his game rules off line.

It's still offline. But the reason for that is completely different.

Quote from: David Johansen;573870That said, it does return us to the question of why you aren't posting elsewhere.

Im not interested in forums focused on single systems (HERO Boards, ENWorld, etc.). I'm unaware of any other general RPG gaming site.

Plus there are people here that I like to read.