NOBODY likes a pissant little douchecanoe who quibbles about the meaning of phrases used in casual conversation.

(In the words of Master Yoda, "What I did there, do you see>")

Please stop repeating the lie that everyone here is on this thread of their own free will. I am a brain in a jar and input jacks have been slaved to this thread. Make it stop! (or else post some pictures of cute actresses playing D&D)

Quote from: DavetheLost;908832Please stop repeating the lie that everyone here is on this thread of their own free will. I am a brain in a jar and input jacks have been slaved to this thread. Make it stop! (or else post some pictures of cute actresses playing D&D)

That's the "D&D With Porn Stars" blog next door in 3B.  It's getting hit on the head lessons here.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908795This ain't no wizard council.

I blame the furry footed burrowers!

Speaking of.

What about race protection. Some groups and even designers seem to want to typecast X race as allways this or that. Dwarves get hit hardest with that one. Followed by Halflings.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908777Words have meaning.

I know, I suppose expecting people to not use specious universals like "every" and "all" when they really mean "most" or "some" would be asking too much.

It is literally (autoantonym) too much to expect from living language usage, and hence (comedically antiquated; also, "consequence" definition, not "future time" one) not a useful paradigm (comedic buzzword) for vernacular (pedantic vocabulary) speech, making one seem totally (exaggerated hyperbole) not cool (slang metaphor).

Do we really need to 'tard up this place like pedantic nerds? Or shall we evolve to the higher heavens of semiotics and write strictly in emojis?
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;908838Speaking of.

What about race protection. Some groups and even designers seem to want to typecast X race as allways this or that. Dwarves get hit hardest with that one. Followed by Halflings.

That's why I tend to feel that "race as class" was the better model for D&D. You can always have more than one class within a race, but you avoid the issue of races that are clearly geared just to be used with a particular class. If you make whole new classes to represent different aspects of a race, you can get something distinct and interesting, as opposed to doing what AD&D did, where they opened up a lot of classes to dwarves and halflings, but there was still only one obvious, optimal choice.

Quote from: Baulderstone;908850as opposed to doing what AD&D did, where they opened up a lot of classes to dwarves and halflings, but there was still only one obvious, optimal choice.

Optimal is not necessarily interesting. And due to random stat rolls oft not even possible as all your dwarf may qualify for is a thief in AD&D. No so much a factor later but stats can nudge this way or that. But the overall depiction has been fairly niche with notable exceptions.

I think 3e and on shook things up a little with dwarves as you see alot of dwarven priests as represrntative of a cleric for example. Halflings seem to be perpetually stuck as thieves though. But seems more branching out into bards over time.

I've seen my fair share of halfling wizards. Then by late 3.5 there's halfling shiars, erudites, and other things I never quite figured out what they were.

Quote from: Baulderstone;908850That's why I tend to feel that "race as class" was the better model for D&D. You can always have more than one class within a race, but you avoid the issue of races that are clearly geared just to be used with a particular class. If you make whole new classes to represent different aspects of a race, you can get something distinct and interesting, as opposed to doing what AD&D did, where they opened up a lot of classes to dwarves and halflings, but there was still only one obvious, optimal choice.

For 1ed dwarves make fine thieves and fighter/thieves mechanically. They have the same net racial modifiers to thief skills as halflings (+25%) and if your DM isn't being a douche you can still deal with traps and locks with your armor on and just mostly give up on sneaking and be mostly as good at fighting as a pure fighter and get a sneak attack every now and then when the party gets surprise.

Quote from: Omega;908838Speaking of.

What about race protection. Some groups and even designers seem to want to typecast X race as allways this or that. Dwarves get hit hardest with that one. Followed by Halflings.

You meant things that some fantastic races have always had based on mythological sources back in our history?

Cue Rant

Quote from: Opaopajr;908849Do we really need to 'tard up this place like pedantic nerds?

Apparently we do.

Since some (not all) of us can't seem to just admit that saying

   "When it comes to getting food, every animal is smart, or it's dead."

as if it were the well thought out and pithy conclusion of a logical syllogism is either

   (i) a rather silly exaggeration that adds zero useful information to deciding how to depict different animals differently in an RPG

or

(ii) an even more than usually sloppy use of the English language.

Instead we have page after page of people providing counter examples and other people arguing that the statement is true and meaningful when it obviously is neither true in any general sense nor meaningful in figuring out what strategy and animal might successfully use.

Now originally this statement was directed in response to something I said. At the time, I noted that it was fallacious and I briefly thought of posting a contradiction, but then I thought, hey Black Vulmea is a reasonable guy who hasn't posted here in quite a while and in the past when he has posted here and elsewhere he posts some well thought out and useful stuff that I like. And I thought, the statement was so patently silly or else poorly considered that surely everyone would realize without needing it to be pointed out that it was, at best, an ill considered thing to say...but for some reason people seem to want to double down on the stupid.

For the love of Gygax, Stafford, Costikyan, or whoever the fuck your favorite game designer is can we just move the fuck on to talking about something else?

Here's the thing.

I believe the actual statement that us supposed to imply is:  "Every SURVIVING animal is technically 'smart' because any that would do something dumb is dead."  

Nature does tend to self-correct when a mutation gets a little out of hand.

But, hey, let's get hung up on pedantic language and technically literal readings.  Works so well for D&D, after all.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908810So we're OK with getting on pedantic arguments where apparently hyperbole doesn't exist, despite people using exaggerations in a fair amount of statements on and off the internet?

It's attitudes like this that promote some of the silliest character optimization creations in a lot of games, because people can't seem to understand the 'spirit' versus the 'letter' of 'the law' (which in this case is the word, EVERY!)

People were free to say "just a hyperbole, man" and that would be it - I'm far from being THAT unreasonable. They didn't. Why? I can only begin to guess, since it's not particularly complicated solution.

Still, here we are - people opted to defend the claim as it was, present contra-arguments (I like this approach), pretend nobody said what was said (seriously, low tier trolling alert), twist words (just no) and finally resort to the "tactical retreat" while still throwing shit from the safe distance ("We did it, team! High fives, manly hugs").

All that drama aside, I find such a discussion an acceptable challenge. It keeps my problem-solving and conflict-management skills in shape, and therefore I see nothing wrong in engaging in such an experience, even if discussants can't keep calm, or come up with simpler way out of this conflict.

So, in the end, blame them for their inefficiency, rather than me just because I didn't find it in me to renounce facts. :cool:

Side note: to paraphrase yourself (I hope I'm doing it well): It's attitudes like this that give RPGamers bad reputation, because people can't seem to understand the 'lighthearted discussion' versus the 'YOU DARE TO CHALLENGE MY AUTHORITY' (which seems to be the case).

Quote from: Omega;908821Fine. Fuck it. Yeah sure Every animal can learn. (...)

You're making it look like it costs you a lot to say such a thing and that it left you exhausted, broken and whatnot. One of those "hard" weeks?

Side note: "Every"? I think I can be persuaded to spare some time and seek relevant study, or find some other examples proving this, yet another "EVERY"-based claim wrong. Interested?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;908830NOBODY likes

People feels don't matter.

Quote from: Spinachcat;908835I blame the furry footed burrowers!

Kenders. Kender mobsters, I tell you.

Quote from: Opaopajr;908849It is literally (autoantonym) too much to expect from living language usage,

Beautiful words don't make people right. Facts make people right. If you choose to argue rather than accept facts... (sigh emoji).

Quote from: Bren;908861For the love of Gygax, Stafford, Costikyan, or whoever the fuck your favorite game designer is can we just move the fuck on to talking about something else?

I'm 100% ok with that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908859You meant things that some fantastic races have always had based on mythological sources back in our history?

Depending on the tales. Dwarves have been everything from super craftsmen to wizards, to thieves for example.